While various provisions of the Settlement provide greater public benefits than other provisions, we recognize that the Settlement is a compromise among the parties regarding many varied and complex issues associated with a matter that caused significant public outcry during the winter of 2014. When viewed as a whole, adopting this Settlement in its entirety without modification satisfies the standards and factors the Commission considers when evaluating settlements and will promote the continued development of the competitive market for the provision of electric generation service. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. Commission policy promotes settlements. 52 Pa.Code § 5.231. The Commission has indicated that settlement results are often preferable to those achieved at the conclusion of a fully litigated proceeding. 52 Pa.Code § 69.401. The focus of inquiry for determining whether a proposed settlement should be recommended for approval is not a of as is utilized for contested “burden proof” standard, matters. Pa. Pub. Util. v. City of Lancaster Bureau of Water, Docket Nos. et al. Comm’n, – (Opinion and Order entered July 14, 2011). et al. The benchmark for determining the acceptability of a settlement or partial settlement is whether the proposed terms and conditions are in the public interest. Pa. Pub. Util. v. City of Lancaster Bureau of Water, Docket Nos. R-2010-2179103, Comm’n, et al. – et al. (Opinion and Order entered July 14, 2011); Warner v. GTE North, Inc., Docket No. citing, (Opinion and Order entered April 1, 1996).
While various provisions of the Settlement provide greater public benefits than other provisions, we recognize that the Settlement is a compromise among the parties regarding many varied and complex issues associated with a matter that caused significant public outcry during the winter of 2014. When viewed as a whole, adopting this Settlement in its entirety without modification satisfies the standards and factors the Commission considers when evaluating settlements and will promote the continued development of the competitive market for the provision of electric generation service. V. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. Commission policy promotes settlements. 52 Pa.Code § 5.231. The Commission has indicated that settlement results are often preferable to those achieved at the conclusion of a fully litigated proceeding. 52 Pa.Code § 69.401. The focus of inquiry for determining whether a proposed settlement should be recommended for approval is not a “burden of proof” standard, as is utilized for contested matters. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, et al. v. City of Lancaster – Bureau of Water, Docket Nos. et al. (Opinion and Order entered July 14, 2011). The benchmark for determining the acceptability of a settlement or partial settlement is whether the proposed terms and conditions are in the public interest. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, et al. v. City of Lancaster – Bureau of Water, Docket Nos. R-2010-2179103, et al. (Opinion and Order entered July 14, 2011); citing, Warner v. GTE North, Inc., Docket No. (Opinion and Order entered April 1, 1996).
1368743.docx