2. Category of Proceeding/Ex Parte Communications
Pursuant to Rule 6(c)(1),2 the Commission preliminarily categorized this proceeding as adjudicatory. Although PG&E's answer asserts that this case should be categorized as ratesetting, PG&E failed to timely file an appeal of the initial categorization as required by Rule 6.4. Moreover, even if PG&E had filed a timely appeal, it is clear that this proceeding is properly categorized as adjudicatory. The issue in this proceeding does not concern the reasonableness of any PG&E rate schedule (see Public Utilities Code Section 1702); the fundamental issue, rather, is which PG&E rate schedule properly applies to the electric service rendered to the Complainants. Therefore, PG&E's request for recategorization of this matter as ratesetting is denied. The categorization of this proceeding as adjudicatory is now final.
Ex parte communications are prohibited in adjudicatory proceedings pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1701.2(b) and Rule 7(b).
2 Rule citations are to the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure unless otherwise specified.