X. Assignment of Proceeding
Geoffrey F. Brown is the Assigned Commissioner and Michael J. Galvin is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. Rule 12.1(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure holds that the Commission will not approve settlements, whether contested or uncontested, unless they are reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
2. The Klamath River water used to generate electricity by PacifiCorp is surplus water to those with higher priority than PacifiCorp.
3. The revenue requirement settlement adopts a revenue requirement increase that is approximately 57% of PacifiCorp's $12.8 million request.
4. The revenue requirement settlement is a reasonable compromise between ratepayer and shareholder interests, and grants PacificCorp needed rate relief while mitigating the impact on ratepayers.
5. The parties sponsoring the revenue requirement settlement fairly represent the affected interests.
6. No term of the revenue requirement settlement contravenes statutory provisions or prior Commission decisions.
7. The revenue requirement settlement conveys to the Commission sufficient information to permit it to discharge its future regulatory obligations with respect to the parties and their interests.
8. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement adopts DRA's recommendation that the revenue requirement allocation to any customer class be limited to 2.5% above the system average increase in rates.
9. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement is a reasonable compromise between ratepayer and shareholder interests.
10. The revenue allocation and rate design settlement commands the sponsorship of active parties to the proceeding and is not opposed.
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.
1. Project customers have no rights or interest in the surplus water that flows to PacifiCorp's downstream hydro facilities.
2. The settlement agreement on revenue requirements issues is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
3. The settlement agreement on revenue allocation and rate design issues, service fees and tariff rules is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
4. The uncontested rule changes proposed by PacifiCorp in its testimony 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.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The joint motion by PacifiCorp and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) to adopt a settlement agreement on revenue requirement issues, filed on July 7, 2006, is approved to the extent specified therein. The revenue requirement settlement is included as Attachment A to this decision and supporting exhibits to the settlement are included in the joint motion.
2. PacifiCorp is authorized to earn a 10.6% return on a 50.0% common equity ratio based on an authorized capital structure of 50.0% common equity, 1.0% preferred stock and 49.0% long term debt for the 2007 test year.
3. The joint motion by PacifiCorp, DRA and California Farm Bureau Federation to adopt a settlement agreement on revenue allocation and rate design issues, service fees and tariff rules, filed on July 21, 2006 is approved to the extent specified therein. The revenue allocation and rate design, service fees and tariff rules settlement is included as Attachment B to this decision and supporting exhibits to the settlement is included in the joint motion.
4. The request for a rate credit is denied.
5. Except to the extent specified in the settlements adopted above, the application is denied.
6. Within 10 days of today's date, PacifiCorp shall file an advice letter with tariffs to implement the new rates and tariff changes 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.
7. Application 05-11-022 and Investigation 06-03-002 are closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated December 14, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
Commissioners
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Application of PacifiCorp (U-901-E) for an Order Authorizing a General Rate Increase and Implementation of an Energy Cost Adjustment Clause and a Post Test-Year Adjustment Mechanism. |
Application 05-11-022 (Filed November 29, 2005) |
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into the Rates, Operations, Practices, Service, and Facilities of PacifiCorp (U-901-E). |
(Filed March 2, 2006) |
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFICORP AND DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES ON REVENUE REQUIREMENT ISSUES
1. General
1.1. The parties to this Settlement Agreement before the California Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") are PacifiCorp and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates ("DRA"), collectively, the "Settling Parties." The Settling Parties, desiring to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty attendant to litigation of various issues in this proceeding, have entered into this Settlement Agreement, which they now submit for approval by the Commission.
1.2. As this Settlement Agreement represents a compromise by them, the Settling Parties have entered into this Settlement Agreement on the basis that its approval by the Commission not be construed as an admission or concession by any of the Settling Parties regarding any fact or matter of law in dispute in this proceeding or in any other proceeding before the Commission. Furthermore, the Settling Parties intend that the approval of this Settlement Agreement by the Commission not be construed as a precedent or statement of policy of any kind except as it relates to the current and future proceedings addressed in this Settlement Agreement.
