Preview:

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #018 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 3rd day of April, 2009, are as follows:

BY VICTORY, J.:

2008-C -0929 C/W 2008-C -0932 2008-0C-0226 2008-0C-1240

REVEREND C. S. GORDON, JR., J. MICHAEL MALEC, DARRYL MALEK-WILEY, WILLIE WEBB, JR., AND MAISON ST. CHARLES, L.L.C. D/B/A QUALITY INN MAISON ST. CHARLES v. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS AND ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC. (Parish of Orleans) For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed in part and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated. REVERSED IN PART; TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT REINSTATED. JOHNSON, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

4/03/09

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 08-C-0929 c/w 08-C-0932 c/w 08-0C-1226 c/w 08-0C-1240 REVEREND C.S. GORDON, JR., J. MICHAEL MALEC, DARRYL MALEK-WILEY, WILLIE WEBB, JR., and MAISON ST. CHARLES, L.L.C., d/b/a QUALITY INN MAISON ST. CHARLES versus THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and ENTERGY NEW ORLEANS, INC. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS VICTORY, J. We granted and consolidated these writ applications primarily to determine whether the court of appeal erred in reversing an order of the Council of the City of New Orleans (the "Council") and directing Entergy New Orleans, Inc. ("ENO") to refund $34,300,000 to its ratepayers for charges related to System Fuels, Inc.("SFI") Period Costs which ENO had been collecting through its Fuel Adjustment Clause ("FAC") from 1985 through 2000. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, we reverse that portion of the court of appeal judgment because the Council's decision as ENO's regulator to allow ENO to pass SFI Period Costs through the FAC for that time period and not to require that ENO refund these costs to its customers was not arbitrary and capricious and was reasonably based on the evidence presented.
1

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ENO is an electric utility company engaged in the manufacture, generation, transmission, distribution, and sale at retail of electric power and energy to approximately 190,000 residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental customers located in that portion of New Orleans east of the Mississippi River.1 ENO is a wholly owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation ("Entergy").2 On May 12, 1999, customers of ENO ("plaintiffs") filed a complaint with the Council against ENO, Entergy, ESI, and Entergy Power, Inc. ("EPI")3 requesting that the Council institute an investigation to review ENO's FAC filings and the costs passed through to ENO's

1

ENO was formerly known as New Orleans Public Service, Inc. or "NOPSI."

Entergy owns five electric public utility operating companies that provide retail electric service: Entergy Louisiana, Inc. ("ELI") (formerly known as Louisiana Power & Light Company, or "LP&L"); Entergy Arkansas, Inc. ("EAI") (formerly known as Arkansas Power & Light Company, or "AP&L"); Entergy Gulf States, Inc. ("EGS") (formerly known as Gulf States Utilities Company, or "GSU"), which operates in both Texas and Louisiana; Entergy Mississippi, Inc. ("EMI") (formerly known as Mississippi Power & Light, or "MP&L"); and ENO. Each of these companies, along with Entergy's service company subsidiary, Entergy Services, Inc. ("ESI"), are signatories to the Entergy System Agreement (the "System Agreement"), a 1985 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") approved rate schedule. The System Agreement governs the planning, operations, and sharing of the costs of the Entergy System and the Entergy companies and has "provided the contractual basis for planning and operating the companies' generating units on a single-system basis, and also have provided the basis for equalizing certain cost imbalances that result from this method of planning and operating the units." Middle South Energy, Inc., Docket No. ER 82-616-000, 31 FERC

Download 2008-C-0929 C/W 2008-C-0932 2008-0C-0226 2008-0C-1240 REVEREND C. S. GORDON, JR.

Louisiana Law