By Tentative Order on Reconsideration entered March 14, 2013 (Tentative the Commission, postponed the implementation schedule of the Order), inter alia, Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) DSP ROI Programs and provided the Parties an opportunity to provide written comments on the implementation schedule of the ROI Programs. Discussion Initially, we note that any issue, which we do not specifically address herein, has been duly considered and will be denied without further discussion. It is well settled that we are not required to consider expressly or at length each contention or argument raised by the parties. 625 A.2d 741 (Pa. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Pa. PUC, Cmwlth. 1993); also 485 A.2d see, generally, University of Pennsylvania v. Pa. PUC, 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). A. Standard for Review The Petitions were filed pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 5.572, Petitions for Relief. In addition to petitions for reconsideration, this regulation encompasses, inter petitions for rehearing, reargument, and clarification. As with petitions for alia, reconsideration, such petitions are decided by the application of the standards set forth in Docket No. C-R0597001 56 Pa. P.U.C. Duick v. Pennsylvania Gas and Water Co., et al., 553, 559 (1982). Under the standards set forth in a petition for reconsideration Duick, may properly raise any matter designed to convince this Commission that we should exercise our discretion to amend or rescind a prior Order, in whole or in part. Such petitions are likely to succeed only when they raise and not “new novel arguments” previously heard or considerations that appear to have been overlooked or not addressed by the Commission. at 559. It has also been held that, because a grant of relief on Duick
By Tentative Order on Reconsideration entered March 14, 2013 (Tentative Order), the Commission, inter alia, postponed the implementation schedule of the Electric Distribution Companies (EDCs) DSP ROI Programs and provided the Parties an opportunity to provide written comments on the implementation schedule of the ROI Programs. Discussion Initially, we note that any issue, which we do not specifically address herein, has been duly considered and will be denied without further discussion. It is well settled that we are not required to consider expressly or at length each contention or argument raised by the parties. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Pa. PUC, 625 A.2d 741 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993); also see, generally, University of Pennsylvania v. Pa. PUC, 485 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). A. Standard for Review The Petitions were filed pursuant to 52 Pa. Code § 5.572, Petitions for Relief. In addition to petitions for reconsideration, this regulation encompasses, inter alia, petitions for rehearing, reargument, and clarification. As with petitions for reconsideration, such petitions are decided by the application of the standards set forth in Duick v. Pennsylvania Gas and Water Co., Docket No. C-R0597001 et al., 56 Pa. P.U.C. 553, 559 (1982). Under the standards set forth in Duick, a petition for reconsideration may properly raise any matter designed to convince this Commission that we should exercise our discretion to amend or rescind a prior Order, in whole or in part. Such petitions are likely to succeed only when they raise “new and novel arguments” not previously heard or considerations that appear to have been overlooked or not addressed by the Commission. Duick at 559. It has also been held that, because a grant of relief on
1222768.docx