1.3. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is an integrated agreement, so that, if the Commission rejects or modifies any portion of this Settlement Agreement, each of the Settling Parties has the right to withdraw, renegotiate this Settlement Agreement, and request other relief pursuant to Commission Rule 51.7.
2. Settlement Terms
The Settling Parties agree that all issues in this proceeding relating to test year revenues, expenses, ratebase, capital structure, return on equity, multi-state cost allocations, and attrition year mechanisms shall be as follows:
2.1. Revenue Requirement
In its application, PacifiCorp requested an increase of approximately $11.0 million to its overall revenue requirement based on a 2007 Test Year. In "Supplemental Testimony and Exhibits" submitted by PacifiCorp in May 2006, this request was increased to approximately $12.8 million in order to reflect the Commission's approval, by D.06-04-034, of a transitional rate increase for Klamath Basin irrigation customers and also to reflect certain adjustments relating to the acquisition of PacifiCorp by MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company ("MEHC"), which was approved, subject to conditions, by D.06-02-033. In response to the application (as so supplemented), DRA submitted, in June 2006, its Report on Results of Examination and Report on the Results of Operations, in which DRA recommended a revenue requirement of $3.4 million based on a number of adjustments to PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement. No other party filed testimony in the revenue requirement phase of this case.
2.1.1. The Settling Parties agree that PacifiCorp's requested 2007 Test Year revenue requirement for its California jurisdiction shall be adjusted as follows (the headings and descriptions of the adjustments shall not be construed as reflecting any agreement or commitment by either of the Settling Parties with respect to the stated rationale for, or propriety of, any such adjustment for any purpose other than reaching a compromise on PacifiCorp's overall revenue requirement in this proceeding):
2.1.1.1. Rate of Return Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $2.7 million to reflect changes in capital structure. For purposes of settlement, the rate of return on ratebase shall be maintained at its currently-approved level of 8.53%. This rate of return is based on an adopted return on equity of 10.6%, with preferred stock and long-term debt costs of 6.30% and 6.46%, respectively, and an assumed capital structure composed of 50% common equity, 1% preferred stock, and 49% long-term debt.
2.1.1.2. Generation Overhaul Expense Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $29,000 to reflect the capitalization of overhaul costs related to the Lakeside plant, which had been expensed by PacifiCorp in its original filing.
2.1.1.3. Power Delivery Programs Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $99,000 to reflect adjustments to certain miscellaneous distribution and transmission costs.
2.1.1.4. Pension Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $112,000 to reflect adjustments to pension costs, which recover its revised forecast of 2007 FAS 87 pension expense.
2.1.1.5. Benefits Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $15,000 to reflect adjustments to medical benefits expense.
2.1.1.6. Electric Plant in Service Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $800,000 to reflect adjustments to forecasted California distribution electric plant in service. However the Settling Parties agree that all other forecasted additions included in PacifiCorp's original filing, including the portion of the Lakeside plant included in that filing, shall be included in ratebase.
2.1.1.7. Plant Held for Future Use Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $18,000 to reflect adjustments to plant held for future use.
2.1.1.8. Fuel Stock Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $47,000 to reflect an adjustment to exclude fuel stock inventories from the general ratebase and recover the estimated carrying costs of fuel stock through Net Power costs. The actual carrying costs shall be eligible for recovery in the ECAC, which is defined below in section 2.3.1.
2.1.1.9. Weatherization Program Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $49,000 to reflect the removal from ratebase of California-specific Weatherization Program costs.
2.1.1.10. MEHC Corporate Overhead Charge Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $132,000 to reflect the reductions of corporate overhead costs as specified in Commitment C11 in the Commission's approval of the acquisition of PacifiCorp by MEHC.
2.1.1.11. Capital Stock Expense Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $53,000 to reflect the reversal of PacifiCorp's adjustment to capital stock expense as shown on page 4.5 of PPL Exhibit 601.
