Opinion ID: 6936498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Current Parties and Positions

Text: Three parties are involved in the appeal now before us. Entergy and CNO both argue that FERC’s decision not to make a final prudence determination as to the spin-off which would .consider replacement capacity costs is unreasonable. Since prudence determinations are to be made on the basis of information available at the time of the transaction, the parties claim, FERC has a duty to rule finally on that aspect of the spin-off now. The consensus between the two challenging parties ends there. Once replacement capacity costs enter the picture, Entergy and CNO would reach opposite prudence findings. Entergy claims that the record shows that the spin-off decision was prudent, even when replacement capacity costs are considered. CNO, on the other hand, alleges that when replacement costs enter the balance, the spin-off becomes imprudent. FERC, naturally, defends its determination not to enter the thorny thicket of down-the-line replacement costs now. The Commission also argues that the case — in which FERC has already issued an initial opinion, a decision affirming in part the initial opinion, and an order denying rehearing — is not appropriate for review until the SEC has issued its remand determination on the validity of the transfer under PUHCA.