|
|
Enron Mail |
Lara--well, we finally won a battle in Illinois, but it took us going to the
appellate court to do it! Lara, I know that you've been out of this area for quite awhile, but thanks for your help with the Piper Marbury Rudnick firm on preparing and editing the arguments before the court. John/Jim/Harry--I am wondering if this decision can be added to our accomplishment list that you are working on. This case is very old (I think we argued it over a year ago). Have we been able to monetize this type of affiliate rule in the past or is this one of the items that are somewhat intangible, but get included anyway? ---------------------- Forwarded by Susan M Landwehr/HOU/EES on 09/10/2000 05:23 PM --------------------------- Roy Boston 09/08/2000 11:25 AM To: "Townsend, Christopher J. - CHI" <chris.townsend@piperrudnick.com< @ ENRON cc: Janine Migden, Susan Landwehr, mharada@enron.com, Adam Cooper Subject: Re: Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Affiliate Transaction Rules Chris and David -- Great news and even greater results for the team. The ICC should look long and hard at this opinion when they consider what approach to take towards gas affiliated interest rules. Some commissioners want to issue very limited rules for gas -- this opinion clearly indicates that limits are necessary. "Townsend, Christopher J. - CHI" <chris.townsend@piperrudnick.com< on 09/08/2000 11:07:58 AM To: "'Susan_M_Landwehr@enron.com'" <Susan_M_Landwehr@enron.com<, "'RBoston@enron.com'" <RBoston@enron.com< cc: "'lleibma@ect.enron.com'" <lleibma@ect.enron.com<, "Montana, James S., Jr. - CHI" <James.Montana@piperrudnick.com<, "Fein, David I. - CHI" <david.fein@piperrudnick.com<, "Skey, Christopher N. - CHI" <christopher.skey@piperrudnick.com< Subject: Illinois Appellate Court Affirms Affiliate Transaction Rules < We received word today that the Fifth District of the Illinois Appellate < Court issued its Opinion affirming the Illinois Commerce Commission's < order adopting final rules to implement the affiliate transactions rules. < The Court found that the ban on joint advertising and marketing was an < appropriate restriction upon commercial speech. After conducting the < required four-part test to determine the appropriateness of the ban on < commercial speech, the Court concluded that the ban passed constitutional < muster. The Court sided with Enron, concluding that "joint marketing < could lead to discrimination between affiliates and unaffiliated ARES < because of customer confusion and the creation of entry barriers." < < The Court also rejected assertions from Ameren and Illinois Power that < some of the rules illegally regulate "competitive services" and that other < rules are arbitrary and capricious or not supported by substantial < evidence. The Appellate Court seemed to appreciate the importance of the < affiliate rules, concluding that "these rules are necessary to accomplish < the General Assembly's goal of providing a competitive market for the < provision of electric service. Without these rules, utilities would be < able to provide their affiliates with competitive advantages that are not < available to the unaffiliated ARES, thereby defeating the < nondiscrimination between affiliated and unaffiliated ARES that the < Customer Choice Law seeks to accomplish." < < In short, Enron obtained a complete and total victory in the Appellate < Court. Attached is a link to the Court's Opinion. < < Enron is now 2-0 in the Illinois Appeallate Courts, having recently < received a decision affirming the Commission's order that revised Illinois < Power Company's Rate RTP (Real Time Pricing). < < As always, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate < to contact us. < < < <<Illinois Power Co. v. Commerce Comm'n, No. 5-98-0808.url<< < < http://www.state.il.us/court/2000/5980808.htm < < < Christopher J. Townsend < Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe < 203 N. LaSalle Street < Chicago, IL 60601 < (312) 368-4039 (direct line) < (312) 630-6300 (direct fax) < christopher.townsend@piperrudnick.com < ____________________________________________________________________________ The e-mail address and domain name of the sender changed on November 1, 1999. Please update your records. The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. For more information about Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe, please visit us at http://www.piperrudnick.com/ ____________________________________________________________________________ - Illinois Power Co. v. Commerce Comm'n, No. 5-98-0808.url
|