2.1.1.12. Rebasing Initiative Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $197,000 to reflect an adjustment relating to labor-related savings associated with PacifiCorp's rebasing initiative.
2.1.1.13. Miscellaneous Regulatory Asset Rebasing Initiative Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $3,000 to reflect adjustments for unamortized costs relating to PacifiCorp's rebasing initiative.
2.1.1.14. Efficiency Improvement Adjustment - PacifiCorp's requested revenue requirement shall be reduced by $1.2 million to provide PacifiCorp with the incentive to identify and implement efficiency improvements.
2.1.2. Based on the foregoing adjustments, the adopted increase to PacifiCorp's 2007 Test Year revenue requirement shall be $7.3 million. This amount shall be utilized for purposes of rate design and rate spread in this case. A comparison of PacifiCorp's and DRA's original revenue requirement proposals and the settlement revenue requirement is set forth in Appendix A.
2.1.3. The Settling Parties agree to support a schedule that would allow PacifiCorp to recover the adopted increase to its revenue requirement commencing on January 1, 2007.
2.2. Multi-State Allocations
All elements of this rate case, including the settlement of revenue requirement, ECAC and PTAM (see 2.3.2), shall be based on the Revised Protocol allocation methodology. In its next general rate case, PacifiCorp shall apply the same approach ordered by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon in Order No. 05-021 (January 12, 2005) with respect to the requirement that the filing include the Hybrid model allocation methodology as a comparison to the Revised Protocol allocation methodology.
2.3. Attrition Year Mechanisms
2.3.1. Energy Cost Adjustment Clause
The Settling Parties agree that PacifiCorp's proposed Energy Cost Adjustment Clause ("ECAC") mechanism shall be adopted as proposed by PacifiCorp in its application Exhibit PPL/500, Direct Testimony of Mark T. Widmer, and Exhibit PPL/1300, Direct Testimony of Michael B. Reid, but subject to the changes proposed by DRA in Chapter 4 of its Report on the Results of Operations. The relevant portions of the testimony are provided in Appendix B.
2.3.2. Post Test Year Adjustment Mechanism
The Settling Parties agree that DRA's alternative Post Test Year Adjustment Mechanism ("PTAM") proposed in Chapter 11 of its Report on the Results of Operations shall be adopted, but subject to the following changes: (i) the attrition factor for 2008 (filed October 15, 2007, effective January 1, 2008) shall be based on the September 2007 Global Insight "U.S. Economic Outlook" forecast of CPI for 2008 with an off-setting productivity factor of 0.5%; (ii) the attrition factor for 2009 (filed October 15, 2008, effective January 1, 2009) shall be based on the September 2008 Global Insight "U.S. Economic Outlook" forecast of CPI for 2009 with an off-setting productivity factor of 0.5%; and (iii) PacifiCorp shall be entitled to adjust its rates through the PTAM to recover the California-allocable portion of all reasonable costs related to any major plant addition made after January 1, 2008. For purposes of the PTAM, a "major plant addition" shall be deemed to include any capital addition to plant-in-service that exceeds $50.0 million on a total-company basis. All rate changes under the PTAM shall be implemented by applying the overall PTAM percentage change as a uniform percentage change to all tariff rate elements of all rate schedules, excluding Schedules S-99, S-100, and proposed Schedule S-191.
2.3.3. Klamath Irrigation Shortfall Recovery
The Settling Parties agree that no adjustments shall be made to the generally-applicable tariff rates for any of PacifiCorp's established classes of service in order to off-set the transitional increases approved by D.06-04-034 to rates paid by "Project Customers," as defined in Appendix A of that decision. As part of this settlement, based on the condition that Klamath irrigators continue to be served on Schedule PA-20 rates, the Settling Parties agree that the shortfall recovery method shall be in lieu of the recovery of the Memorandum Account authorized in D.06-04-034 and that PacifiCorp shall bear the full risk or benefit of any such under- or over-recovery of revenues. (A comparison of the amount in the Memorandum Account and its recovery through the transitional increases approved by D.06-04-034 is set forth in Appendix C.) Notwithstanding the foregoing, PacifiCorp shall be entitled to request recovery, through its generally-applicable tariff rates, of the amount of any credits related to its California jurisdiction that are approved by the Commission to reflect alleged benefits resulting from the operations of Project Customers.
