tribunals as well as before most civil proceedings is satisfied by establishing a preponderance of evidence which is substantial and Samuel J. legally credible.” 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), 529 Pa. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. PUC, alloc. denied, 654, 602 A.2d 863 (1992). That is, the evidence must be more convincing, Company’s by even the smallest amount, than that presented by the other Parties. Se-Ling Hosiery, 364 Pa. 45, 70 A.2d 854 (1950). Additionally, this Inc. v. Margulies, 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. 489 Pa. 109, 413 A.2d 1037 (1980). Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Pa. PUC, 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. 485 A.2d 1217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). Pa. PUC, Procedural Issue Review of Conservation Service Provider Contract – In its Petition, PECO requested that the Commission approve a contract between PECO and JACO Environmental, Inc. Petition at 1-2. In our Phase I we delegated to the Commission staff the authority to review and Implementation Order, approve contracts between EDCs and Conservation Service Providers (CSPs). Phase I at 40. Consistent with the other contracts between PECO and Implementation Order CSPs that have been reviewed by the Commission, the contract between PECO and JACO Environmental Inc. has been assigned to the Commission staff for its review and will not be addressed in this Opinion and Order. Pursuant to the Phase I Implementation Staff has forty-five days to review the contract and the staff review shall begin Order, upon entry of this Opinion and Order. will be communicated in a Staff’s determination
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. Se-Ling 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). 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). Procedural Issue – Review of Conservation Service Provider Contract In its Petition, PECO requested that the Commission approve a contract between PECO and JACO Environmental, Inc. Petition at 1-2. In our Phase I Implementation Order, we delegated to the Commission staff the authority to review and approve contracts between EDCs and Conservation Service Providers (CSPs). Phase I Implementation Order at 40. Consistent with the other contracts between PECO and CSPs that have been reviewed by the Commission, the contract between PECO and JACO Environmental Inc. has been assigned to the Commission staff for its review and will not be addressed in this Opinion and Order. Pursuant to the Phase I Implementation Order, Staff has forty-five days to review the contract and the staff review shall begin upon entry of this Opinion and Order. Staff’s determination will be communicated in a
1216507.docx