3. Should the Commission Require PacifiCorp to File a New Application at a Later Date, after Selected Conditions are Met?
As discussed in the Scoping Memo, DRA's motion to hold A.10-03-015 in abeyance and its request to dismiss the current application were denied. DRA again recommended in its testimony that the Commission require PacifiCorp to file a new application after several conditions, are met, including: 1) approval of a bond measure or alternative source of funding for the State of California's share of the KHSA costs; 2) passage of federal legislation required by the KHSA; and 3) approval by the Internal Revenue Service of the trust funds PacifiCorp requested be set up.18
With regards to the KHSA as a whole, the Conservation Groups, all of whom are parties to this proceeding as well as signatories to the KHSA, approve of the KHSA.19
DRA supports its position by stating that "a formidable army of parties" are opposed to the KHSA and the bond measure, which DRA states could result in the termination of the KHSA.20 In evidentiary hearings, DRA witness Mark Loy responded to questions regarding the above statement, and agreed that no parties to the current case are opposed the KHSA, and even though attempted, he had not been able to contact other signatories to the KHSA to determine the other signatories' positions.21
In response to questions regarding who he had spoken with to determine that there was no sponsor for the federal legislation required by the KHSA, Witness Loy stated that he had not consulted with any member of Congress regarding their consideration of introduction of such federal legislation, and in particular, had not consulted any member of the California or Oregon Federal delegations or their staffs whose districts encompass the Klamath Basin.22
DRA presented no evidence in testimony regarding its request to dismiss the current application that would have us reconsider the assigned Commissioner's original ruling not to do so. The KHSA is supported by the Conservation Groups and PacifiCorp, both of whom are signatories to the KHSA and parties to the current case. Also, since the customer surcharge is the first source of funding pursuant to the KHSA, and California bond funding will only be used to the extent if any, that the cost of removal exceeds the Oregon and California customer contributions,23 there is no reason to hold up consideration of the reasonableness of the customer surcharge. Indeed, by its nature, the ratepayer surcharge must be collected over a period of time before the funds are needed, while the State of California's share of the funding need not be collected over time. This is another reason why we decline to delay our consideration of PacifiCorp's application until the State of California's share has been secured.
And, although DRA states there is no evidence of a sponsor for the federal legislation required to implement the KHSA, that does not mean there will never be a sponsor, especially since DRA did not consult with federal legislators from California and Oregon that would be most interested in this proposed legislation. As quoted in Conservation Groups' Opening Brief, Carl Sagan stated it eloquently, the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."24
Therefore, we see no reason to disturb our prior ruling which denied DRA's motion to hold in abeyance this proceeding or to dismiss the current application.
18 Exhibit DRA-001R at 2 and 14.
19 CG-1R at 5.
20 Exhibit DRA-001R at 9.
21 RT 46-47.
22 RT 99-100.
23 Exhibit PPL-105 at 7-8 and KHSA Section 4.1.
24 Conservation Group Opening Brief at 16.