2.4. Other
The Settling Parties agree that, except as set forth herein, PacifiCorp's proposals in its application (as supplemented) relating to test year revenues, expenses, ratebase, capital structure, return on equity, multi-state cost allocations, and attritition year mechanisms shall be adopted without change.
3. Miscellaneous
3.1. The Settling Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
3.2. The Settling Parties agree to execute, or cause to be executed, any other documents and to take any other action as may be necessary, to effectively consummate this Settlement Agreement, and neither of the Settling Parties shall take any action in opposition to this Settlement Agreement.
3.3. The Settling Parties agree that no signatory to this Settlement Agreement or any member of DRA assumes any personal liability as a result of their agreement. The Settling Parties agree that no legal action may be brought by any Settling Party in any state or federal court, or any other forum, against any individual signatory representing the interests of DRA, attorneys representing DRA, or DRA itself related to this Settlement Agreement. All rights and remedies of the Settling Parties are limited to those available before the Commission.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Settling Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement as of July 7, 2006.
DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
By:
R. Mark Pocta
Division of Ratepayer Advocates
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415-703-2871
PACIFICORP
By:
Andrea Kelly
Vice President, Regulation
PacifiCorp
825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Tel: 503-813-6043
(END OF ATTACHMENT A)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Application of PacifiCorp (U-901-E) for an Order Authorizing a General Rate Increase and Implementation of an Energy Cost Adjustment Clause and a Post Test-Year Adjustment Mechanism. |
Application 05-11-022 (Filed November 29, 2005) |
Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into the Rates, Operations, Practices, Service, and Facilities of PacifiCorp (U-901-E). |
(Filed March 2, 2006) |
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PACIFICORP, THE DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES, AND THE CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION ON REVENUE ALLOCATION AND RATE DESIGN ISSUES AND SERVICE FEES AND TARIFF RULES
4. General
4.1. The parties to this Settlement Agreement before the California Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") are PacifiCorp ("the Applicant"), the California Farm Bureau Federation ("CFBF"), and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, ("DRA"), collectively, the "Settling Parties." The Settling Parties, desiring to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty attendant to litigation of various issues in this proceeding, have entered into this Settlement Agreement, which they now submit for approval by the Commission.24
4.2. As this Settlement Agreement represents a compromise by them, the Settling Parties have entered into this Settlement Agreement on the basis that its approval by the Commission not be construed as an admission or concession by any of the Settling Parties regarding any fact or matter of law in dispute in this proceeding or in any other proceeding before the Commission. Furthermore, the Settling Parties intend that the approval of this Settlement Agreement by the Commission not be construed as a precedent or statement of policy of any kind except as it relates to the current and future proceedings addressed in this Settlement Agreement.
4.3. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is an integrated agreement, so that, if the Commission rejects or modifies any portion of this Settlement Agreement, each of the Settling Parties has the right to withdraw, renegotiate this Settlement Agreement, and request other relief pursuant to Commission Rule 51.7.
