Pusuic Unitmes Commission ‘Srare oF Cauromua ‘Sau Francisco, Cauironmes 94102 MICHAEL PICKER Tev1a1s) 703-2008 ‘Gomussionen Fax: (418) 703.1903, July 24, 2015 ‘Assemblymember Anthony Rendon Chair, Assembly Committee on Utlities and Commerce State Capitol P.0. Box 942849 Sacramento, CA 94249-0063, Dear Chair Rendon am writing you today to give you an update on where things currently stand In regards to your request that the CPUC compel Southern California Edison to turn over emails relating to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. On April 4", 2015, the assigned Administrative Law Judge to the CPUC’s San Onofre Investigation (1.12- 10-013) issued a ruling ordering Southern California Edison to produce internal e-mails related to their late-filed ex-parte notices. The ruling specifically ordered Southern California Edison to produce the following documents: -SCE shall produce all documents pertaining to oral and written communications about potential settlement of the SONGS Ol between any SCE employee and CPUC decisionmaker(s) between ‘March 1, 2013 and November 32, 2014 which reported, discussed, referred to, or otherwise contained a description of such communications. SCE shail produce all written communications internal to SCE which reported, discussed, referred to, or otherwise contained, a description of oral or written communications about settlement with CPUC decisionmaker(s), identified pursuont to Question 1 above. “SCE shall promptly fie notices of any undisclosed communication identified in Question 1 above or any other oral or written ex parte communication relating to the substantial issues described in the Ol! and the Scoping memos of various phases of the consolidated proceedings, ‘Southern California Edison submitted their compliance filing on April 29, 2015. These documents were ‘made public through their submission to the service list of 1.12-10-013. If your staff lacks these documents, we can readily provide them. On June 26th, 2015, the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling requesting supplemental Information from Southern California Edison regarding their April 29th, 2015 compliance filing. Southern California Edison submitted their response to the June 26th ruling on July 3rd, 2015. These documentswere made public through their submission to the service list of 1.12-10-013. If your staff lacks these documents, we can readily provide them. In addition to these two rulings, the Commission is currently going through the process of reviewing any internal emails or documents that have been deemed responsive to your March 19th, 2015 request, including the Office of Ratepayer Advocates documents. So far, 32,000 ORA emails have been found to be potentially responsive to your request. These emails are currently being reviewed by Commission staff per the rules set out under Public Utilities Code Section 583. ‘The Commissions takes all information requests from the Legislature seriously, and we must follow all statutory directives. Public Utilities Code Section $83 provides strict prohibitions on release of. information provided to the Commission from the utilities. Specifically it states that, except in certain limited cases, “no information furnished to the commission by a public utility .. shall be .. nade public except on order of the commission, or by the commission or a commissioner in the course of a hearing or proceeding.” Tl note several important factors in the Commission's handling of requests for information provided by the utilities. First, the Legislature, when It acted over 60 years ago to adopt Public Utilities Code Section 583, added the prospect of personal criminal liability for any CPUC staff making an improper disclosure. ‘Second, the identification of appropriately confidential and privileged information that should not be disclosed to the public isa highly legally technical process that necessitates the Commission’s Legal Division taking the lead in processing the requests. These factors, in particular the specter of criminal liability on an individual civil servant even for inadvertent improper disclosure, add additional and ‘unique challenges for the CPUC in responding to a detailed request like the one you have made that other state agencies do not have to contend with. Apart from these efforts, Commissioner Catherine J.K, Sandoval, the Assigned Commissioner to the San Onofre investigation, continues to work with the assigned Administrative Law Judge and staff to consider all active matters in the proceeding. ‘As President, | do not have any power to order an action disclosing material that other Commissioners do not also wield. Nor do I believe it is appropriate for a Commissioner who is not the Assigned ‘Commissioner to interfere with the fair and efficient processing of an ongoing investigation or other proceeding, particularly when these matters are undergoing active deliberation in a Commission proceeding in which legal issues concerning the appropriateness of disclosure have not been adjudicated. | will continue to work diligently with you and the Committee to ensure timely consideration of your requests consistent with the limitations imposed on the Commission by California statutes. Sinceret Michael PickerCommissioner Michel Peter Florio, CPUC Commissioner Catherine J.K. Sandoval, CPUC Commissioner Carla J. Peterman, CPUC Commissioner Liane M. Randolph, CPUC ‘Timothy Sullivan, Executive Director, CPUC Lynn Sadler, Director, Office of Governmental Affairs, CPUC