
(8)	Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Matters

PacifiCorp is party to a variety of legal actions arising out of the normal course of business. Plaintiffs occasionally seek punitive or exemplary damages. PacifiCorp does not believe that such normal and routine litigation will have a material impact on its consolidated financial results. PacifiCorp is also involved in other kinds of legal actions, some of which assert or may assert claims or seek to impose fines, penalties and other costs in substantial amounts and are described below.

USA Power

In October 2005, prior to Berkshire Hathaway Energy's ownership of PacifiCorp, PacifiCorp was added as a defendant to a lawsuit originally filed in February 2005 in the Third District Court of Salt Lake County, Utah ("Third District Court") by USA Power, LLC, USA Power Partners, LLC and Spring Canyon Energy, LLC (collectively, the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff's complaint alleged that PacifiCorp misappropriated confidential proprietary information in violation of Utah's Uniform Trade Secrets Act and accused PacifiCorp of breach of contract and related claims in regard to the Plaintiff's 2002 and 2003 proposals to build a natural gas-fueled generating facility in Juab County, Utah. In October 2007, the Third District Court granted PacifiCorp's motion for summary judgment on all counts and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims in their entirety. In February 2008, the Plaintiff filed a petition requesting consideration by the Utah Supreme Court. In May 2010, the Utah Supreme Court reversed summary judgment and remanded the case back to the Third District Court for further consideration, which led to a trial that began in April 2012. In May 2012, the jury reached a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on its claims. The jury awarded damages to the Plaintiff for breach of contract and misappropriation of a trade secret in the amounts of $18 million for actual damages and $113 million for unjust enrichment. In May 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking exemplary damages. Under the Utah Uniform Trade Secrets law, the judge may award exemplary damages in an additional amount not to exceed twice the original award. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to seek recovery of attorneys' fees in an amount equal to 40% of all amounts ultimately awarded in the case. In October 2012, PacifiCorp filed post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial (collectively, "PacifiCorp's post-trial motions"). The trial judge stayed briefing on the Plaintiff's motions, pending resolution of PacifiCorp's post-trial motions. As a result of a hearing in December 2012, the trial judge denied PacifiCorp's post-trial motions with the exception of reducing the aggregate amount of damages to $113 million. In January 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion for prejudgment interest. In the first quarter of 2013, PacifiCorp filed its responses to the Plaintiff's post-trial motions for exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. An initial judgment was entered in April 2013 in which the trial judge denied the Plaintiff's motions for exemplary damages and prejudgment interest and ruled that PacifiCorp must pay the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees based on applying a reasonable rate to hours worked rather than the Plaintiff's request for an amount equal to 40% of all amounts ultimately awarded. In May 2013, a final judgment was entered against PacifiCorp in the amount of $115 million, which includes the $113 million of aggregate damages previously awarded and amounts awarded for the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees. The final judgment also ordered that postjudgment interest accrue beginning as of the date of the April 2013 initial judgment. In May 2013, PacifiCorp posted a surety bond issued by a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway to secure its estimated obligation. PacifiCorp strongly disagrees with the jury's verdict and plans to vigorously pursue all appellate measures. Both PacifiCorp and the Plaintiff filed appeals with the Utah Supreme Court. The parties are briefing their positions before the Utah Supreme Court with briefing expected to be completed and oral arguments held by late 2014. As of March 31, 2014, PacifiCorp had accrued $117 million for the final judgment and postjudgment interest, and believes the likelihood of any additional material loss is remote; however, any additional awards against PacifiCorp could also have a material effect on the consolidated financial results. Any payment of damages will be at the end of the appeals process, which could take as long as several years.

Sanpete County, Utah Rangeland Fire

In June 2012, a major rangeland fire occurred in Sanpete County, Utah. Certain parties allege that contact between two of PacifiCorp’s transmission lines may have triggered a ground fault that led to the fire. PacifiCorp has engaged experts to review the cause and origin of the fire, as well as to assess the damages. PacifiCorp has accrued its best estimate of the potential loss and believes it is reasonably possible it may incur additional loss beyond the amount accrued. PacifiCorp does not believe the potential additional loss will have a material impact to its consolidated financial results, particularly with PacifiCorp's ability to seek insurance recovery if considered necessary.

Northwest Refund Case

In October 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") issued an order on remand by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in which it determined that additional procedures are needed to address possible unlawful activity that may have influenced prices in the Pacific Northwest wholesale spot market during the period from December 2000 through June 2001. PacifiCorp was a participant in the Pacific Northwest wholesale spot market during this period. The FERC ordered an evidentiary, trial-type hearing before an administrative law judge to permit parties to present evidence of alleged unlawful market activity. However, the FERC held the hearing in abeyance pending settlement discussions among all parties. The plaintiff parties to the proceeding filed claims against multiple parties, including PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp entered into settlements with the plaintiff parties, and the resulting settlements were approved by the FERC. The outcome of such settlements did not have a material impact on PacifiCorp's consolidated financial results. The FERC, however, declined to dismiss PacifiCorp from the case entirely, noting that additional parties may, in the future, assert sequential claims against parties to the case, including PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp believes it is unlikely that the FERC will address sequential claims until after the primary cases have proceeded through the trial-type hearing. Due to the uncertainties associated with the sequential claims, PacifiCorp is unable to predict the outcome and the impact of any claims on its consolidated financial results.

Environmental Laws and Regulations

PacifiCorp is subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding air and water quality, renewable portfolio standards, emissions performance standards, climate change, coal combustion byproduct disposal, hazardous and solid waste disposal, protected species and other environmental matters that have the potential to impact PacifiCorp's current and future operations. PacifiCorp believes it is in material compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.