|
|
Enron Mail |
Attached is Lou Cohen's (of Wilmer Cutler) write up of the Supreme Court's
grant of two petitions for certiorari in the appeals of FERC's Order No. 888 on transmission open access. While too much should never be read into a grant of certiorari, this seems to be auspicious for Enron and to validate Joe's conclusion that it would be imprudent for Enron to rest on its victory in the court of appeals and not oppose proactively New York, et al. who are asking the Court to expand the native load exception. It should also be noted that the broadside against FERC's authority to act (the Dalton cert. petition), which Enron took the lead in opposing, was rejected outright. Enron's brief is due in 45 days. Joe and I shall meet with Lou early next week to get this process started. Please call me if you have any questions. Received: from mcafee.bracepatt.com by bracepatt.com; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:39:07 -0600 Received: FROM dcex3.wilmer.com BY mcafee.bracepatt.com ; Mon Feb 26 10:47:51 2001 -0600 X-Proxy: keymaster.bracepatt.com protected Received: FROM dcex2.wilmer.com BY dcex3.wilmer.com ; Mon Feb 26 11:35:17 2001 -0500 Received: by dcex2.wilmer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <15T7HGFJ<; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:35:17 -0500 Message-ID: <C72E469FD563464EA42AC501F8CCB30704749473@dccl40.wilmer.com< From: "Cohen, Louis" <LCohen@Wilmer.COM< To: "Joe Hartsoe (E-mail)" <jhartso@enron.com< Cc: "Jeffrey D. (Dan) Watkiss (E-mail)" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com<, "Killory, Ted" <TKillory@Wilmer.COM<, "Palansky, IJay" <IPalansky@wilmer.com<, "Plotnick, Michael" <MPlotnick@wilmer.com<, "Cohen, Louis" <LCohen@Wilmer.COM< Subject: Supreme Court Action in FERC Cases Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:35:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0A012.1A1432F0" Here is a summary.? I included the cites just in case.? Let me know if you need more. ? The Supreme Court today granted two petitions for certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's decision in Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (2000).? The Court granted the petition of New York and other states (New York?v. FERC, No. 00-568)) to consider?whether FERC may preempt state jurisdiction over transmission of energy from generators to retail customers in the same state.? (The Court declined other questions?New York?had raised.)? The Court also granted the petition of Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (EPMI v. FERC, No. 00-809) to consider whether FERC has jurisdiction to regulate all transmission in interstate commerce, including transmission for bundled retail sales, and whether FERC is obligated under the Federal Power Act to eliminate undue discrimination by requiring transmission-owning utilities to provide service on the same terms to all users, including bundled retail sales.? The cases will be argued together, probably not before October 2001.
|