|
|
Enron Mail |
Mary --
I don't follow the question of RFP and the attached memo. Jim Mary Hain@ECT 03/14/2001 03:45 PM To: "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com< @ ENRON cc: James D Steffes/NA/Enron@Enron, Joe Hartsoe@Enron Subject: Re: FERC Jurisdiction Over California Investigations It's been a few years since I reviewed the case law on this. Perhaps you should write a memo reviewing the FERC cases on this issue and if necessary, go talk to FERC about whether an RFP will be sufficient to set a just and reasonable rate. Is that okay with you Jim? Ron - how much would that cost? Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. From: "Ronald Carroll" <rcarroll@bracepatt.com< 03/14/2001 01:10 PM To: "Jeffrey Watkiss" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com<, <gfergus@brobeck.com<, <jsteffe@enron.com<, <rsanders@enron.com<, <sbishop@gibbs-bruns.com< cc: <mary.hain@enron.com<, <smara@enron.com< Subject: FERC Jurisdiction Over California Investigations Richard: In connection with EPMI's contention in the various California litigations that they should be dismissed due to FERC's primary jurisdiction, it strikes me that it may be helpful to lodge FERC's March 9, 2001 order with the Court. While FERC, in the 12/15 order, established its investigation, the March 9 order makes findings and imposes remedies (fortunately not against us). This should enhance the primary jurisdiction argument. FERC's intent to occupy the field could not be more clear. Ron
|