After much nudging from the courts, state regulators andindustry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last weekconceded defeat in its battle to justify jurisdiction over a smalllateral in Colorado.

The Commission vacated its 1997 orders that authorized KNWattenberg Transmission LLC to construct a lateral in Colorado toserve two in-state industrial customers. In a complete turnabout,FERC last week bowed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, whichreversed and remanded the orders citing the Commission’s failure toadequately justify its assertion of jurisdiction over the lateral.The state and the municipal LDC bypassed by the lateral insistedthe KN Wattenberg line was exempt from Commission jurisdictionunder the Hinshaw amendment.

FERC all along had argued the Hinshaw exemption didn’t applyseparately to “discrete” facilities owned by a jurisdictionalpipeline, as in this case. The lateral, which was completed in June1998, is located 57 miles away from KN Wattenberg’s jurisdictionalmainline. But the court found that FERC’s justification forasserting jurisdiction over the lateral appeared to be”inconsistent” with the “plain language of the Hinshaw amendment.”The decision touched off a stir at the Commission, and launched aclose review of the Hinshaw qualifications.

Upon a second glance, however, the Commission last Wednesdaynoted the lateral met the qualifications for a Hinshaw line.”…[W]hen viewed on a stand-alone basis, this lateral meets allthe criteria for a Hinshaw exemption,” the order said [CP97-256].

KN Wattenberg urged the Commission to continue exercisingoversight over its lateral until the issues surrounding theColorado Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) jurisdiction areresolved. FERC flatly rejected the request.

However, should the Colorado PUC decline to assert jurisdictionover the lateral, KN must notify FERC of the lack of stateregulation. “This Commission would then step in and exercise itsjurisdiction, filing in the regulatory gas,” the order said.

HL&P Facing Hefty Jury Awards

Reliant Energy’s Houston Lighting & Power (HL&P) couldbe on the hook for millions depending upon punitive damagesassessed in a case that has hit the utility with $4.2 million inactual damages awarded to three Texas cities. Lawyers for theplaintiffs last week suggested a punitive award in the range of $40million would be appropriate.

A Texas district court jury found that over decades HL&Pintentionally underpaid the cities for its exclusive right to sellelectricity. Not only does HL&P face millions in punitivedamages after the jury reconvenes Tuesday, the utility could beliable for significantly more as 47 cities, including Houston, aresuing in a class-action case that accuses HL&P of underpayingthem by $113 million. The jury’s findings in last week’s case couldbe applied to the other cities as well.

“I would like to think that the jury would give us everythingthat we asked for,” said Elizabeth Hawkins, an attorney withHouston law firm O’quinn & Laminack, which represents thecities. She noted the fact the jury asked to come back after theweekend to assess punitive damages does not bode well for HL&P.”I think that’s sending a message right there to HL&P.”

A Reliant Energy spokeswoman said the company could not commenton the verdict as the jury is still out to assess the punitivedamages. She added there have been “some inappropriate comments putout there by the opposing counsel.”

With regard to the other plaintiffs in the class action suit,Hawkins said it remains to be seen what the implications of lastweek’s verdict will be. “We wanted the whole class to go, and thejudge made a decision not to. I think the dust has to settle.”

Joe Fisher, Houston

©Copyright 2000 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rightsreserved. The preceding news report may not be republished orredistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.