20150422OR UM-1712 Sierra Club Set 3 (1-2) 4-6-15.pdf

UM-1712/PacifiCorp
April 6, 2015
Sierra Club Data Request 3.1
Sierra Club Data Request 3.1
Reference the Reply Testimony of Cindy A. Crane, page 7, lines 5-12. Ms. Crane states
that “based on the communications between the Company and Bowie, Bowie recognizes
that Article 8 was intended, at a minimum, to cover this type of scenario.” a. Were the communications referenced by Ms. Crane in this statement reduced
to writing?
b. If the answer to (a) is yes, please provide those documents.

Response to Sierra Club Data Request 3.1 The Company objects to this request as vague and ambiguous and as seeking information
that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product
doctrine. Without waiving these objections, the Company responds as follows:
The communications with Bowie regarding contract negotiations were primarily oral and
were often between the attorneys for the Company and for Bowie. The contract term
itself is the best evidence of the contract parties’ intent, including the broad
environmental language that encompasses scenarios where continued operation of the
Huntington plant is rendered uneconomic as well as other scenarios that are broader than economic constraints.
UM-1712/PacifiCorp
April 6, 2015
Sierra Club Data Request 3.2
Sierra Club Data Request 3.2
Reference the Reply Testimony of Cindy A. Crane, page 7, lines 5-12. Ms. Crane
indicated that it is her “understanding that Bowie recognizes that Article 8 is intended to
allow the Company to terminate the CSA if an environmental requirement makes continued operation of Huntington uneconomic.”
a. Did PacifiCorp convey its assessment of Bowie’s recognition of this issue to
Berkshire Hathaway Energy?
b. If the answer to (a) is yes, please provide such documents, or if the communication
has not been reduced to writing, a description of the oral communication. c. Did PacifiCorp convey its assessment of Bowie’s recognition of this issue to
PacifiCorp’s President?
d. If the answer to (c) is yes, please provide such documents, or if the communication
has not been reduced to writing, a description of the oral communication.
Response to Sierra Club Data Request 3.2 The Company objects to this request as overly broad, vague and ambiguous, and as
seeking information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or
attorney work product doctrine. Without waiving this objection, the Company responds as follows:
a. Yes.
b. PacifiCorp had multiple internal discussions about the Deer Creek transaction and
the long-term CSA, primarily oral communications. Many of these
communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work produce doctrine, and it would be unduly burdensome to describe each
communication. An example of the type of written communication was provided
in Confidential Attachment ICNU 1.35 1st Supplemental.
c. The Company assumes the reference is to PacifiCorp’s Chairman and CEO. Yes.
d. Refer to subpart b, above.