Attachment 5 - Summary of submissions Issue Stakeholder Summary Did not support the AER’s proposed Attachment 1 and Attachment 1 ENA proposed a revised Attachment 1. Supports ENA's proposed Attachment 1. Submitted that this Attachment 1 would provide stakeholders with additional clarity Jemena regarding the type of information for which confidentiality claims are normally approved. SP AusNet Supports ENA's proposed Attachment 1. Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Submitted that the ActewAGL assessment of public benefit versus detriment should not be a prerequisite to compliance. Submitted they would prefer to follow their existing APA Group confidentiality claim procedure. Supports the AER’s Attachment 1. Submitted that the Aurora requirement to use the Attachment 1 for all confidential information would be onerous. Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Concerned that the NSW DNSPs AER’s Attachment 1 does not align with statutory framework. Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Did not agree with the Energex AER’s proposal to reject confidentiality claims based on with the Attachment 1. Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Did not agree with the Ergon Energy AER’s requirement for NSPs to prove detriment against public benefit. Supports the AER’s Attachment 1. Requested that the Attachment 1 summarise the nature of the confidential Ethnic Communities & MEU information and the materiality of the information to the pricing decision Submitted that the onus should be on the NSP to make a full case for non-disclosure. Requested that the AER’s Attachment SSROC 1 summarise the nature of the confidential information and its materiality to the pricing decision. The default position should
Attachment 5 - Summary of submissions Issue Stakeholder Summary Attachment 1 ENA Did not support the AER’s proposed Attachment 1 and proposed a revised Attachment 1. Jemena Supports ENA's proposed Attachment 1. Submitted that this Attachment 1 would provide stakeholders with additional clarity regarding the type of information for which confidentiality claims are normally approved. SP AusNet Supports ENA's proposed Attachment 1. ActewAGL Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Submitted that the assessment of public benefit versus detriment should not be a prerequisite to compliance. APA Group Submitted they would prefer to follow their existing confidentiality claim procedure. Aurora Supports the AER’s Attachment 1. Submitted that the requirement to use the Attachment 1 for all confidential information would be onerous. NSW DNSPs Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Concerned that the AER’s Attachment 1 does not align with statutory framework. Energex Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Did not agree with the AER’s proposal to reject confidentiality claims based on with the Attachment 1. Ergon Energy Supports ENA’s proposed Attachment 1. Did not agree with the AER’s requirement for NSPs to prove detriment against public benefit. Ethnic Communities & MEU Supports the AER’s Attachment 1. Requested that the Attachment 1 summarise the nature of the confidential information and the materiality of the information to the pricing decision SSROC Submitted that the onus should be on the NSP to make a full case for non-disclosure. Requested that the AER’s Attachment 1 summarise the nature of the confidential information and its materiality to the pricing decision. The default position should
AER%20Explanatory%20statement%20-%20draft%20confidentiality%20guideline%20-%20August%202013_2.DOCX