5. Settlement Terms
2.0 The Settling Parties have reached agreement on a number of revenue allocation and rate design issues and also agreed on changes to certain service fees and tariff rules, each of which is set forth and described below:
2.1 In its "Direct Testimony and Exhibits", submitted by PacifiCorp in November 2005, the Applicant proposed a revenue allocation methodology which would establish a cost increase cap for all customer classes equal to 1.33 times the overall percentage increase in rates. (See Exhibit PPL 1300, p. 2) DRA proposed an alternative rate cap, limiting rate class revenue increases to 2.5% above the system average increase in rates. (See Exhibit DRA-___, Report on Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design, at pp. 5-6.) No other party served testimony on this issue. The Settling Parties agree that the rate increases for all customer classes in this proceeding shall be capped as proposed by DRA, namely that all rate class revenue increases shall be limited to 2.5% above the system average increase in rates.25
2.2. In "Supplemental Testimony and Exhibits" submitted by PacifiCorp in May 2006, PacifiCorp requested a change to the rate structure for annual load size charges for Schedule PA-20 Agricultural Pumping Service. In this request, PacifiCorp requested to change the rates for annual load size charges from the current composition to a declining block structure. In response to this request, CFBF filed testimony on June 23, 2006 opposing this change. CFBF did not submit testimony relative to any other issue in this case. No other party served testimony on this issue in this phase of the case.
The Settling Parties agree that the approved revenue requirement allocated to Schedule PA-20 Agricultural Pumping Service shall be applied to rates as follows:
2.2.1 The Annual Load Size Charge for single and three phase customers shall be set to the rates proposed in Exhibit PP&L 1302, as shown on Proposed Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 2786-E except that Annual Load Size Distribution Demand Charges for single and three phase customers shall be flat across all demand levels and shall equal $13.20 per Distribution Demand/kW for all applicable load sizes.
2.2.2 All other Schedule PA-20 rates shall be set according to the methodology set forth in PacifiCorp's application, as delineated in Exhibit PP&L 1300.
2.3 In its "Direct Testimony and Exhibits", submitted by PacifiCorp in November 2005, the Applicant proposed to increase residential Baseline and Non-Baseline Energy Charges on an equal percentage basis based on changes to the total proposed residential functionalized revenue requirement. (See Exhibit PPL 1300 at p. 4) DRA served testimony in this proceeding on June 23, 2006 in which it recommended that residential energy charges be calculated using a "composite tier method" by which the Tier II rate is calculated using customer charge revenue as well as the Tier I commodity rate. (See Exhibit DRA-___, Report on Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design, at pp. 8-9) No other party served testimony on this issue. The Settling Parties agree that the rate design for residential commodity rates shall be determined as set forth in the PacifiCorp Direct Testimony, namely that residential Baseline and Non-Baseline Energy Charges shall be increased on an equal percentage basis.
2.4 In its "Direct Testimony and Exhibits" submitted by PacifiCorp in November 2005, the Applicant proposed certain changes to specific Service Fees and provisions of its Tariff Rules. In particular, the Applicant proposed the following changes:
2.4.1 The Applicant proposed requiring alternative information to be provided by new customers on the Application for Service form, including both a customer's Social Security Number and their California Driver's License Number and date of birth, or alternatively an original or certified birth certificate, school or employer ID with photograph, or a reference to verify the prospective customer's identity. (See Exhibit PPL 1400, p. 5)
2.4.2 The Applicant proposed revising the Reconnection Charge for reestablishing service after a Disconnection, when performed after normal business hours. Specifically, the Applicant proposed a charge of $75 for reconnection occurring between 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm on weekdays, and a charge of $175 for reconnections occurring after 8:00 pm on weekdays and on weekends and
holidays. (See Exhibit PPL 1400 at p. 20)
2.4.3 The Applicant proposed changing the Trouble Call charge to reflect the actual costs of the work performed and proposed to eliminate the separate mileage fees from this charge. (See Exhibit PPL 1400 at p. 24)
2.4.4 The Applicant proposed increasing the returned payment charge to $20 per returned payment. (See Exhibit PPL 1400 at p. 25)
2.4.5 DRA recommended retention of the existing information and identification requirements for the Application for Service form. (See Exhibit DRA-___, Report on Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design, at pp. 12-13)
2.4.6 DRA recommended Reconnection Fees be limited to $30 for reconnections during business hours and $45 for reconnections after business hours and on weekends or holidays. (See Exhibit DRA-___, Report on Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design, at pp. 10-11)
2.4.7 DRA recommended that the Trouble Call Fee be limited to $25. (See Exhibit DRA-___, Report on Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design, at p. 12)
2.4.8 DRA recommended that the Returned Payment Fee be limited to $10. (See Exhibit DRA-___, Report on Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation and Rate Design, at p. 11)
2.4.9 No other party served any testimony on these Service Fee and Tariff Rule issues. The Settling Parties agree that the Service Fees and Tariff Rule issues should be resolved as follows:
2.4.9.1 The current identification requirements for a customer to submit with an Application for Service in the Applicant's Tariff Rule 4 shall be retained.
