Dian M. Grueneich is the assigned Commissioner and Sarah R. Thomas is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
Findings of Fact
1. A model nondisclosure agreement and protective order (Model) will streamline the process of designating confidential materials.
2. The parties met and conferred and developed a proposed Model that, with modification, is appropriate for use in all cases where confidentiality is claimed for matter covered by this proceeding.
3. The amount of supply data ESPs file publicly should mirror that of IOUs, as we stated in D.06-06-066; "No type of entity (e.g., IOU or ESP) shall receive greater confidentiality for its data merely because it is such an entity."
4. We have protected IOUs' supply forecasts, for limited periods, in order to avoid market manipulation.
5. To the extent that a forecast for RPS purposes reveals the ESPs' total information, and thus, the ESP's total net short, it is reasonable to protect it.
6. The ALJ's August 22, 2006 clarifying ruling on how to comply with Matrix provisions of D.06-06-066 is reasonable.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Model, attached to this decision as Appendix A, should be adopted for use with confidential documents governed by this proceeding.
2. While untimely, we may consider AReM's Petition for Modification in the narrow circumstances presented here.
3. We should grant AReM's Petition in part and deny it in part.
4. We should ratify the ALJ's Ruling applying D.06-06-066.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. With this decision, we adopt a model protective order and non-disclosure agreement (Model), attached to this decision as Appendix A, for use with confidential documents governed by this proceeding. Parties to other proceedings, and in industries other than the electric sector, may find the Model useful as well, although we will not obligate them to use it. Parties to the Resource Adequacy (RA), Procurement, Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and offshoot or successor proceedings shall use the Model. These proceedings bear the following docket numbers: Rulemaking (R.) 08-01-025, R.05-12-013 and R.04-04-003 (RA); R.06-02-013 (Procurement); and R.06-05-027, R.06-02-012, and R.04-04-026 (RPS).
2. Several other energy proceedings, including the California Solar Initiative Rulemaking (R.06-03-004), the Demand Response Rulemaking (R.07-01-041), and the Energy Efficiency Rulemaking (R.06-04-010), and their successor proceedings, may use the same documents as those covered by Decision (D.) 06-06-066. Parties to those proceedings using those documents shall comply with the orders in this proceeding.
3. Because the Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) Matrix and Energy Service Provider (ESP) Matrix appended to D.06-06-066 and discussed in this decision apply to certain energy-related data regardless of where they are used, the Model shall be used in any formal proceeding - or informal context - where such data is furnished to the Commission or third parties.
4. We modify the ESP Matrix appended to D.06-06-066 as set forth in this decision. A new version of the ESP Matrix appears as Appendix B to this decision. It shall apply in all cases to which this decision applies.
5. We modify the IOU Matrix appended to D.06-06-066 on our own motion as set forth in this decision. A new version of the changed page of the IOU Matrix appears as Appendix C to this decision. It shall apply in all cases to which this decision applies.
6. We deny as procedurally improper any request to modify the IOU Matrix appended to D.06-06-066, but we do amend that Matrix to allow IOUs who seek and receive confidential treatment for a regular compliance filing to simply cite the prior ruling or motion when making subsequent compliance filings of the same type.
7. This decision does not prejudge or otherwise affect pending applications for rehearing in this proceeding.
8. We ratify the assigned Administrative Law Judge's August 22, 2006 ruling regarding how and when to comply with the matrices appended to D.06-06-066.
9. An ESP or IOU need not seek confidentiality of regular compliance filings every time it files, but only the first time. The ESP or IOU may simply cite a prior ruling or motion when making subsequent compliance filings. Where the ESP or IOU makes a compliance filing that is not initially accompanied by a motion - e.g., where the filing is made with the Energy Division - the ESP/IOU need only refer back to the initial showing it made to Energy Division in seeking confidentiality for subsequent filings of the same information.
This order is effective today.
Dated April 10, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON