The CPUC has protested the ISO's recent replacement of Volume Nos. I and II 
of its tariff.  The ISO's tariff filing does not propose changes to any 
substantive provision and is intended to be an uncontroversial filing to 
comply with the designation and formatting requirements of FERC's Order 614.  
Nevertheless, the CPUC:

Asks FERC to reject and modify the confidentiality and disclosure provisions 
of the tariff such that they do not apply to requests for information from 
California state agencies with statutory responsibilities related to 
regulation or oversight of the electric industry.  CPUC asks the provisions 
be modified to require the ISO to respond to such requests in the same manner 
as it responds to data requests from FERC itself.
Points out that the ISO has used this provision to refuse to provide 
responses to the CPUC's subpoena including bid data.  
Also asserts that the Western System Coordinating Council's (WSCC) extra high 
voltage (EHV) data is available in real time to all WSCC members, including 
market participants.

I was wondering if others agree we should file an answer to the CPUC's 
answer, stating the following.

The ISO should make all market information available to all market 
participants as we laid out in our comments on the FERC's November 1 order.
Not all market participants get EHV data - since [date?] the ISO has refused 
to provide this information to the WSCC unless the WSCC keeps this 
information confidential, due to its tariff's confidentiality provisions.  
Accordingly the ISO's data is now only being provided to those market 
participants with control areas. However, we have no way of knowing, and 
therefore assume that utilities, munis, and Federal Power Marketing 
Administrations with control areas are providing this information to their 
merchant function.  This access to market information is unduly 
discriminatory.  To rectify this undue discrimination, the FERC should delete 
the confidentiality provision altogether.
The CPUC's filing is procedurally defective in that the ISO did not change 
the confidentiality provision of its tariff so the CPUC's filing should have 
been in a complaint in which it would have the burden of proof.  Therefore, 
the FERC should dismiss the CPUC's filing.