Topic:"Information Disclosure" in M04265

RESPONSE TO INFORMATION REQUEST TO: NSUARB FROM: NSPI Question IR-19: Page 9, lines 4-5 - a) Please provide alll of the documents related to the survey referenced herein. - b) Please provide all of the analysis of the data received as a re...

AI summary NSPI responds to an information request from NSUARB regarding documents and analysis related to a survey referenced in Mr. Whalen's evidence. NSPI indicates that supporting documentation is attached and that the data collected was summarized and reported as Table A in their submission.

CONFIDENTIALITY NSPI proposes that item 6 of the procedures set forth under Attachment A to the Load Retention Rate would read as follows: (6) To protect confidential NSPI and customer data, none of the data or analysis used in the impleme...

AI summary NSPI proposes confidentiality for data and analysis used in implementing the Load Retention Rate, citing concerns from customers about public disclosure of sensitive information. Stora Enso supports this, and Dr. Rosenberg's testimony is referenced. NSPI suggests a closed approval process involving only NSPI, the customer, and the DARB.

main. The Board will make available to persons, upon request, the names of all customers who have applied for the rate and the names of all customers who have been approved for service under the rate. The Board believes there is some merit...

AI summary The Board will disclose customer names who applied for and were approved for a rate but will not reveal specific rates or terms. It acknowledges concerns about NSPI's competitive disadvantage but believes public interest requires transparency about the rate's impact. NSPI must annually report total revenue and energy sold under the rate, which will be made public once at least two customers are on the rate.

regulatory process to be seen and perceived as being fair and equitable, there must be [mal disclosure ofthe approved rate. lfnot, then in our opinion, the system becomes flawed and opaque to the general public.

AI summary The text emphasizes the importance of transparency in the regulatory process, stating that without proper disclosure of approved rates, the system becomes flawed and opaque to the public.

chedule was established for discovery and the prefiling of testimony. The hearing on the merits of GSU's request for both interim and permanent approval of the filing was scheduled for April 13, 1987. By examiner's order dated February 3,...

AI summary The document outlines the procedural history of a regulatory proceeding involving GSU, including the scheduling of hearings, notice requirements, and the intervention by the Office of Public Utility Counsel. Key events include the filing of notices, publication in newspapers, and the granting of a motion to intervene.

ective Order, on July 1. 1988, in response to petitions filed by AP&L and Mid-America on June 14 and June 20, 1988, respectively. The Protective Order · ·· · ···- - - - · found that certain information related to the analyses made by AP&L....

AI summary A Protective Order was issued on July 1, 1988, to seal certain information related to co-generation feasibility analyses by AP&L and Mid-America. The order was expanded later to include additional information requested by the Staff. Prepared Testimony was filed by representatives of AP&L, Mid-America, and the Staff, while AEEC did not participate.