Did a Zinger get approved by CPUC? How much control CPUC should have?

In the process of reviewing the status of the WRAP application to increase the surcharge from $0.20 to $1.15, I ran across an interesting ruling regarding hearings and the potential power of CPUC to prevent public participation.

Not being a lawyer I did a bit of research:

Ex Parte

[Latin, On one side only.] Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone.

An ex parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Ex parte may also describe contact with a person represented by an attorney, outside the presence of the attorney. The term ex parte is used in a case name to signify that the suit was brought by the person whose name follows the term.

Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A bedrock feature of due process is fair notice to parties who may be affected by legal proceedings. An ex parte judicial proceeding, conducted without notice to, and outside the presence of, affected parties, would appear to violate the Constitution. However, adequate notice of judicial proceedings to concerned parties may at times work irreparable harm to one or more of those parties. In such a case, the threatened party or parties may receive an ex parte court hearing to request temporary judicial relief without notice to, and outside the presence of, other persons affected by the hearing.

The following are excerpted from the CPUC ruling:

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 Resolution ALJ 176-3316 

 Administrative Law Judge Division 

 6/27/2013 

R E S O L U T I O N 

RESOLUTION ALJ 176-3316. Preliminary determinations of category and 

need for hearing for proceedings initiated by application pursuant to 

Rule 7.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Rule 7.1 requires the Commission to preliminarily determine, for a proceeding initiated 

by application, the proceeding’s category and whether the proceeding requires a 

hearing. The Commission has reviewed the initial pleading of the utility applicants and 

makes the preliminary determinations of category and need for hearing as shown in the 

attached Preliminary Determination Schedule, consistent with the requirements of 

Rule 7.1. 

No public review or comment is required for this resolution pursuant to Rule 14.7.

I'd appreciate comments regarding the level of control CPUC has, in limiting or controlling  "public" and "ratepayer" participation in the process of regulating the utilities? Is CPUC too close to the utilities they are supposed to regulate? Can CPUC represent us (public and ratepayers) interests in an unbiased fashion, as they are supposed to?