Case Name: 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 Angeles, Public Service Department of the City of Burbank, Public Service Department of the City of Glendale, and Water and Power Department of the City of 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; 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 Burbank, Public Service Department of the City of Glendale, and Water and Power Department of the City of Pasadena (Collectively "LADWP, et al."); Sempra Energy; Mirant Americas Energy 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-04
Citations: 550 F.3d 767
Docket Number: Nos. 03-74207, 03-74246
Parties: 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 Angeles, Public Service Department of the City of Burbank, Public Service Department of the City of Glendale, and Water and Power Department of the City of 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. 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 Burbank, Public Service Department of the City of Glendale, and Water and Power Department of the City of Pasadena (Collectively “LADWP, et al.”); Sempra Energy; Mirant Americas Energy 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.
Judges: Before: HARRY PREGERSON, MARSHA S. BERZON and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 550
Pages: 767–768

Head Matter:
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 Angeles, Public Service Department of the City of Burbank, Public Service Department of the City of Glendale, and Water and Power Department of the City of 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. 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 Burbank, Public Service Department of the City of Glendale, and Water and Power Department of the City of Pasadena (Collectively “LADWP, et al.”); Sempra Energy; Mirant Americas Energy 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.
Nos. 03-74207, 03-74246.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed Dec. 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.
Before: HARRY PREGERSON, MARSHA S. BERZON and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.