5. Categorization and Need for Hearing
On April 8, 2010, the Commission preliminarily categorized this proceeding as ratesetting.18 No party opposed the preliminary categorization, either in responses or protests to the application, or at the PHC. The assigned Commissioner did not file a Scoping Memo,19 thereby allowing limited resources to be focused on quickly placing a proposed decision on our agenda for consideration. We affirm the preliminary determination that the categorization is ratesetting.
On April 8, 2010, the Commission also preliminarily determined that hearing would be necessary.20 No party requested hearing, either in responses or protests to the application, or at the PHC.21 While a PHC was held to better understand positions, no hearing was held. Rather, the matter has been resolved based on the pleadings. An assigned Commissioner's decision to reverse our preliminary determination on the need for hearing must be placed on the Commission's Consent Agenda for approval.22 We do not consider that reversal in a separate decision but, for administrative efficiency, we address the matter here. We agree with parties and the assigned Commissioner that no hearing is necessary, and reverse our preliminary determination otherwise.
18 Resolution ALJ 176-3251.
19 Rule 7.3(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).
20 Resolution ALJ 176-3251.
21 DRA cautiously said it "does not think it likely hearings will be necessary..." (DRA Protest at 5.)
22 Rule 7.5.
