Opinion ID: 1978818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Confidentiality of the Public Utilities' Jurisdictional-Revenue Filings

Text: OPC next contends that the Commission should have held that the revenue data that the utilities submit to enable the Commission to determine the reimbursement fee to be paid by each company must be deemed public and must be published in NOPRs and made available for review by ratepayers. [10] OPC relies on the FOIA provisions at D.C.Code § 2-536(a)(5) and (6), which state that Without limiting the meaning of other sections of this subchapter, the following categories of information are specifically made public information, and do not require a written request for information: ... (5) Correspondence and materials referred to therein, by and with a public body, relating to any regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement responsibilities of the public body, whereby the public body determines, or states an opinion upon, or is asked to determine or state an opinion upon, the rights of the District, the public, or any private party; (6) Information in or taken from any account, voucher, or contract dealing with the receipt or expenditure of public or other funds by public bodies.... Section 2-536(b) states that [f]or records created on or after November 1, 2001, each public body shall make records available on the Internet or ... by other electronic means. Nothing in section 2-536 requires that public information be published in the D.C. Register. In Order 14392, the Commission acknowledged that the District's FOIA favors public disclosure of information in public records and, through section 2-536, requires generally that some categories of information be treated as public information and made available without written request. Order 14392 at 4, citing D.C.Code §§ 2-532 and 2-536(a). The Commission noted, however, that D.C.Code § 2-534 exempts from disclosure some information, including [t]rade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from outside the government, to the extent that disclosure would result in substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained. D.C.Code § 2-534(a)(1). Without making a determination as to whether any of the public utilities had demonstrated or would be able at some future date to demonstrate the likelihood of substantial competitive injury from release of particular revenue dataan omission that OPC argues constituted an abrogation of the Commission's statutory responsibilitythe Commission noted that both Verizon and Washington Gas had asserted that disclosure of their revenue information would put them at a competitive disadvantage. We have some doubt about (but need not decide for purposes of this opinion) whether public-utility jurisdictional revenue data fall within the scope of information described in D.C.Code 2-536 §§ (a)(5) or (a)(6). [11] However, even if the revenue data do fall within the scope of one or both of these provisions, we agree with the Commission's reasoning that section 2-536(a) does not mandate disclosure of data that satisfy the requirements of D.C.Code 2-534(a). We base this conclusion on the introductory language of section 2-536(a), which declares broad categories of information to be public [w]ithout limiting the meaning of other sections of this subchapter. We construe that qualifying language to denote that information that is determined to be exempt from disclosure under section 2-534(a) need not be treated as public information and made available pursuant to section 2-536. It might be objected (assuming that the utility jurisdictional revenue data fall within sections 2-536(a)(5) or (6)) that, without the Commission having made a specific determination that a utility's revenue data are exempt from disclosure under D.C.Code § 2-534(a)(1) as financial information whose disclosure would result in substantial competitive harm, the Commission lacks a basis for refusing to treat the data as public information under section 2-536(a). The answer to this point is that the Commission's FOIA regulations provide that [a]ny document filed under seal which is alleged by a party to contain proprietary information shall be deemed excepted from disclosure pursuant to [section 2-534(a)(1)], unless the Commission, after notice to the affected party and opportunity to be heard, orders that [section 534(a)(1)] does not apply. 15 DCMR § 704.3 (italics added). We are satisfied that, at least where (as here) it is not manifest that the information in question is public information, the Commission's regulation deeming the information confidential until a challenge is resolved is not unreasonable. [12] The Commission's regulations further provide that [w]hen alleged proprietary information is the subject of a FOIA request, the General Counsel is required to notify the party whose information is the subject of the request and to provide both that party and the requestor an opportunity to file responses, after which the Commission shall issue an order regarding whether the alleged proprietary information is exempt from disclosure. 15 DCMR §§ 704.4(a)-(d). In short, if OPC or any member of the public makes a request under FOIA for the revenue data that the utilities have designated as proprietary, the Commission will need to determine promptly whether the claimed proprietary information actually is exempt from disclosure. [13] Thus, neither the Commission's Orders under review here, nor this opinion, necessarily cuts off OPC's or the public's recourse to utility jurisdictional-revenue data for fiscal year 2006 or any other year. We also note that, in particular proceedings in the future, OPC-which has party status in any Commission proceeding pursuant to D.C.Code § 34-804(a)-also will have the option of obtaining information by entering into a proprietary agreement with any utility that asserts that its information is proprietary, see 15 DCMR § 150.4(a), or by challenging a utility's claim of confidentiality through a timely PIDR. See 15 DCMR § 150.4(b). Accordingly, while we can agree with OPC that the Commission's redacted NOPRs, see note 2 supra, were singularly unhelpful to OPC in carrying out its statutory responsibility to assure that public-utility ratepayers' interests are adequately represented in proceedings before the Commission, see D.C.Code § 34-804(d)(5), we are not persuaded by OPC's contention that an order by this court requiring publication of the revenue data in NOPRs is the only way to determine if the Commission has correctly applied the [statutory] reimbursement formula. For the foregoing reasons, Commission Orders 14392 and 14596 are Affirmed.