From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Public Utlts v. F.E.R.C

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 4, 2008
550 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 03-74207, 03-74246.

Filed December 4, 2008.

Elizabeth Marie McQuillan, Esquire, Harvey Y. Morris, Esquire, Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, CA, William J. Kayatta, Jr., Esquire, Portland, ME, Victoria S. Kolakowski, Esquire, Electricity Oversight Board, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioners.

Stan Berman, Esquire, Heller Ehrman, LLP, Howard Mark Goodfriend, Edwards Sieh Smith Goodfriend, PS, Seattle, WA, Roger A. Berliner, Esquire, Manatt Phelps Phillips, LLP, Randolph Lee Elliott, Miller Balis O'Neil, PC, Richard P. Bress, Latham Watkins, LLP, Jeffrey Dan Watkiss, Bracewell Giuliani, LLP, John N. Estes, III, Esquire, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom, LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenors.

Larry D. Gasteiger, Esquire, Lona T. Perry, Esquire, Magalie Roman Salas, Esquire, Solicitor, FERC, Esquire, Robert Harris Solomon, Esquire, Solicitor, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.

FERC Nos. EL02-60, EL02-62, EL 02-60-000, Northern District of California, San Francisco.

Before: HARRY PREGERSON, MARSHA S. BERZON and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

In light of the Supreme Court's order in Sempra Generation, et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, et al., ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2993, 171 L.Ed.2d 909 (2008), and its opinion in Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2733, 171 L.Ed.2d 607 (2008), we VACATE our prior opinion and REMAND to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings. We do not at this time decide the question reserved by our prior opinion as to whether the Mobile-Sierra doctrine applies to the California Public Utilities Commission, which was not a signatory to the long-term contracts at issue in this case; our remand is without prejudice to Petitioners' ability to raise this question anew before FERC, or before this Court at a later time.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Summaries of

Public Utlts v. F.E.R.C

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 4, 2008
550 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Public Utlts v. F.E.R.C

Case Details

Full title:PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF the State of CALIFORNIA; California…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 4, 2008

Citations

550 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008)