Agmt 2004 ABAG Power - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ratepayers who paid their utility bills two years ago to be subject to an unknown liability to be paid at an unknown future date. We need not elaborate on the intensive effort required by PG&E to recomputed individual bills nor the intensive efforts and spent resources of end users to verify those recomputed bills. Because we deny PG&E's proposal we do not reach the question of whether approval of the proposal would constitute retroactive ratemaking." ' When we speak of refunds in this context, we refer not to money going back to DA [direct access] customers, but to a recommendation of their credit. If a refund is ordered, the credit would have been less and the DA customer would have been overpaid by PG&E thereby causing a repayment to PG&E. The same logistical objections raised by the AU to retroactive reductions in Direct Access Credits still stand and are amplified by the passage of yet another year since issuance of the 1998 RAP -Draft Decision and without further action by FERC.6 Further, the legal barriers to "retroactive ratemaking," which the draft decision avoids, become a live issue. Independent of the arguments made in the 1998 RAP -Draft Decision, a strong legal argument can be made that the CPUC is estopped by the Settlement Opinion and Master Settlement Agreement from reducing the amount of the Direct Access Credit paid to ABAG POWER. The Settlement Opinion makes the following policy finding: "It is in the public interest that PG&E emerge from bankruptcy promptly....To emerge from bankruptcy PG&E should pay its creditors. All allowed claims should be paid in full. (emphasis added)"' On the date of the Settlement Decision, ABAG POWER's Stipulation and Release was an "allowed claim" and part of the record before the CPUC. It will be difficult for the CPUC to defeat the argument that it is estopped from taking any (otherwise permitted) action that effectively modifies the Stipulation and Release or reduces the payment required by the Stipulation and Release. In addition, the Master Settlement Agreement states: "[PG&E and the CPUC] agree not to contest the validity and enforceability of [the Master Settlement Agreement], the [Confirmed Plan] or any order entered by the [Bankruptcy Court] contemplated by or required to supplement [the Master Settlement Agreement and the Confirmed Plan].i8 Ancillary Analysis In addition to the "logic" of a bureaucratic recalculation of the Direct Access Credits in response to the anticipated FERC ordered price reductions, there might be pressure on the CPUC to recover Direct Access Credits to reduce general utility rates. In response, one can raise the objection stated in the 1998 RAP -Draft Decision that the costs to recalculate and recover "overpaid" credits may well exceed the recovery. Finally, please note that the post- bankruptcy CPUC ratemaking structure for PG&E includes the "regulatory asset." Under the terms of the Confirmed Plan and the Master Settlement Agreement, the amount of the regulatory asset which must be amortized by ongoing electric rates will be reduced by any monies actually recovered by PG&E as a result of the same FERC price rollback.9 The direct c Although, the contested time period misses most of the times during which ABAG POWER's Direct Access Credit was generated. The same legal arguments apply and the FERC proceeding has expanded the timeframe for potential price rollbacks to include more of the period in which ABAG POWER's credits were "generated." ~ Settlement Decision, p. 78. e Master Settlement Agreement, p. 18, §21. 9 Master Settlement Agreement, pp. 8-9, §2.d. Wind Up Agreement-Attmt D- 4-28-04 All