|
|
Enron Mail |
Steve, Lou's write up is attached. The issues accepted have the effect of
"bookending" the issue of the native load exception. On the one end, the states argue that FERC has no jurisdiction to impose open access on transmission (bundled or unbundled) that is associated with the providers' native load service. On the other end, Enron argues that FERC has jurisdiction over all transmission and it was error for FERC not to exercise that jurisdiction once it had concluded that to do so was needed to eliminate undue discrimination. Joe Hartsoe deserves a lot of credit in being persistent on this because, had Enron not petitioned, there is a scenario in which the Court would consider only the negative side of the issue: Was FERC authorized to do even the little that it did? 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.
|