
    People of the State of CALIFORNIA, ex rel. Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General, Attorney General of the State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DYNEGY, INC.; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; NRG Energy, Inc.; Xcel Energy, Inc.; West Coast Power LLC; Cabrillo Power I LLC; Cabrillo Power II LLC; El Segundo Power LLC; Long Beach Generation LLC, Defendants-Appellees. People of the State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Attorney General of the State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Reliant Energy, Inc.; Reliant Energy Services, Inc.; Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc.; Reliant Resources, Inc.; Reliant Energy Coolwater, LLC; Reliant Energy Ellwood, LLC; Reliant Energy Etiwanda, LLC; Reliant Energy Mandalay, LLC; Reliant Energy Ormond Beach, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. People of the State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Attorney General of the State of California, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mirant Corporation; Mirant California, L.L.C.; Mirant Potrero L.L.C.; Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, L.P.; Mirant California Investments, Inc.; Mirant Americas Inc.; Southern Energy Golden States Holdings, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. People of the State of California, ex rel. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Attorney General of the State of California, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reliant Energy, Inc.; Reliant Energy Services, Inc.; Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc.; Reliant Resources, Inc.; Reliant Energy Coolwater, LLC; Reliant Energy Ellwood, LLC; Reliant Energy Etiwanda, LLC; Reliant Energy Mandalay, LLC; Reliant Energy Ormond Beach, LLC; Mirant Corporation; Mirant California, L.L.C.; Mirant Delta, L.L.C.; Mirant Potrero, LLC; Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, L.P.; Mirant California Investments, Inc.; Mirant Americas, Inc.; Southern Energy Golden States Holdings, Inc.; Dynegy, Inc.; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; Nrg Energy, Inc.; Xcel Energy, Inc.; West Coast Power, L.L.C.; Cabrillo Power I, L.L.C.; Cabrillo Power II LLC; El Segundo Power, L.L.C.; Long Beach Generation LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 02-16619, 02-16625, 02-16629, 03-15588.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued Aug. 12, 2003.
    Submitted as to all parties except NRG Energy, Inc. Oct. 27, 2003.
    
    Submitted as to NRG Energy, Inc. April 15, 2004.
    
    Filed July 6, 2004.
    Amended Oct. 29, 2004.
    Tamar Pachter, Deputy Attorney General, State of California, San Francisco, CA, argued the case for the appellant and was on the briefs. Attorney General Bill Lock-yer, and Thomas Greene, Damon Connolly, Danette Valdez, Pamela Merchant, Paul Stein, and Laura Zuckerman, Office of the Attorney General, were also on the briefs.
    Terry J. Houlihan, Bingham McCut-cheon LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued the case for the appellees and was on the joint briefs of the appellees, as attorney for appellees Reliant Energy, Inc.; Reliant Energy Services, Inc.; Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc.; Reliant Resources, Inc.; Reliant Energy Coolwater, Inc.; Reliant Energy Ellwood, Inc.; Reliant Energy Etiwanda, Inc.; Reliant Energy Mandalay, Inc.; and Reliant Energy Ormond Beach, Inc. Nora Cregan and Thomas S. Hixson were also on the joint briefs as attorneys for the same parties.
    John M. Grenfell, Douglas R. Tribble, and Michael J. Kass, Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, San Francisco, CA, were on the joint briefs of the appellees, as attorneys for appellees Dynegy, Inc.; Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.; West Coast Power, LLC; Cabrillo Power I, LLC; Cabrillo Power II, LLC; El Segundo Power, LLC; and Long Beach Generation, LLC.
    John A. Sturgeon and Bryan A. Merry-man, White & Case LLP, Los Angeles, CA, were on the joint briefs of the appel-lees, as attorneys for appellees Mirant Corporation; Mirant California, LLC; Mirant Delta, LLC; Mirant Potrero, LLC; Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP; Mirant California Investments, Inc.; Mir-ant Americas, Inc.; and Southern Energy Gold States Holdings, Inc.
    David T. Peterson and Theodore G. Spa-nos, Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, were on the joint briefs of the appellees, as attorneys for appellee Xeel Energy, Inc.
    Carlton A. Yarner and Timothy B. Taylor, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, were on the joint briefs of the appellees, as attorneys for appellee NRG Energy, Inc.
    Attorney General Christine 0. Gregoire, Seattle, Washington, and Tina E. Kondo and W. Stuart Hirsehfeld, Office of the Attorney General; and Attorney General Hardy Myers, Salem, Oregon, and Robert T. Roth and Colin A. Yost, Office of the Attorney General; were on the brief of amici curiae State of Washington and State of Oregon in support of plaintiff.
    Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court had deferred submission pending receipt of a bankruptcy court order granting limited relief from the automatic stay in the proceedings of Mirant Corporation and its affiliated debtors.
    
    
      
       At the time of submission as to the other parties, the appeal was not submitted as NRG Energy, Inc. ("NRG”), which was in bankruptcy proceedings, and whose appeal had accordingly been stayed by this court’s order of May 30, 2003. The court vacated its stay on April 15, 2004, and, consistent with the parties’ stipulation, deemed the case submitted as to NRG.
    
   ORDER

The opinion filed July 6, 2004 is hereby amended as follows:

At page 8863 of the slip opinion, footnote 17, delete the parenthetical quotation and add the following two sentences at the conclusion of footnote 17 as follows:

At issue are not state regulatory schemes for employment discrimination, workers compensation, or the like, which might indirectly and unintentionally have some possible effect on energy prices. Rather, the lawsuit seeks directly to enforce federal tariff obligations.

With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing. Judge O’Scannlain has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Hall and Leavy recommend that the petition for rehearing en banc be denied.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. RApp. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.  