Relying on precedent that precludes a district court from determining what constitutes "fair" electricity prices during the energy crisis, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, dismissed a Department of Water Resources lawsuit against Powerex. "We will fight the dismissal of the DWR case, and are weighing our options on exactly how to wage that fight," said Tom Dresslar, attorney general spokesperson. The attorney general filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Department of Water Resources, asking for $850 million in reparations. The district court, however, sided with Powerex. Powerex maintains that the proper venue for the state's complaints is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, noting that federal regulators rejected the state's claims, said Elisha Moreno, Powerex spokesperson. After the case was filed in February, Powerex made not so thinly veiled threats that it would withhold its exported hydroelectric power to California if the state continued to pursue its suit (<i>Circuit<\/i>, May 20, 2005). That, however, has not occurred, according to Powerex and the California Independent System Operator. "We haven't gotten into a situation where there's a crisis," and California has not "come begging" for hydroelectricity, Moreno said. She admits, however, that the company is looking to do business differently with those who have sued Powerex, hinting at unfavorable terms. The August 22 order found that the court was not in a position to determine what was a fair price for electricity during the energy crisis. However, in an associated state lawsuit, also against Powerex and decided on the same day, the federal court remanded the argument of the state's antifraud law to Sacramento Superior Court. Moreno said that Powerex will appeal that decision.