to be limited in nature and, if granted, will have no effect on the PWSA. R. Exc. at 5-6. We do not believe the ALJs committed error by concluding that the PWSA Statement was compelling in terms of the disposition of the Settlement. First, PWSA does not provide a rationale for its objections. Second, as properly noted by the ALJs, many customers in the public input hearings testified that it was improper and not in the public interest to require water-only customers to pay for part of the wastewater service supplied to others. R.D. at 43. However, active participants in the proceeding, which included organizations representing the public interest, had the opportunity to raise similar concerns or objections but declined to do so. Accordingly, we agree that the PWSA Statement as to this issue was influential for purposes of evaluating whether the Settlement is in the public interest and the ALJs acted within their discretion by giving weight to filing. Moreover, we find no error in the ALJs conclusion that PWSA PWSA’s considered the Settlement to be It is fair to conclude that, if PWSA “palatable.” considered the Settlement to be unacceptable, it would have refrained from submitting its statement of non-opposition. Therefore, we shall deny first Exception. PWSA’s In its second Exception, PWSA objects to being identified as an “industrial of PAWC on page 41 of the Recommended Decision. PWSA avers that it customer” intervened in the proceeding, not as a customer, but to minimize equalization payments made by PWSA for the benefit of PAWC water customers who reside in Pittsburgh’s South Hills area. According to PWSA, it would be incorrect to identify PWSA as an industrial customer in any final order by the Commission. PWSA Exc. at 3. In its Replies to the Exceptions, PAWC agrees that PWSA is not an industrial customer of PAWC. Further, PAWC notes that PWSA is correct in asserting that its pleadings, testimony and statement of non-opposition averred that its intervention was based on its claimed interest in rates allegedly arising from equalization PAWC’s payments it makes on behalf of Pittsburgh residents who are PAWC customers. As such,
to be limited in nature and, if granted, will have no effect on the PWSA. R. Exc. at 5-6. We do not believe the ALJs committed error by concluding that the PWSA Statement was compelling in terms of the disposition of the Settlement. First, PWSA does not provide a rationale for its objections. Second, as properly noted by the ALJs, many customers in the public input hearings testified that it was improper and not in the public interest to require water-only customers to pay for part of the wastewater service supplied to others. R.D. at 43. However, active participants in the proceeding, which included organizations representing the public interest, had the opportunity to raise similar concerns or objections but declined to do so. Accordingly, we agree that the PWSA Statement as to this issue was influential for purposes of evaluating whether the Settlement is in the public interest and the ALJs acted within their discretion by giving weight to PWSA’s filing. Moreover, we find no error in the ALJs conclusion that PWSA considered the Settlement to be “palatable.” It is fair to conclude that, if PWSA considered the Settlement to be unacceptable, it would have refrained from submitting its statement of non-opposition. Therefore, we shall deny PWSA’s first Exception. In its second Exception, PWSA objects to being identified as an “industrial customer” of PAWC on page 41 of the Recommended Decision. PWSA avers that it intervened in the proceeding, not as a customer, but to minimize equalization payments made by PWSA for the benefit of PAWC water customers who reside in Pittsburgh’s South Hills area. According to PWSA, it would be incorrect to identify PWSA as an industrial customer in any final order by the Commission. PWSA Exc. at 3. In its Replies to the Exceptions, PAWC agrees that PWSA is not an industrial customer of PAWC. Further, PAWC notes that PWSA is correct in asserting that its pleadings, testimony and statement of non-opposition averred that its intervention was based on its claimed interest in PAWC’s rates allegedly arising from equalization payments it makes on behalf of Pittsburgh residents who are PAWC customers. As such,