VII. Assignment of Proceeding
Susan P. Kennedy is the Assigned Commissioner and Jeffrey P. O'Donnell is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
Findings of Fact
1. The revenue requirement settlement adopts a revenue requirement that is below the mid-point of the range of values proposed by PacifiCorp and ORA.
2. The revenue requirement settlement is based on more recent recorded information and a more recent depreciation study, is consistent with recently adopted rates of return on equity for other energy companies, and is unopposed.
3. The revenue allocation and rate design all-party settlement utilizes the revenue requirement proposed in the revenue requirement settlement, and imposes ORA's recommendation that the revenue requirement allocation to any customer class not exceed 2.5% over the system average increase of 4.7%.
4. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement eliminates an unneeded experimental rate schedule, and revises baseline allowances consistent with D.02-04-026.
5. The settlements do not contravene any statute or Commission decision.
6. There is strong public policy favoring settlements to avoid costly and protracted litigation.
7. The revenue requirement settlement is a reasonable compromise between ratepayer and shareholder interests, and grants PacifiCorp needed rate relief while mitigating the impact on ratepayers.
8. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement reflects a reasonable balance between ratepayer and shareholder interests, and is a reasonable compromise between strongly-held views.
9. The settlements provide PacifiCorp an opportunity to earn a reasonable return while maintaining adequate reliable service to ratepayers at just and reasonable rates.
10. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement commands the unanimous sponsorship of all active parties to the proceeding.
11. The parties sponsoring the revenue allocation and rate design settlement are fairly representative of the affected interests.
12. No term of the revenue allocation and rate design settlement contravenes statutory provisions or prior Commission decisions.
13. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement conveys to the Commission sufficient information to permit it to discharge its future regulatory obligations with respect to the parties and their interests.
Conclusions of Law
1. Pursuant to Rule 51.1(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Commission will not approve settlements or stipulations, whether contested or not, unless they are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
2. The settlements are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
3. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement satisfies the criteria for approval of an all-party settlement.
4. The settlements should be adopted.
5. The decision should be effective immediately so that the rates adopted herein can be put into effect as soon as possible.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The joint motion by PacifiCorp and the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates to adopt a settlement of the revenue requirement, filed on June 20, 2003, is approved to the extent specified therein. The settlement of the revenue requirement is included as Attachment A to this decision.
2. The all-party joint motion to adopt a settlement of the revenue allocation and rate design, filed on July 7, 2003, is approved to the extent specified therein. The settlement of the revenue allocation and rate design is included as Attachment B to this decision.
3. The baseline allowances, referred to in Attachment B to this decision and included in Attachment C to this decision, are adopted.
4. Except to the extent specified in the settlements adopted above, the application is denied.
5. Within 10 days of today's date, PacificCorp shall file an advice letter with tariffs to implement the new rates approved by this Order. These tariffs shall become effective on the first day of the month following the date the advice letter is filed subject to Energy Division determining that they are in compliance with this Order.
6. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated _____________________, at San Francisco, California.
