United States Ninth Circuit

Petitions for review, alleging that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) committed various errors in permitting the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) to re-run certain Settlement Statements relating to the California energy crisis, are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where Cal-ISO's petition implicated the FERC's prosecutorial discretion, and PG&E's petition was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior FERC order.

Appellate Information

• Argued 11/14/2005
• Decided 09/18/2006
• Published 09/18/2006

Judges

• THOMAS, Circuit Judge:, Before: TASHIMA, THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Paul B. Mohler, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Washington, DC;  Stan Berman, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Seattle, WA;  Joshua Bar-Lev, Mark D. Patrizio, Kermit R. Kubitz, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner PG & E., Charles F. Robinson, Anthony J. Ivancovich, Gene L. Waas, Folsom, CA;  Michael E. Ward, J. Phillip Jordan, Bradley R. Miliauskas, Swidler BerlinShereff Friedman, Washington, DC;  Erik N. Saltmarsh, Victoria S. Kolakoski, California Electricity Oversight Board, Sacramento, CA, for petitioner-intervenor Cal-ISO and intervenor California Electricity Oversight Board.


• For Appellees:
  
• Cynthia A. Marlette, Dennis Lane, Beth G. Pacella, Washington, DC, for respondent FERC.