V. The Stipulation
As stated above, ORA and PG&E reached agreement on all but two issues in this phase of the proceeding. The agreement is embodied in the Stipulation Agreement Between Pacific Gas And Electric Company And The Office Of Ratepayer Advocates Resolving Issues In The 1999 Annual Transition Cost Proceeding (Stipulation), which was entered into on June 16, 2000, and entered into the record in this proceeding on that date as Exhibit 5. No party has indicated any intent to oppose the Stipulation in whole or in part.
A summary of the Stipulation is as follows:
1. The Stipulation provides that $13,800 of disputed retraining assistance costs are consistent with the programs approved in D.00-02-048 and should be recovered through the TCBA.
2. The Stipulation provides that $25,452 of disputed Hunters Point Management Enhanced Performance Incentive Plan (PIP) costs were incurred while Hunters Point was part of PG&E's divestiture proposals and, therefore, are consistent with the programs approved in D.00-02-048 and should be recovered through the TCBA.
3. The Stipulation confirms that none of PG&E's QF administrative costs were authorized for recovery in PG&E's 1999 general rate case (GRC). The ATCP is the appropriate mechanism for recovery of these costs.
4. The Stipulation confirms that the costs of and incentive amounts associated with the Mt. Poso Cogen termination and bridging agreements, the San Joaquin Cogen termination agreement, and the Ultrapower Blue Lake termination agreement, are appropriately recorded in the TCBA, but are subject to revisions necessary to reflect final Commission decisions from the proceedings considering those PPA modifications.
5. The Stipulation adopts a reduction of $6,100 to PG&E's requested Big Creek incentive amount as a compromise of the party's positions.
6. The Stipulation concurs with ORA's observation that further entries in the TCBA may be required based on the Commission's decision in I.98-12-013 (relating to the December 8, 1998, San Francisco outage).
7. The Stipulation agrees with ORA that the December 1998 monthly PBOP entry was in error, requiring PG&E to credit the TCBA by $3,082,556 plus interest.
8. The Stipulation agrees with ORA that a June 1999 TCBA credit of $2,468,356 should have included interest of $352,211, requiring PG&E to make an adjustment to address this.
9. The Stipulation agrees with ORA that an erroneous record period debit entry relating to revenues from departing load customers should have been a credit, requiring PG&E to credit the TCBA by $174,878, plus interest.
We will approve the Stipulation. The Stipulation meets the Commission's standards for all-party settlements, is reasonable in light of the record as a whole, is consistent with the law, and is in the public interest. As the Commission explained in last year's ATCP decision, it has developed criteria for evaluating all-party settlements. These criteria are that: (1) all active parties must sponsor the settlement; (2) the sponsoring parties must be fairly reflective of the affected interests; (3) the settlement cannot contravene statutory provisions of prior Commission decisions; and (4) the settlement must convey sufficient information to allow the Commission to discharge future regulatory obligations with respect to the parties and their interests.1
The Stipulation meets these requirements with respect to the issues it resolves. Other than PG&E and ORA, CUE was the only active participant in the proceeding. CUE participated only with respect to the disputed employee transition cost issue, which is not addressed by the Stipulation. The sponsoring parties, PG&E and ORA, are fairly reflective of the interests affected by this ratemaking proceeding, ORA representing the ratepayer interest and PG&E representing its own interests. No party has proposed that the Stipulation or any part of its contravenes statutory provisions or prior Commission decisions, and none do. Finally, the Stipulation conveys sufficient information for the Commission to discharge its regulatory duties. The Stipulation sets forth clearly the ratemaking treatment, if any, associated with each issues it resolves. Thus, the Stipulation between PG&E and ORA meets these all-party criteria, and should be approved.
Turning from the all-party criteria, the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure also address criteria for the adoption of stipulations. Under its rules, the Commission will not approve a stipulation unless it is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest.2 The Stipulation between PG&E and ORA meets these requirements, as well.
The Stipulation is consistent with the whole record. The record in this proceeding, as it relates to issues resolved by the Stipulation, consists of the Stipulation itself, the relevant portions of PG&E's direct testimony,3 ORA's Report,4 and PG&E's rebuttal testimony.5 No other party filed testimony, and there was no oral testimony relating to issues resolved by the Stipulation.
The issues resolved by the Stipulation are raised in ORA's Report. PG&E's rebuttal testimony responds to each of the issues raised by ORA. The additional information in PG&E's rebuttal, coupled with PG&E's direct testimony and ORA's Report, provides the basis for the Stipulation's resolution of issues. Therefore, the Stipulation is consistent with the record as a whole.
The Stipulation is consistent with the law. Neither PG&E, ORA, nor any other party has suggested that the Stipulation's resolution of any issue is inconsistent with the law, and we have determined that this is true.
The Stipulation is in the public interest. Under it, PG&E is allowed to recover costs through the TCBA account consistent with prior Commission decisions. To paraphrase the Commission's analysis in last year's ATCP in evaluating the settlement SDG&E presented, the public interest is served because active parties agreed on a mutually beneficial outcome, while representing the major interests of the proceeding. The Stipulation is a reasonable compromise that fairly serves the interests of PG&E, its shareholders, customers, and employees. Commission and party resources are freed up and the cost of litigation is avoided.6
1 D.00-02-048, p. 5. 2 Rule 51.1(e), Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 3 Exh. 1. 4 Exh. 21(c1). 5 Exh. 2 (the redacted version of PG&E's rebuttal testimony); Exh. 3(c) (the confidential, unredacted version). 6 D.00-02-048, p. 6.
