Discussion

In many prior QF contracts Edison and other utilities have been granted orders protecting QF contract information from public view except to specific Commission staff. In those QF contracts, negotiated with non-affiliated QFs, prices and terms were granted confidential treatment, and generally other parties did not protest protection of the information. However, in this instance, both CCC and TURN have raised questions of fairness and access to the KRCC Contract. Furthermore, Edison has stated it will grant similar contract prices and terms to non-affiliated QFs, and thus the information Edison seeks to protect may become known to other parties. While Edison is correct that the purpose of this proceeding is not whether similar QFs should receive similar contracts, nevertheless, in the interest of fairness and equal treatment non-affiliated QFs should have an opportunity to review the actual KRCC Contract.

As both CCC and TURN point out, granting confidential status in this proceeding does impact the use of this information in other proceedings including R.04-04-003. After conferring with the assigned administrative law judges in related proceedings, they agree it would be improper to grant a protective order in this Application that might impact the use of the KRCC contract information in their proceedings. On that basis also, the terms included in the KRCC contract should not be protected.

Finally, all parties recognize that unlike many other applications for approval of non-standard QF contracts, this Application is between Edison and an affiliate. KRCC is not only an affiliate, but an affiliate that was the subject of a substantial disallowance on the basis of a QF agreement.⁵ Although this by itself is not sufficient to warrant disclosure of the proposed KRCC contract, it does imply that close review and scrutiny by parties may be necessary to determine the absence of favoritism.

While Edison has proposed an alternate solution that would restrict and limit parties' review and use of KRCC Contract terms and conditions, that solution would limit the use of this information in a way that essentially protects the information but in a different manner. Thus, this proposal is unworkable.

In all considerations of whether sensitive information should be protected it is necessary to balance the needs for protection against the rights of other parties to review the information. In this case, and for the reasons explained above, Edison's Motion to protect the KRCC Contract should be denied.

Although this ruling denies Edison's Motion regarding the KRCC Contract, no party has objected to Edison's request to protect its strategy and economic analyses used in negotiating the KRCC Contract. In fact, both CCC and TURN have recognized Edison's right to protect this information. Edison has demonstrated that disclosure of its strategy and economic analyses used in negotiating the KRCC Contract is worthy of protection. Public disclosure of this information used in Edison's negotiations with KRCC could affect the outcome of other QF contract negotiations. Therefore, Edison's Motion to protect its negotiation strategy and economic analysis associated with the KRCC Contract should be granted.

In order to implement this ruling and continue this proceeding, Edison should amend its Application consistent with the above discussion.

⁵ See, D.90-09-088, 37 Cal.PUC 2d, 488.