7. Categorization and Need for Hearing

PG&E requested that this matter be categorized as ratesetting. By Resolution ALJ 176-3215, dated June 12, 2008, the Commission preliminarily determined that this was a ratesetting proceeding and that a hearing would not be necessary.

Notice of the application appeared in the Commission's Daily Calendar of May 29, 2008. A protest to this application was filed by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) on June 27, 2008. DRA asserted that PG&E was seeking overbroad authority to act, in the absence of support as to why such authority is necessary or appropriate, and fails to justify reasons for a waiver of the Commission's competitive bidding rules.

Subsequently, on August 1, 2008, DRA withdrew its protest based on meeting it had with PG&E. PG&E clarified that it only seeks § 851 authorization in this proceeding for the purposes of the financing alternatives described in the application. Other types of transfers, such as sales of facilities, would require separate § 851 applications. PG&E also substantiated to DRA that a majority (over 95%) of recent investor owned utility financings were negotiated rather than competitively bid because of the practical cost efficiencies involved in negotiated placements.

There were no other protests to this application. With DRA's withdraw of its protest we affirm that this is a ratesetting proceeding, and that a hearing is not necessary.