2. Background

This proceeding is by and large complete. In April 2007, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling proposing to close the proceeding and asking for parties' response. Several parties commented and asked that the Commission develop a model protective order and non-disclosure agreement tracking the decisions issued in the case. Thereafter, the ALJ ordered the parties to meet and confer in an attempt to stipulate to model documents. The parties engaged in numerous meet and confer efforts, and in July 2007, at the ALJ's request, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted the joint proposal.

The parties were not able to reach agreement on all language in the Model in part because of the pendency of the as-yet unresolved Application for Rehearing of D.06-12-030, and in part for other reasons. The Model SCE submitted reflects each party's view where there are disagreements.

In September 2007, a number of Energy Service Providers (ESPs) filed a petition for modification of D.06-12-030 asking that the Commission modify a "Matrix" of confidential documents attached as Appendix 2 to D.06-06-066. That Matrix identified ESP-provided documents that were and were not entitled to confidentiality protection. The motion's authors, led by AReM, claim the ESP Matrix is in part inconsistent with another Matrix appended to D.06-06-066, covering Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) documents, and in part incomplete.

Several parties - Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), SCE, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) and the Independent Energy Producers (IEPs) - responded to the Petition. PG&E, SCE and TURN proposed changes to the IOU Matrix (a document that differs from the ESP Matrix at issue in the Petition for Modification). The request to modify the IOU Matrix is procedurally improper in comments on another petition, and we therefore deny the request. We address the other comments below. The revised ESP Matrix appears as Appendix B to this decision.

Finally, after we issued D.06-06-066, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling clarifying how and when to use its procedures. We ratify that ruling in this decision.