Message-ID: <5833053.1075844190548.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 07:59:00 -0700 (PDT) From: marchris.robinson@enron.com To: richard.shapiro@enron.com, steve.montovano@enron.com, james.steffes@enron.com, harry.kingerski@enron.com, david.fairley@enron.com Subject: Duke Decision Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: Marchris Robinson X-To: Richard Shapiro, Steve Montovano, James D Steffes, Harry Kingerski, David Fairley X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Richard_Shapiro_June2001\Notes Folders\All documents X-Origin: SHAPIRO-R X-FileName: rshapiro.nsf Enron gets a win in Florida. Let me know if you want a copy of the revised opinion. Marchris ----- Forwarded by Marchris Robinson/NA/Enron on 09/29/2000 02:53 PM ----- "Bill L. Bryant" 09/29/2000 09:51 AM To: cc: Subject: Duke Decision MR, Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court granted our Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae on Rehearing that we filed on Enron's behalf in theTampa Electric Co. v. Garcia case. It also granted the relief we requested in that Motion. The Court granted this relief despite the vehement protests by Florida Power and Light and Florida Power Corporation that (1) Enron had no standing or right to appear as an amicus curiae and (2) that the relief we requested was unwarranted. Technically, the Court characterized its order granting relief to Enron as "granting the Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae on Rehearing, and denying the Incorporated Motion for Rehearing in light of the revised opinion.." In short, there was no need to grant rehearing because, in its revised opinion, the Court granted our relief. This was exactly what Katherine Giddings (one of our appellate experts and co-counsel for Enron in this matter) had predicted the Court would do if it granted our requested relief. A comparison of our requested language and the language included by the Court in its opinion are identical. In its previous opinion, the Court made the following statement: "The construction of any new electrical power generating plant with a capacity greater than seventy-five megawatts is required to be certified in accord with the various requirements of the Siting Act in chapter 403, Florida Statutes." The Court's definition appeared to broaden the class of electrical power generating facilities that must be certified under the Siting Act because it failed to recognize statutorily exempt utilities, i.e., under the statutes, only certain steam and solar electrical generating facilities are subject to the Act - but the Court's definition included "any" electrical power generating facility. In our motion, we pointed out the Court's error and asked the Court to clarify its definition by changing its statement to read: "The construction of any new electrical power generating plant as defined by Section 403.503(12) that is not otherwise exempted by Florida law is required to be certified in accord with the various requirements of the Siting Act in chapter 403, Florida Statutes." The Court adopted this language verbatim, adding only the words "Florida Statutes" after the reference to Section 403.503(12). In doing so, the Court recognized the merit of our argument. In summary, the Court granted all relief we requested on Enron's behalf. The relief requested by other parties in all other motions for rehearing, including the PSC's, was denied in total. Bill _______________________________________ This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient should immediately notify the sender by E-MAIL and by telephone (850) 224-9634 and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s). Thank you. Katz, Kutter Haigler, Alderman, Bryant & Yon et al 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 224-9634 _______________________________________ This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee(s) and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, attorney work-product or attorney-client privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee(s), the recipient should immediately notify the sender by E-MAIL and by telephone (850) 224-9634 and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee(s), except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee(s). Thank you.