III. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, we do not believe that St. Helena's petition provides justification for reopening this case. Therefore, we will grant the Wine Train's application for rehearing of D.01-06-034 and will deny St. Helena's petition. Furthermore, we do not intend to revisit the issue of the public utility status of the Wine Train. However, on our own motion, we will hold further proceedings14 to give St. Helena the opportunity to specify the particular relief it seeks, other than modifying the public utility status of the Wine Train, and to demonstrate whether there is any justification for reopening this case and/or modifying our prior decisions.15
The assigned ALJ shall direct St. Helena, and the Wine Train, if applicable, to file a statement of issues for possible consideration at this stage of the proceeding. Such issues may include (1) whether there is any justification for modifying the 1996 decisions, (2) whether the environmental documents in this case should be updated, (3) whether there are any changed circumstances that warrant revisiting the scope of the Wine Train's project, including the St. Helena station, and/or (4) whether the practices or facilities of the Wine Train should be reviewed pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 761 and 762. The parties shall be given the opportunity to respond to any statement of issues filed by an opposing party. The assigned ALJ shall then determine whether the designated issues justify further proceedings and the scope of any such proceedings.
Therefore IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Rehearing of Decision 01-06-034 is granted.
2. St. Helena's petition for modification of Decision 96-11-024 is denied.
3. Further proceedings will be held on the Commission's own motion to give St. Helena the opportunity to specify the particular relief it seeks, other than modifying the public utility status of the Wine Train, and to demonstrate whether there is any justification for reopening this case and/or modifying our prior decisions.
4. The assigned ALJ shall direct the parties to file a statement of issues for possible consideration at this stage of the proceeding and shall allow responses to such filings. Such issues may include (1) whether there is any justification for modifying the 1996 decisions, (2) whether the environmental documents in this case should be updated, (3) whether there are any changed circumstances that warrant revisiting the scope of the Wine Train's project, including the St. Helena station, and/or (4) whether the practices or facilities of the Wine Train should be reviewed pursuant to Public Utilities Code sections 761 and 762.
5. The assigned ALJ shall determine whether and to what extent the parties' filings demonstrate the need for further proceedings.
This order is effective today.
Dated January 16, 2003 at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
CARL W. WOOD
LORETTA M. LYNCH
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
Commissioners
I abstain.
/s/ SUSAN P. KENNEDY
Commissioner
14 "Further proceedings" do not necessarily mean further evidentiary hearings. Written filings may be sufficient to resolve the disputes in this case. 15 The usual procedure in a case such as this would be to simply deny St. Helena's petition for modification and to put the burden on St. Helena to return to the Commission with a revised petition or complaint. However, we have already dismissed a complaint by St. Helena and are now denying St. Helen's petition for modification. Under these circumstances, we believe it is appropriate to give St. Helena an opportunity to demonstrate whether good cause exists for reopening this case without additional procedural steps.
