Next, PSU further asserts that the erroneous characterization of the ALJ’s settling Parties agreement with respect to proposals should be rejected for the PSU’s additional reason that it undermines the important policies regarding Commission’s encouraging settlements. PSU points out that the Settlement at Paragraph No. 62 provides that it is any admission against, or prejudice to, any position that any “without party may adopt in the event of any subsequent litigation of these proceedings, or in any other PSU further points out that at Paragraph No. 63 the Parties agreed proceeding.” that settlement reflects a compromise of competing positions and does not “the necessarily reflect any one position with respect to any issue . . . As such, PSU party’s .” maintains that there was no need for the ALJ to make findings endorsing or rejecting litigation positions when the Parties agreed to disagree and propose an amicable resolution of this matter. According to PSU, the inclusion of erroneous statements ALJ’s in her Recommended Decision prejudices ability to proposed such tariff revisions PSU’s in future proceedings and it discourages settlements. PSU opines that if the Recommended Decision is approved without modification of the erroneous statements, parties in the future will refuse to settle unless and until hearings and briefing occur to protect their rights in the event the ALJ, like here, makes unnecessary litigation position determinations regardless of the settlement. PSU posits that such a result would clearly thwart the policy to encourage parties to seek negotiated settlements in Commission’s lieu of incurring the time, expense and uncertainty of litigation. PSU Exc. at 4-5. In its Exception No. 2, PSU claims that the findings with respect to ALJ’s the effect of proposed tariff revisions and the purpose of are unsupported. PSU’s OMO’s PSU asserts that such findings in the context of a negotiated settlement deprives PSU of its due process right to be heard on these issues, including its right to confront and cross examine the opposing witnesses. PSU claims that by entering into the Company’s Settlement, it waived those rights in exchange for, in part, reservation of these issues for future proceedings and to to PSU Exc. at 6. PSU opines that the “agree disagree.” ALJ’s findings undermine, diminish and devalue that right, and to that extent they constitute a
Next, PSU further asserts that the ALJ’s erroneous characterization of the settling Parties agreement with respect to PSU’s proposals should be rejected for the additional reason that it undermines the Commission’s important policies regarding encouraging settlements. PSU points out that the Settlement at Paragraph No. 62 provides that it is “without any admission against, or prejudice to, any position that any party may adopt in the event of any subsequent litigation of these proceedings, or in any other proceeding.” PSU further points out that at Paragraph No. 63 the Parties agreed that “the settlement reflects a compromise of competing positions and does not necessarily reflect any one party’s position with respect to any issue . . . .” As such, PSU maintains that there was no need for the ALJ to make findings endorsing or rejecting litigation positions when the Parties agreed to disagree and propose an amicable resolution of this matter. According to PSU, the ALJ’s inclusion of erroneous statements in her Recommended Decision prejudices PSU’s ability to proposed such tariff revisions in future proceedings and it discourages settlements. PSU opines that if the Recommended Decision is approved without modification of the erroneous statements, parties in the future will refuse to settle unless and until hearings and briefing occur to protect their rights in the event the ALJ, like here, makes unnecessary litigation position determinations regardless of the settlement. PSU posits that such a result would clearly thwart the Commission’s policy to encourage parties to seek negotiated settlements in lieu of incurring the time, expense and uncertainty of litigation. PSU Exc. at 4-5. In its Exception No. 2, PSU claims that the ALJ’s findings with respect to the effect of PSU’s proposed tariff revisions and the purpose of OMO’s are unsupported. PSU asserts that such findings in the context of a negotiated settlement deprives PSU of its due process right to be heard on these issues, including its right to confront and cross examine the Company’s opposing witnesses. PSU claims that by entering into the Settlement, it waived those rights in exchange for, in part, reservation of these issues for future proceedings and to “agree to disagree.” PSU Exc. at 6. PSU opines that the ALJ’s findings undermine, diminish and devalue that right, and to that extent they constitute a