Message-ID: <33037728.1075852491246.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 15:24:44 -0700 (PDT) From: ray.alvarez@enron.com To: d..steffes@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com, robert.frank@enron.com, sarah.novosel@enron.com Subject: Weird procedural situation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Alvarez, Ray X-To: Steffes, James D. , Robertson, Linda , Frank, Robert , Novosel, Sarah X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged)\Steffes, James D.\Deleted Items X-Origin: Steffes-J X-FileName: JSTEFFE (Non-Privileged).pst 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