D.97-05-088. The Local Cities argue that D.97-05-088 addressed a situation in which the County was explicitly a substitute for lost tax revenue,” “seeking while claiming: the CIMP is not explicitly based on tax revenues at all. “Here, Calculating the amount under the CIMP does not involve a computation of tax revenues.” (Local Cities Comments at 3.) This argument, however, is undercut by the County, which states: Of the 91 taxing jurisdictions in the County, 20 have budgets that will not decrease as Diablo Canyon's unitary tax payments decrease. For the remaining 7l taxing jurisdictions budgets will decrease as Diablo Canyon is depreciated to $0, the County re-allocated the unitary tax factors for the 20 unaffected jurisdictions to the 7l affected jurisdictions and arrived at $75 million as the amount necessary to maintain the status quo. Under the settlement, the County would distribute the annual payment to each of the affected jurisdictions according to its proportional factor; the remaining 20 jurisdictions would receive funding from the State to make up the shortfall from Diablo Canyon's taxes. (County Comments at 7-8, footnotes omitted.) Accordingly, it appears that the CIMP is based on tax revenues, and calculating the amount of the CIMP does involve a computation of tax revenues. The Cities have failed to distinguish the present case from D.97-05-088. A number of parties attempted to cobble together an argument, based on PU Code sections 701 and 712.5, to show that the Commission has at least implied authority to approve rate recovery for the CIMP payments to the community. (See, e.g. School District Comments at 3-6; A4NR Reply Comments at 1-4.) While PU Code section 701 is very broad, and does grant the Commission significant authority, it does not directly address the situation here.
D.97-05-088. The Local Cities argue that D.97-05-088 addressed a situation in which the County was explicitly “seeking a substitute for lost tax revenue,” while claiming: “Here, the CIMP is not explicitly based on tax revenues at all. Calculating the amount under the CIMP does not involve a computation of tax revenues.” (Local Cities Comments at 3.) This argument, however, is undercut by the County, which states: Of the 91 taxing jurisdictions in the County, 20 have budgets that will not decrease as Diablo Canyon's unitary tax payments decrease. For the remaining 7l taxing jurisdictions budgets will decrease as Diablo Canyon is depreciated to $0, the County re-allocated the unitary tax factors for the 20 unaffected jurisdictions to the 7l affected jurisdictions and arrived at $75 million as the amount necessary to maintain the status quo. Under the settlement, the County would distribute the annual payment to each of the affected jurisdictions according to its proportional factor; the remaining 20 jurisdictions would receive funding from the State to make up the shortfall from Diablo Canyon's taxes. (County Comments at 7-8, footnotes omitted.) Accordingly, it appears that the CIMP is based on tax revenues, and calculating the amount of the CIMP does involve a computation of tax revenues. The Cities have failed to distinguish the present case from D.97-05-088. A number of parties attempted to cobble together an argument, based on PU Code sections 701 and 712.5, to show that the Commission has at least implied authority to approve rate recovery for the CIMP payments to the community. (See, e.g. School District Comments at 3-6; A4NR Reply Comments at 1-4.) While PU Code section 701 is very broad, and does grant the Commission significant authority, it does not directly address the situation here.
201486791.docx