3. Categorization, Need for Hearings, Ex Parte Rules, and Designation of Principal Hearing Officer

In the OIR, the Commission preliminarily categorized this proceeding as ratesetting and stated that any evidentiary hearings that may be required will be limited in scope. We directed that any respondent who objected to the categorization or need for hearing should raise its objections in its November 21, 2001 filing and any other person who objects should raise an objection in December 2001 comments. No party addressed the categorization issue. On the need for hearings, several parties objected, stating they thought written comment would be sufficient for the Commission to address the issues.

I affirm the preliminary categorization of ratesetting, as that term is defined in Rule 5(c ). I do not agree that written comment is sufficient. I prefer a fuller evidentiary record here that will allow the Commission to resolve any factual disputes, better coordinate with related proceedings, and afford the Commission and interested parties the opportunity to question sponsoring parties' witnesses. We will limit the scope of issues to be addressed in evidentiary hearing.

In a ratesetting proceeding, Rule 5(k)(2) defines the "presiding officer" as the principal hearing officer designated as such by the assigned Commissioner prior to the first hearing in the proceeding. I designate ALJ Christine M. Walwyn as the principal hearing officer.

The Commission's ex parte rules applicable to this proceeding are set forth in Rules 7(c) and 7.1. These ex parte rules apply to all parties of record and, more broadly, to all persons with an interest in any substantive matter; the broad category of individuals subject to our ex parte rules is defined in Section 1701.1(c)(4).