Steve, Lou's write up is attached.  The issues accepted have the effect of 
"bookending" the issue of the native load exception.  On the one end, the 
states argue that FERC has no jurisdiction to impose open access on 
transmission (bundled or unbundled) that is associated with the providers' 
native load service.  On the other end, Enron argues that FERC has 
jurisdiction over all transmission and it was error for FERC not to exercise 
that jurisdiction once it had concluded that to do so was needed to eliminate 
undue discrimination.

Joe Hartsoe deserves a lot of credit in being persistent on this because, had 
Enron not petitioned, there is a scenario in which the Court would consider 
only the negative side of the issue:  Was FERC authorized to do even the 
little that it did? 
Received: from mcafee.bracepatt.com by bracepatt.com; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 
10:39:07 -0600
Received: FROM dcex3.wilmer.com BY mcafee.bracepatt.com ; Mon Feb 26 10:47:51 
2001 -0600
X-Proxy: keymaster.bracepatt.com protected
Received: FROM dcex2.wilmer.com BY dcex3.wilmer.com ; Mon Feb 26 11:35:17 
2001 -0500
Received: by dcex2.wilmer.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id 
<15T7HGFJ>; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:35:17 -0500
Message-ID: <C72E469FD563464EA42AC501F8CCB30704749473@dccl40.wilmer.com>
From: "Cohen, Louis" <LCohen@Wilmer.COM>
To: "Joe Hartsoe (E-mail)" <jhartso@enron.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey D. (Dan) Watkiss (E-mail)" <dwatkiss@bracepatt.com>,  "Killory, 
Ted" <TKillory@Wilmer.COM>, "Palansky, IJay"  <IPalansky@wilmer.com>, 
"Plotnick, Michael" <MPlotnick@wilmer.com>,  "Cohen, Louis" 
<LCohen@Wilmer.COM>
Subject: Supreme Court Action in FERC Cases
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:35:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C0A012.1A1432F0"


Here is a  summary.? I included the cites just in case.? Let me know if you 
need  more.
?
The Supreme Court  today granted two petitions for certiorari to review the 
D.C. Circuit's decision  in Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 
225 F.3d 667  (2000).? The Court granted the petition of New York and other 
states (New  York?v. FERC, No. 00-568)) to consider?whether FERC may preempt 
state  jurisdiction over transmission of energy from generators to retail 
customers in  the same state.? (The Court declined other questions?New 
York?had  raised.)? The Court also granted the petition of Enron Power 
Marketing,  Inc. (EPMI v. FERC, No. 00-809) to consider whether FERC has 
jurisdiction to  regulate all transmission in interstate commerce, including 
transmission for  bundled retail sales, and whether FERC is obligated under 
the Federal Power Act  to eliminate undue discrimination by requiring 
transmission-owning utilities to  provide service on the same terms to all 
users, including bundled retail  sales.? The cases will be argued together, 
probably not before October  2001.