2.4.9.2 The Reconnection Fee to be charged for reconnections during business hours shall be increased to $30, and the fees for after hours service shall be modified to charge $60 for reconnections between 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm weekdays, and $75 for reconnections between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm on weekends and holidays. The Applicant shall not be required to offer the service at other times after normal business hours.
2.4.9.3 The Trouble Call Fee shall be set at $30 during business hours and $60 after normal business hours.
2.4.9.4 The Returned Payment Fee shall be set at $12 per returned payment.
2.4.9.5. With respect to the Fees agreed to by the Settling Parties in Sections 2.4.9.2, 2.4.9.3, and 2.4.9.4 herein, the Settling Parties agree that the increases in the level of such fees was limited by an intention to increase rates and fees gradually. The Applicant may revisit the level of these rates in the next subsequent General Rate Case it files, and present evidence of the cost of providing the service related to such fees, and the fees permitted in other jurisdictions it serves, in order to support further increases in some or all of these fees.
2.5 Attached to this Settlement are four exhibits which detail the specific rates and fees resulting from the Settlement. Exhibit 1 is a Table entitled "Determination of Present and Proposed Revenues Distributed by Rate Schedule". Exhibit 2 is a Table entitled "Settlement Agreement - Proposed Rate Design". Exhibit 3 is a Table entitled "Present Revenues, Pacific Power & Light Company, State of California, Billing Determinants for Present Prices". Exhibit 4 contains two revised pages from Schedule 300 of the PacifiCorp tariff, containing revised service fees and tariff provisions.
3. Miscellaneous
3.1 The Settling Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
3.2 The Settling Parties agree to execute, or cause to be executed, any other documents and to take any other action as may be necessary, to effectively consummate this Settlement Agreement, and none of the Settling Parties shall take any action in opposition to this Settlement Agreement.
3.3 The Settling Parties agree that no signatory to this Settlement Agreement or any member of CFBF assumes any personal liability as a result of their agreement. The Settling Parties agree that no legal action may be brought by any Settling Party in any state or federal court, or any other forum, against any individual signatory representing the interests of CFBF, attorneys representing CFBF, or CFBF itself related to this Settlement Agreement. All rights and remedies of the Settling Parties are limited to those available before the Commission.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Settling Parties have executed this Settlement Agreement as of July 18, 2006.
PACIFICORP
By: /s/Andrea L. Kelly
Andrea L. Kelly
Vice President, Regulation
PacifiCorp
825 N.E. Multnomah, Suite 2000
Portland, OR 97232
Tel: 503-813-6043
DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES
By: /s/ R. Mark Pocta
R. Mark Pocta
Program Manager
Division of Ratepayer Advocates
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415-703-2871
CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
By: /s/ Karen Norene Mills
Karen Norene Mills
Attorney
California Farm Bureau Federation
2300 River Plaza Drive
Sacramento, CA 95833
Tel: 916-561-5655
(END OF ATTACHMENT B)
24 Although CFBF is a Settling Party and a signatory to this settlement, CFBF limits its participation to the appropriate rates under the PA-20 tariff, and expresses no opinion on the rates of other customer classes.
25 . An exception to this requirement is the transition rte paid by the Klamath Irrigators pursuant to D.06-04-034.
