portions of the Settlement that relate to Columbia satisfying the requirements of 66 Pa. C.S. §§ 1307(f) and 1318 and do not oppose the portions of the Settlement that address issues specific to the NGS Parties and PSU. The remaining Party to this proceeding, CII, did not oppose the Settlement. In the Settlement, the Joint Petitioners reached agreement on the findings required pursuant to 66 Pa. C.S. §1307(f) and 66 Pa. C.S. §1318 of the Code. The Joint Petitioners also agreed on the resolution of seven separate issues, as provided in Section IV, Paragraphs 45 through 54 on pages 15 to 18 of the Joint Petition. The Settlement consists of the Joint Petition containing the terms and conditions of the Settlement and Appendices A through F representing the Statements in Support filed by Columbia, I&E, the OCA, the OSBA, the NGS Parties and PSU, respectively. The essential terms of the Settlement are set forth in Paragraphs 45 through 54. The Joint Petitioners agreed to the following terms and conditions: A. GENERAL 45. Columbia’s 2017 PGC filing is approved as filed, subject to the additional items set forth below. B. CUSTOMER REQUESTS TO SWITCH FROM SMALL GENERAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICE TO CHOICE 46. Columbia will investigate the possibility to allow customers currently receiving service under Rate Schedule Small General Distribution Service (SGDS) who request to enroll in the CHOICE Program to switch directly from Rate Schedule SGDS to begin receiving service from a CHOICE supplier. Columbia shall implement this option within four (4) months of the entry of a final order in this proceeding approving this Settlement, unless the Company, during its investigation or testing, determines that implementation is not possible, in which case it will notify the parties to this case of
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