6. Categorization and Need for Hearings
In Resolution ALJ 176-3046, dated September 7, 2000, the Commission preliminarily categorized this proceeding as ratesetting and preliminarily determined that an evidentiary hearing would be necessary. Based on the record, we affirm that this is a ratesetting proceeding.
There does not appear to be a need for an evidentiary hearing. There are no disputed facts that are material to today's decision. Additionally, PG&E has
asked for a hearing only if the Commission imposes a fine.27 Today's decision does not impose a fine. Therefore, consistent with Rule 6.5(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rule), we hereby reverse our preliminary determination in Resolution ALJ 176-3046 that an evidentiary hearing would be necessary.28 We now find that a hearing is not necessary.
27 A.00-08-022, Amendment dated October 30, 2000, pp. 11-12, 18. 28 Rule 6.5(b) provides that if the Assigned Commissioner changes the preliminary determination on the need for hearings, the matter shall be placed on the Commission's consent agenda for approval of that change.
