ALJ/SRT/eap Mailed 7/5/2005
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Implement Senate Bill No. 1488 (2004 Cal. Stats., Ch. 690 (Sept. 22, 2004)) Relating to Confidentiality of Information |
FILED PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION JUNE 30, 2005 SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE RULEMAKING 05-06-040 |
I. Summary
This order implements Senate Bill No. 1488 (SB) (2004 Cal. Stats., Ch. 690 (Sept. 22, 2004)). SB 1488 requires that we examine our practices regarding confidential information (Pub. Util. Code §§ 454.5(g) and 583, and the Public Records Act, Gov. Code § 6250, et seq.) to ensure meaningful public participation in our proceedings and open decisionmaking, while taking account of our obligations under §§ 454.5(g) and 583 to protect the confidentiality of certain information. We invite the parties to suggest ways to promote an appropriate level of openness at the Commission in the spirit of SB 1488 while preserving as confidential information that, if public, could facilitate market manipulation or lead to ratepayer harm. Where parties predict harm from the release of confidential information, we direct them to be as specific as possible about how such harm might arise.
We plan to conduct this proceeding in two phases. Initially, we will examine our confidentiality practices in the context of electricity procurement activity. During the first phase, the respondents will be the three large electric
utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE), as well as the other respondents in our electric procurement proceeding, Rulemaking (R.) 04-04-003.1 In the second phase, we will examine other contexts, including our practices under General Order (GO) 66-C. At that time, we may name additional respondents.
1 We name Energy Service Providers (ESPs) and Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) as well as the large electric utilities as respondents because SB 1488 governs, at a minimum, "procurement" data. It thus makes sense to have the same respondents in this proceeding and in the procurement proceeding. We named ESPs and CCAs as respondents in R.04-04-003 in Decision 05-03-013.
