Attached is Lou Cohen's (of Wilmer Cutler) write up of the Supreme Court's 
grant of two petitions for certiorari in the appeals of FERC's Order No. 888 
on transmission open access.  While too much should never be read into a 
grant of certiorari, this seems to be auspicious for Enron and to validate 
Joe's conclusion that it would be imprudent for Enron to rest on its victory 
in the court of appeals and not oppose proactively New York, et al. who are 
asking the Court to expand the native load exception.  It should also be 
noted that the broadside against FERC's authority to act (the Dalton cert. 
petition), which Enron took the lead in opposing, was rejected outright.  
Enron's brief is due in 45 days.  Joe and I shall meet with Lou early next 
week to get this process started.  Please call me if you have any questions.
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.