PAWC believes the granting of second Exception would create no barrier to the PWSA’s approval of the Settlement. R. Exc. at 6. Commission’s Upon review, we agree with PWSA and PAWC that the ALJs’ characterization of PWSA as an industrial customer is inconsistent with filing PWSA’s regarding the circumstances of intervention in this proceeding. In order to PWSA’s clarify the record, we shall grant second Exception. Accordingly, we shall PWSA’s modify the Recommended Decision to remove reference to PWSA as an industrial customer of PAWC. Exceptions of Mr. Kazimer Mr. Kazimer raises two objections in his Exceptions to the Recommended Decision. First, he argues that 66 Pa. C.S. § is unconstitutional, unfair, “Act 11, 1311(c)” discriminatory and unreasonable. He claims that he already pays his township for wastewater and sewage disposal and that PAWC is not entitled to the Settlement. Second, Mr. Kazimer asserts that the ALJs did not include information related to his testimony at the public input hearing in Reading. He argues that his testimony pertaining to the approval of prior rate increases was not included in the Recommended PAWC’s Decision. Kazimer Exc. at 1. In its Replies to Exceptions, PAWC argues that the Commission is not the forum in which to challenge the legality or the constitutionality of a duly enacted statute such as Act 11. Further, PAWC claims that Section 1311(c) of the Code reflects the legislative judgment that it is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory to allocate a portion of wastewater revenue requirement to the combined water and wastewater customer base of a utility which furnishes water and wastewater service. R. Exc. at 7-8. In response to Mr. second objection, PAWC argues that the Kazimer’s
PAWC believes the granting of PWSA’s second Exception would create no barrier to the Commission’s approval of the Settlement. R. Exc. at 6. Upon review, we agree with PWSA and PAWC that the ALJs’ characterization of PWSA as an industrial customer is inconsistent with PWSA’s filing regarding the circumstances of PWSA’s intervention in this proceeding. In order to clarify the record, we shall grant PWSA’s second Exception. Accordingly, we shall modify the Recommended Decision to remove reference to PWSA as an industrial customer of PAWC. Exceptions of Mr. Kazimer Mr. Kazimer raises two objections in his Exceptions to the Recommended Decision. First, he argues that “Act 11, 66 Pa. C.S. § 1311(c)” is unconstitutional, unfair, discriminatory and unreasonable. He claims that he already pays his township for wastewater and sewage disposal and that PAWC is not entitled to the Settlement. Second, Mr. Kazimer asserts that the ALJs did not include information related to his testimony at the public input hearing in Reading. He argues that his testimony pertaining to the approval of PAWC’s prior rate increases was not included in the Recommended Decision. Kazimer Exc. at 1. In its Replies to Exceptions, PAWC argues that the Commission is not the forum in which to challenge the legality or the constitutionality of a duly enacted statute such as Act 11. Further, PAWC claims that Section 1311(c) of the Code reflects the legislative judgment that it is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory to allocate a portion of wastewater revenue requirement to the combined water and wastewater customer base of a utility which furnishes water and wastewater service. R. Exc. at 7-8. In response to Mr. Kazimer’s second objection, PAWC argues that the
1262225.docx