Message-ID: <1794455.1075852491179.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: robert.frank@enron.com
To: ray.alvarez@enron.com, d..steffes@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com, 
	sarah.novosel@enron.com
Subject: RE: Weird procedural situation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-From: Frank, Robert </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=RFRANK>
X-To: Alvarez, Ray </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Ralvare2>, Steffes, James D. </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Jsteffe>, Robertson, Linda </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Lrobert3>, Novosel, Sarah </O=ENRON/OU=NA/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=Snovose>
X-cc: 
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Deleted Items
X-Origin: Steffes-J
X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst

Ray - it seems highly likely the court will allow FERC to proceed w/ rehear=
ing.  In any case, I doubt an adverse ruling would affect the PNW case as t=
he 7/25 order simply announced the new proceeding. =20

 -----Original Message-----
From: =09Alvarez, Ray =20
Sent:=09Thursday, October 25, 2001 5:25 PM
To:=09Steffes, James D.; Robertson, Linda; Frank, Robert; Novosel, Sarah
Subject:=09Weird procedural situation

OK, here are the facts as I understand them:  The CPUC filed petitions for =
review of the FERC's various refund orders in the Ninth Circuit Court of Ap=
peals. There is an unresolved jurisdictional issue that the petitions filed=
 in the Ninth Circuit are incurably premature because they sought review of=
 orders for which the petitioner was also requesting rehearing.  The curren=
t status of the CPUC's Ninth Circuit petitions is that the court has not ye=
t dismissed the petitions as premature and FERC must file the record in the=
 Ninth tomorrow, October 26.  At that point, under Section 313 of the Feder=
al Power Act, the jurisdiction of the court of appeals becomes exclusive, a=
nd  FERC will not be able to modify the orders under review except by leave=
 of the court.  FERC has filed, and the CPUC is supporting, a motion for an=
 order permitting FERC to keep jurisdiction over its orders so that it can =
act on the pending rehearing requests.  By all rights, the court should go =
along with this, but it's gone on this long.  We are not adversely impacted=
.  Arguably if FERC loses jurisdiction, the PNW and CA refund cases should =
come to a complete stop, although this is an unlikely scenario.  I will kee=
p you posted of new developments.  Ray