9. Confidentiality of Compensation Data

In Resolution ALJ-184, we discussed confidentiality issues as follows:

We anticipate some concern regarding confidentiality, particularly for personal financial data. We note that we have granted confidential treatment for the personal financial data submitted by intervenors to establish "significant financial hardship," which is one component of eligibility to claim intervenor compensation. Utilities must provide cost data, as described above, but they may aggregate the data and may omit the names of individuals, provided that the utility certifies that the data submitted comply fully with the [resolution's] requirements .... Further, when submitting information claimed to be confidential, the party asserting the claim must submit a redacted (public) and an unredacted (sealed) version of the document containing the information and must state the statutory basis for asserting confidentiality under the Public Records Act. (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.)

Many utilities did request confidential treatment for some of the data they submitted, beyond redaction of individuals' names. Other utilities did not request further confidential treatment, and among those that did, there is no clear pattern.⁸

At the first workshop, intervenors noted that the redactions seemed excessive. They correctly point out that utility personnel costs may be litigated as a component of revenue requirement in general rate cases, that utility expert witnesses are routinely cross-examined regarding their fees, and that much compensation data are required to be reported periodically pursuant to federal securities law or general order of this Commission.

In response, the ALJ said that, in his opinion, and for the unique purposes of this proceeding, the public interest in revealing the redacted information was relatively slight. We agree. For example, neither the reasonableness of utility costs nor the credibility of utility witnesses is at issue here. It is of course necessary that intervenors have access to all the utility data, including redacted data, but intervenors had access to the full data sets upon execution of nondisclosure agreements.

In short, we will grant the motions for confidential treatment. In doing so however; we emphasize the peculiar nature and needs of this proceeding. By granting the motions here, we do not intend to disturb our precedent and practice as they may have evolved in other types of proceedings.

⁸ For example, Verizon reported base pay and incentives but redacted its calculation of overheads as a component of the effective hourly rate. Several utilities redacted the hourly rates paid to outside counsel.