C. Exceptions, Replies, and Disposition In response to the Recommended Decision, PAWC and I&E filed ALJ’s Exceptions to which DSC and the OCA filed Replies. At times overlapping, each of and Exceptions falls roughly into two categories, either a challenge to the PAWC’s I&E’s sufficiency of the evidence presented before the ALJ in this petition proceeding or a challenge to the petition process itself used by DSC to request the Commission to initiate an investigation. With respect to and arguments regarding the sufficiency of PAWC’s I&E’s the evidence, we find those arguments as provided in Exceptions to this petition parties’ proceeding to be premature with respect to the relief requested, the initiation of an investigation as distinguished from the ordering of an acquisition. Further, the prematurity of their conclusions has resulted in and presentation of PAWC’s I&E’s incongruous Exceptions to the process that alternatively assert, respectively, that an investigation will be a waste of time or has otherwise already been conducted. In granting the relief requested by DSC and the OCA, we find that neither nor PAWC’s characterization of this proceeding accurately describes its purpose or result. I&E’s Accordingly, we first summarize below these Exceptions and the and OCA’s DSC’s Replies, we then dispose of them collectively. 1. and Exceptions PAWC’s I&E’s a. PAWC PAWC filed two Exceptions. overriding sentiment is that it is PAWC’s clear from this petition proceeding that Commission cannot ultimately make the “the mandatory findings of fact necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section therefore 529” doing so would be a of the and the time and and “waste Commission’s parties’ resources”
C. Exceptions, Replies, and Disposition In response to the ALJ’s Recommended Decision, PAWC and I&E filed Exceptions to which DSC and the OCA filed Replies. At times overlapping, each of PAWC’s and I&E’s Exceptions falls roughly into two categories, either a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence presented before the ALJ in this petition proceeding or a challenge to the petition process itself used by DSC to request the Commission to initiate an investigation. With respect to PAWC’s and I&E’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, we find those parties’ arguments as provided in Exceptions to this petition proceeding to be premature with respect to the relief requested, the initiation of an investigation as distinguished from the ordering of an acquisition. Further, the prematurity of their conclusions has resulted in PAWC’s and I&E’s presentation of incongruous Exceptions to the process that alternatively assert, respectively, that an investigation will be a waste of time or has otherwise already been conducted. In granting the relief requested by DSC and the OCA, we find that neither PAWC’s nor I&E’s characterization of this proceeding accurately describes its purpose or result. Accordingly, we first summarize below these Exceptions and the OCA’s and DSC’s Replies, we then dispose of them collectively. 1. PAWC’s and I&E’s Exceptions a. PAWC PAWC filed two Exceptions. PAWC’s overriding sentiment is that it is clear from this petition proceeding that “the Commission cannot ultimately make the mandatory findings of fact necessary to satisfy the requirements of Section 529” therefore doing so would be a “waste of the Commission’s and the parties’ time and resources” and