4. Discussion
Pacific's petition rests on the false premise that Pacific is authorized by D.98-07-033 to true up its approved CHCF-B draw with the revenue effect of the rate reductions adopted in D.98-07-033. The only true up authorized by D.98-07-033 is in Ordering Paragraph 7 of the decision, which states as follows:
Pacific shall reconcile its $305.2 million estimate with its approved draw from the [CHCF-B] for the 12-month period immediately preceding the date rates are effective. If the adjustment resulting from Pacific's reconciliation of its $305.2 million estimate to its approved draw from the CHCF-B is within 10% of $305.2 million, Pacific shall file by compliance advice letter to recover or refund the difference through a change to local usage and zoned usage measurement prices. If the adjustment is greater than 10% of $305.2 million, Pacific's advice letter filing will be subject to protest.
Ordering Paragraph (OP) 7 directs Pacific to true up its estimated CHCF-B draw of $305.2 million with its approved draw. There is nothing in OP 7 or anywhere else in D.98-07-033 that directs Pacific to true up its approved CHCF-B draw with the revenue effect of the rate reductions adopted in D.98-07-033.3 Therefore, since D.98-07-033 does not authorize a true up of Pacific's approved draw with the revenue effect, we deny Pacific's petition to modify the decision to specify how the unauthorized true up should be performed.
3 The fact that D.98-07-033 does not authorize Pacific to true up for the revenue effect should come as no surprise to Pacific. In D.99-09-061 we stated as follows: "In D.98-07-033 we held that Pacific could file an advice letter and true up the difference between its estimated and actual draw on the high cost fund once the actual draw was determined. However, we specifically noted that Pacific would not be allowed to true up the revenue effect of the price changes ordered in that decision." (D.99-06-061, mimeo., p. 2.)
