IV. Discussion We note that any issue that we do not specifically address has been duly considered and will be denied without further discussion. It is well settled that the Commission is not required to consider, expressly or at length, each contention or argument raised by the parties. 625 A.2d Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Pa. PUC, 741 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993); see also, generally, University of Pennsylvania v. Pa. PUC, 485 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). A. Legal Standards As the proponent of a rule or order, the Company has the burden of proof in this proceeding in accordance with Section 332(a) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a). Courts have held that burden of proof before “[a] litigant’s administrative tribunals as well as before most civil proceedings is satisfied by establishing a preponderance of evidence which is substantial and legally credible.” 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. PUC, alloc. denied, 529 Pa. 654, 602 A.2d 863 (1992). That is, the evidence must be more Company’s convincing, by even the smallest amount, than that presented by the other Parties. SeLing 364 Pa. 45, 70 A.2d 854 (1950). Additionally, this Hosiery, Inc. v. Margulies, must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. More is Commission’s decision required than a mere trace of evidence or a suspicion of the existence of a fact sought to be established. 489 Pa. 109, 413 A.2d 1037 Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Pa. PUC, (1980). B. Petition Duquesne’s In its Petition to modify its SMP, Duquesne proposed to install an ADMS to achieve enhanced communication, outage restoration and voltage monitoring
IV. Discussion We note that any issue that we do not specifically address has been duly considered and will be denied without further discussion. It is well settled that the Commission is not required to consider, expressly or at length, each contention or argument raised by the parties. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Pa. PUC, 625 A.2d 741 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993); see also, generally, University of Pennsylvania v. Pa. PUC, 485 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). A. Legal Standards As the proponent of a rule or order, the Company has the burden of proof in this proceeding in accordance with Section 332(a) of the Public Utility Code (Code), 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a). Courts have held that “[a] litigant’s burden of proof before administrative tribunals as well as before most civil proceedings is satisfied by establishing a preponderance of evidence which is substantial and legally credible.” Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. PUC, 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), alloc. denied, 529 Pa. 654, 602 A.2d 863 (1992). That is, the Company’s evidence must be more convincing, by even the smallest amount, than that presented by the other Parties. SeLing Hosiery, Inc. v. Margulies, 364 Pa. 45, 70 A.2d 854 (1950). Additionally, this Commission’s decision must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. More is required than a mere trace of evidence or a suspicion of the existence of a fact sought to be established. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Pa. PUC, 489 Pa. 109, 413 A.2d 1037 (1980). B. Duquesne’s Petition In its Petition to modify its SMP, Duquesne proposed to install an ADMS to achieve enhanced communication, outage restoration and voltage monitoring