Free Post Trial Brief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00488-SGB

Document 380-2

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 1 of 1

Attachment 1 Sacramento Municipal Utility District's Summary Table of Adjusted Damages per Court's March 31, 2006 Order SMUD Position SMUD's Total Costs Offsets Per Court's March 31, 2006 Order: Table A Costs from 1/1/92 through 5/31/97, removed per the Court's Order Eliminate all internal labor except for the "old" 16 employees. Stipulated Adjustments to Table A Net modification based on "new" 16 employees.[2] Table B Less: Costs attributable to transportation features Table C Less: Costs attributable to pre-May 15, 1997 obligations. Vectra TNW Misc. Table D Less: Costs related to 1/22 of ISFSI during relevant time period Table E Less: Costs related to on-site drop testing during relevant time period
[3] [1]

Government Position (where different)

$

78,558,211

$ $ $ $

(19,347,430) (9,482,508) (6,514) 1,479,323 0

$

(2,168,321)

(13,854,071)

$ $ $

(167,835) (1,534)

(1,149,366) (11,415,344)
[4]

$

(4,618)

$

(754,057)

Other Costs From Court's Order Dated March 31, 2006 Spent Fuel Building Upgrade PCC Loan Workout Agreement Wet Pool Cost Savings

$ $ $

(450,000) (500,000) (4,196,360)

Total Damages With Adjustments Per Court's March 31, 2006 Orders

$

42,958,357

$

17,396,409

Notes: Table A from the Joint Filing of Tables A, D, and E (Dckt. #361) reduced direct labor, indirect labor, and corporate allocation to reflect only those labor costs attributable to the 16 employees identified in the Court's order and to reflect only the indirect labor costs for those 16 employees before 11/1/99, a period in which there was no dispute between the financial experts as to their inclusion. The amount of the deduction is calculated as follows: Labor costs (sum of Labor, Indirect Labor, and Corporate Allocation for period between 6/1/97 and 12/31/03) represent $13,548,608 of SMUD's total claimed damages of $78 million. See Summary of Total Costs by Category and Dates (submitted herewith). Summing the same labor cost numbers from Table A from the Joint Filing of Tables A, D, and E (Dckt. #361), which includes labor costs for only the 16 employees identified in the Court's March 31, 2006 Order, produces labor costs of $4,066,100, i.e. $9,482,508 less than SMUD's claimed labor costs.
[2] [1]

SMUD has identified a "new" set of 16 employees who charged a majority of their time to the dry storage project during the damages period, from June 1, 1997 through December 31, 2003, rather than the "old" set of 16 employees who charged a majority of their time during the entire period from 1992 through 2003. (The "new" 16 are not the same set of 16 employees identified in the Court's order, though there is some overlap between the two sets). The labor costs for the new set of 16 employees set out in SMUD's proposed modification (Dckt. #372) are, on a net basis, $1,479,323 higher than the set of employees identified in the Court's order for the damages period. The government agrees with SMUD's calculation of the number, but disagrees that the adjustment is appropriate.

[3]

SMUD originally had an additional deduction of ($9,866) related to Packaging Technology for a total Table C adjustment of ($179,235). The ($9,866) deduction, however, is also deducted in Table E and therefore has been removed from the Miscellaneous Table C deductions to avoid a double deduction. See Defendant's Filing of Tables A, B, and C (Dckt. #362), at Table C at fn.3.

[4]

The government's position is that all $25,068,134 from TNW should be deducted as part of Table C, but it has already removed a significant portion of these costs as part of its Table B deduction. Accordingly, the government's proposed deduction constitutes the remaining amount of the TNW costs. See Defendant's Filing of Tables A, B, and C (Dckt. #362), at Table C at fn.2. SMUD disagrees with this deduction.