BURBANK, PUBLIC SERVICE EL02-62 DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF Northern District of … v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
 PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC
OVERSIGHT BOARD,
Petitioners,
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY; NEVADA POWER
COMPANY; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON CO. (“EDISON”);
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND
POWER OF THE CITY OF LOS No. 03-74207
ANGELES, PUBLIC SERVICE
FERC Nos. DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
EL02-60 BURBANK, PUBLIC SERVICE
EL02-62 DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
Northern District of  GLENDALE, AND WATER AND POWER
California, DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
San Francisco PASADENA (COLLECTIVELY
“LADWP, ET AL.”); SEMPRA
ENERGY; MIRANT AMERICAS ENERGY
MARKETING, L.P.; CORAL POWER;
PPM ENERGY; PUBLIC UTILITY
DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WASHINGTON; DYNEGY
POWER MARKETING INC.,
Intervenors,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION,
Respondent. 
15893

-- 1 of 4 --

 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC OVERSIGHT
BOARD; CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION,
Petitioners,
NEVADA POWER COMPANY;
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
(“EDISON”); DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND POWER OF THE CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, PUBLIC SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF No. 03-74246
BURBANK, PUBLIC SERVICE
FERC No. DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
EL 02-60--000 GLENDALE, AND WATER AND POWER
Northern District of  DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
California, PASADENA (COLLECTIVELY
San Francisco “LADWP, ET AL.”); SEMPRA
ENERGY; MIRANT AMERICAS ENERGY ORDER
MARKETING, L.P.; PPM ENERGY;
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
DYNEGY POWER MARKETING INC.,
Intervenors,
v.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION,
Respondent. 
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
Filed December 4, 2008
Before: Harry Pregerson, Marsha S. Berzon and
Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges.
15894 PUC v. FERC

-- 2 of 4 --

ORDER
In light of the Supreme Court’s order in Sempra Genera-
tion, et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, et al.,
128 S. Ct. 2993 (2008), and its opinion in Morgan Stanley
Capital Group Inc. v. Public Utility District No. 1 of Snoho-
mish County, 128 S. Ct. 2733 (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 Utili-
ties 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.
15895 PUC v. FERC

-- 3 of 4 --

PRINTED FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS
BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted
© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.

-- 4 of 4 --