fw two major inconsistencies ferc recent refund order nov 1 dec 15 orders might interested discussion original message hall steve c sent friday july 27 2001 9 16 perrino dave cc comnes alan subject two major inconsistencies ferc recent refund order nov 1 dec 15 orders hi dave course decision politically motivated ox gored general review agency decisions courts deferential e court give agencies lot discretion often difficult overturn agency decision court concludes agency action arbitrary capricious may overturn decision argument would ferc acting arbitrarily recent order disregarded without explanation earlier rulings case slam dunk best argument never win argument court ferc could crafted order certain way court almost always say agency fix energy crisis way deems fit however courts take dim view inconsistent agency decisions demonstrates lack constitutional due process public opinion enron profiteer better worse already established matter action take davis cast negative spin fight interests stakes order worth recent order sets bad precedent future viability business model power marketing hard run business government reach back time recalculate selling price complete disregard costs generators get offset refunds input costs able use purchased power costs see much downside us argue ferc keep word 1 refunds ordered within 60 days 2 sellers entitled marginal costs holding commission promise minimum commission needs explain ignored reversed earlier holdings good questions good weekend copied alan thought might interested colloquoy steve original message perrino dave sent thursday july 26 2001 9 18 pm hall steve c subject two major inconsistencies ferc recent refund order nov 1 dec 15 orders steve aside fact entire play ferc last 3 months purely politically motivated going challenge latest rulings court challenge apparent lack consistency memory loss challenge think general public opinion impression enron henious profiteer houston would negate potential gains made making challenge curious thoughts planned recommendation thanks information dave steve c hall enron enronxgate 07 26 2001 07 32 pm cdt ray alvarez na enron enron alan comnes enron enronxgate susan j mara na enron enron james steffes enron enronxgate richard b sanders enron enronxgate gfergus brobeck com smtp enronxgate christian yoder enron enronxgate dave perrino sf ect ect steve walton enron enronxgate paul kaufman enron enronxgate tim belden enron enronxgate jeff richter enron enronxgate bill williams iii enron enronxgate cc subject two major inconsistencies ferc recent refund order nov 1 dec 15 orders ferc apparently short memory 1 dec 15 2000 order ferc clarified liability refunds would last 60 days transaction filed ferc ferc say transactions nov 1 april 26 subject refund dec 15 order said transactions identified commission staff review would subject continued refund liability otherwise refund potential transactions 150 mwh would close 60 days presumably liability transactions 150 mwh would close 60 days excerpt dec 15 order clarify unless commission issues form notification seller transaction still review refund potential particular transaction close 60 days initial report filed commission institution 60 day period review transactions provide sellers certainty request allows reasonable period analysis staff dec 15 order 58 2 nov 1 order ferc said would limit refund liability seller marginal costs legitimate verifiable opportunity costs ferc says marketers use purchased power costs much less opportunity costs offset potential refunds nov 1 order however find necessary order refunds limit refund liability lower seller marginal costs legitimate verifiable opportunity costs nov 1 order 39 ferc july 25 order makes attempt explain departure earlier holdings refunds proceeding arbitrary capricious anyone steve alan please forward dan watkiss ron carroll