exceptions if the ALJ adopted the Settlement without modification. Because PPLICA was a Party to the Settlement, and because the ALJ adopted the Settlement without modification, PPL argues that exception must be denied. PPL contends that PPLICA’s consideration of exception by the Commission would set a very bad precedent PPLICA’s by allowing a party to a settlement to disregard and take actions contrary to the express terms and conditions of that settlement. According to PPL, the only conditions under which a party to the Settlement in this proceeding may file exceptions are if the ALJ does not adopt the Settlement, or if the ALJ adopts the Settlement with modifications. PPL Response at 3. PPL also contends that the basis for Letter is contrary to the PPLICA’s Settlement. According to PPL, concern that the language in the PPLICA’s Recommended Decision regarding savings under Rate Schedule LPEP might Amtrak’s be cited with prejudice already has been addressed and resolved by the Settlement. PPL points out that the Joint Petition expressly provides that the Settlement is “presented without prejudice to any position which any of the Joint Petitioners may have advanced, and without prejudice to the position any of the parties may advance on the merits of the issues in future citing Joint Petition ¶ 63. Id., proceedings.” Finally, PPL asserts that the statement regarding savings ALJ’s Amtrak’s under Rate Schedule LPEP is not a finding of fact or conclusion of law, but is simply a summary of position in support of its original proposal regarding Rate Schedule PPL’s LPEP. PPL argues that it is not necessary to modify the Recommended Decision to clarify the record own position as PPLICA requests, because that regarding PPLICA’s position is already a part of the record in the form of testimony and exhibits, PPLICA’s which were admitted to the record without objection. PPL Response at 4.
exceptions if the ALJ adopted the Settlement without modification. Because PPLICA was a Party to the Settlement, and because the ALJ adopted the Settlement without modification, PPL argues that PPLICA’s exception must be denied. PPL contends that consideration of PPLICA’s exception by the Commission would set a very bad precedent by allowing a party to a settlement to disregard and take actions contrary to the express terms and conditions of that settlement. According to PPL, the only conditions under which a party to the Settlement in this proceeding may file exceptions are if the ALJ does not adopt the Settlement, or if the ALJ adopts the Settlement with modifications. PPL Response at 3. PPL also contends that the basis for PPLICA’s Letter is contrary to the Settlement. According to PPL, PPLICA’s concern that the language in the Recommended Decision regarding Amtrak’s savings under Rate Schedule LPEP might be cited with prejudice already has been addressed and resolved by the Settlement. PPL points out that the Joint Petition expressly provides that the Settlement is “presented without prejudice to any position which any of the Joint Petitioners may have advanced, and without prejudice to the position any of the parties may advance on the merits of the issues in future proceedings.” Id., citing Joint Petition ¶ 63. Finally, PPL asserts that the ALJ’s statement regarding Amtrak’s savings under Rate Schedule LPEP is not a finding of fact or conclusion of law, but is simply a summary of PPL’s position in support of its original proposal regarding Rate Schedule LPEP. PPL argues that it is not necessary to modify the Recommended Decision to clarify the record regarding PPLICA’s own position as PPLICA requests, because that position is already a part of the record in the form of PPLICA’s testimony and exhibits, which were admitted to the record without objection. PPL Response at 4.
1395589.docx