3. Other Procedural Issues

3.1. Change in Determination on Need for Hearings

The Scoping Memo confirmed the categorization of this proceeding as ratesetting and that hearings were necessary. However, the proposed settlement is governed by Rule 12 et seq., which provides that no hearing is necessary if there are no material contested issues of fact, or if the contested issue is one of law. After review of the Joint Motion, the Settlement Agreement, the application, prepared testimony and exhibits, and other filed documents in the record, we have determined that no material contested issues of fact remain and conclude that no hearing is required. We therefore change the designation regarding hearings and determine that no hearings are necessary.

3.2. Receipt into Evidence of Testimony and Exhibits

Since evidentiary hearings were not held in this proceeding, there was no opportunity to enter testimony and exhibits into the record. In order to fairly assess the Settlement Agreement, it is necessary to include all testimony and exhibits submitted by the Joint Parties into the record. We therefore receive into evidence GSWC's and DRA's testimony and exhibits that were served on the service list in A.10-07-012, as detailed in Attachment A to this decision.