9. Motion for Reconsideration of the Scoping Memo and Ruling
CFC seeks Commission reconsideration of the Scoping Ruling on the grounds that CFC was denied the opportunity for a fair hearing on issues presented in its protest, PHC conference statement, and at the PHC. CFC also contends that evidentiary hearings are necessary, but that the Scoping Ruling erroneously concluded there were no issues of material fact in dispute.
Our rules do not provide for interlocutory appeals of rulings on procedural and evidentiary matters. Instead, Rule 13.6(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure permits the Commission to review evidentiary rulings in determining the matter on its merits. Only in extraordinary circumstances, where prompt decision by the Commission is necessary to promote substantial justice, do our rules permit the assigned Commissioner or ALJ to refer evidentiary rulings to the Commission for determination. The ALJ and the assigned Commissioner did not find such extraordinary circumstances in this instance and thus we resolve the motion in this decision.
CFC argues that the issues raised in its Protest, PHC statement, and at the PHC should have been within the scope of the proceeding. CFC contends that the Scoping Ruling prevented CFC from addressing issues properly within the scope of the proceeding such as the reasonableness of the rates proposed. CFC argues that the Scoping Ruling precludes the Commission from considering anything CFC filed because it would be considered "beyond the scope of issues identified in the scoping memo."48
The Scoping Ruling clearly stated the issues that were properly within the scope of the proceeding. All parties could address those issues. CFC was not prevented from filing comments on issues properly determined to be within the scope of the proceeding. CFC chose not to file any comments.
With respect to CFC's contention that evidentiary hearings are necessary, CFC again argues that evidentiary hearings are necessary but again fails to identify issues of material fact in dispute to warrant evidentiary hearings. For example, CFC lists conditions it believes PG&E must show to be eligible for an expedited process, including, for example, the requirement that the project further one or more of the benefits identified in D.09-09-029.49 CFC fails to state, however, that the listed criteria are the requirements for a utility that is seeking to use the Tier-3 advice letter process and are not applicable to this Application.50 No party joined CFC in its request for hearing. We affirm that there is no need for hearing. CFC's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Any other outstanding motions in this proceeding not already addressed by a specific ruling are deemed denied.
48 CFC Motion for Reconsideration at 3.
49 CFC Motion for Reconsideration at 8.
50 PG&E's Application does not seek to use the Tier-3 advice letter process.
