The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-78 ') . . .~~ RESOLUTION NO. tj-7f A RESOLUTION authorizing intervention on behalf of the City of Port Angeles by the Public Power Council into litigation between the City of Portland, Oregon and the Bonneville Power Administration. WHEREAS, the City .of Portland, Oregon has filed suits in the United States District Court for the State of Oregon under cause number 77-928 and 77-929, which litigation challenges the validity of certain power sales contracts qf the Bonneville Power Adminis- . d ,) , ")f / ~ ~ .' )' .... ,': .J', ,T', \,\,",'. tratlon; an 'It H_ ~,," r: 4'"..~ f . t . WHERE~~, the Ci~y ~fl ~or~c~ngeles is a party to at'least one ".^.:;... \ ,d ,.' ,~ ~.. of the challenged:' con'-tracts;l and~t'!;\ 0(-" WHEREAS; the invalidatiorr or impairment of such contracts 0'., ' l' f' .' I l' .-.- represents a substantial threat to the economic stability of the City of Port Angeles and to the health and safety of the residents of this citYi and WHEREAS, the City of Port An~eles is a member of the Public Power Council, which organization is contemplating intervention into the above-mentioned suits and which organization has requested the expression of the desires of its membership, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES that the Public Power Council is hereby authorized to inter- vene in the name of the City of Port Angeles into the suits referred to abovei provided that such authority and intervention shall be limited to the terms and conditions set forth in the memorandum by Norman A. Stoll dated January 12, 1978, a copy of which is attached hereto and,by this reference is incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is authorized and hereby directed to forthwith send a certified copy of this Resolution to the manager of the Public Power Council. " . ~,~ PASSED by the Council of the City of Port Angeles, Washing- ton, at the regular meeting of said City Council held the 25th day of January, 1978. A~~ . .... ..,.,. .-:10, ~ATTEST:~; . ....;g ~. g ~;;~ ~ !)J~(! '~ ~a ~ ~ Cityelerk .a . g c.;.,":- ,I'",i-" " A" APPRO~ ~ ~.~".. C~ ty ttorney ~..' . ,I ':', .'. t~t., t J /", t , ; :n . - :, , \ ~ , ~ , I .. . ~ \} J .. , J .~ .,:. . 1.-_ I .> .I' ~ : ~ ~, T ~ I'''' . ," ... '1 . ...... . ) ( '. ..--t . . r /J1?4pr ( ~~ STOll & STOll LAW OFFICES OREGON NATIONAL BUILDING NORMAN A STOLL N, ROBERT STOLL ROBERT M, GREENING, .lR, GARV I. GRENLEV ALAN 5, LARSEN GARV M, BERNE 6105, W ALOEI'! STREET PORTLAND, OREGON 07205 TELEPHONE (503) 227-1601 PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Portland Litigation January 12, 1978 Many preference customers who are PPC participants are vitally concerned about issues raised in the Portland litigation (City of Portland v. Hodel, Nos. 77-928, 77-929, U.S.D.C. Oregon). Since many of these issues are common to all participants, some form of common representation would be both desirable and effective. A collective effort would underscore the importance of the common issues to the court. The Public Power Council Executive Committee has ,authorized our firm to undertake to represent those participants who authorize intervention as part of the collective effort being recommended by Dave Piper. He has suggested that we out- line in this memorandum the basis upon which we would conduct our representation. The most important premise of this representation is that we will represent the common interests of the utilities par- ticipating in this collective effort. Each utility counsel will have access to our office, and retain control over important policy decisions. All participants are aware of the potential conflicts within any collective intervention effort. We have discussed these conflicts at length in the past. For example, differences may surface during the course of the litigation between generating and nongenerating systems, between those with heavy industrial loads and systems with pri- marily residential loads, between those with short-term BPA contracts and others with long-term contracts. If we are to represent the common interests of utilities participating in the collective effort, all these utilities must recognize the existence of potential conflicts. It is important c . . .' . Proposed Memorr-lum 'of Understanding January 12, 1978 Page Two o that these utilities accept, in advance of representation, a reasonable method of dealing with those conflicts, whether it is our proposed method or another. We will be constantly reviewing the status of every participating utility. If a conflict appears we will inform counsel and offer the opportunity to make an independent pre- sentation of the conflict to the court through regular or special counsel. In the alternative the utility could elect to opt out of the group and obtain separate counsel. with that understanding, we set forth the basis of our representation and the organization which we hope will facilitate communication: 1. Each participant should obtain authorization for intervention as a named party and for payment of a pro-rata share of the cost. 2. Communications A. Mailing Lists (1) Comprehensive List of all participating utility lawyers or managers for communication regarding policy decisions and regular status reports. (2) Request List consisting of all local co~nsel for individual utilities who want to receive impor- tant pleadings, correspondence, and other documents. (3) Mandatory List of counsel actively partici- pating in litigation and all other counsel requesting inclusion thereon to which all pleadings, correspondence, and other documents are sen~ B. Corresponding Lawyer (Chip Greening) (1) Facilitate communication (2) Duties: (a) Establish and maintain mailing lists. (b) Mail pleadings, correspondence, and other relevant documents to lawyers on mailing lists., (c) Act as informational clearinghouse. - "" -.. t., ' . , ... (.: (..~ Proposed Memorandum of Understanding January 12, 1978 Page Three (d) Report developments to PPC. (e) Prepare and distribute periodic status reports. 3. Conflict Identification and Resolution A. Initial identification of potential conflicts completed. B. Continuous monitoring of interests for develop- ing conflicts. c. Upon recognition of actual or potential conflict, communicate immediately with regular utility counsel, outlining the nature of the conflict. D. Provide access to the court for presentation of conflicting position by utility counsel. E. Provide opportunity to withdraw from group representation and pursue independent'course. 4. Litigation Decision Making All decisions relating to investigation, discovery, trial strategy and tactics will be made by our firm, insofar as we are acting for the utilities participa- ting in the collective effort, in consultation with participating utility counsel and the overall Lawyers Coordination Committee. 5. Policy Decision Making A. Includes major decisions such as settlement, adoption of major defense position or other related matters~ B. Each utility to make its own decision. c. Procedure: (1) Corresponding lawyer will communicate our recommendation to utility counsel and seek comments. (2) Following COmment period, corresponding lawyer will forward final decision on group position. ,,;-... ~.~, ~ I ,. ,,~ (: proposed Memorandum of understanding January 12, 1978 Page Four r individual utilities will have ability to opt out of decision and pursue independent course within certain period following decision date. If individual utility takes no action, it will be deemed to have approved the decision. 6. Litigation Fund A. Separate from PPC annual budget and other PPC accounts; B. PPC contribution formula appropriately adjusted; c. Initial assessment: $200,000; D. Separate bank account, Vancouver, Washington, administered through PPCi E. Authorized signature: ,Normally David Piper; alternatively in the same manner as other PPC funds may be drawn upon. F. Payments made to Stoll & Stoll in accordance with separate statements rendered in connection with Portland litigation on normal fee basis with PPC for legal services and coordination of intervention effort. (Fee Schedule approved by PPC is at the following hourly rates: Norm Stoll or Robert Stoll: $70; Chip Greening or Gary Grenley: $50; Alan Larsen or Gary Berne: $30; law clerks or para-legal: $20. (The lawyers who will normally work on this case will be Norm Stoll, Greening, or Larsen.) If any utility manager or counsel has any question about this memorandum or the litigation, please contact me or Chip Greening. NOR!>lAN A. STOLL