As you may already know, the CPUC filed a motion at FERC asking for a 
protective order and to compel production of the information they subpoened 
from us in the CPUC's OII case.  Given the timing, we should discuss this on 
our conference call scheduled for tomorrow.

They request that we be required:
to answer their motion on Thursday,
to provide the information within 5 working days of a FERC ordering 
production, and
to provide of P&L information and spread sheets detailing our deals, 
specifically delivery point, delivery date, counterparty, volume and price.

We may not have a problem providing this information for use by FERC in its 
proceeding subject to a confidentiality agreement but I think we would oppose 
their requests for:
the information to be provided for "government eyes only" -  this would 
prohibit EPMI from defending itself vis-a-vis other market participants.
a FERC confidentiality order that would could allow FERC to "share" this 
information with the CPUC (for purposes of the PUC's OII proceeding) pursuant 
to 16 U.S.C. 824h(c).  16 USC 824g(c) requires the Commission to make 
information available to state commissions as may be of assistance in state 
regulation of public utilities.  We should argue that 16 USC 824h(c) does not 
apply here given that we are not a public utility nor does the PUC regulate 
how much market power wholesale marketers exercise or the level of market 
power mitigation (these are the bases the PUC provides for explaining why it 
should have this information.)  
the above contractual information to allow them to analyze the 
competitiveness of the forward market to evaluate the wisdom of the 
Commission's  decision to allow the UDC's "unfettered access" to the forwards 
market.  This argument is unpersuasive given that the CPUC can get 
information about the competitiveness of the forward markets from the Wall 
Street Journal's listing of NYMEX prices.