III. Discussion A. Consideration of Petition PPL’s As noted above, PPL requested that its Petition be addressed in accordance with the procedures for addressing changes as set forth in the Minor Plan “non-minor” We have previously held that a request for approval of Change Order. “non-minor” changes to a Commission-approved Act 129 EE&C Plan must be filed as a petition to amend a Commission Order, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code §§ 5.41 and 5.572. Minor Plan at 20. While such a petition may raise any matter designed to convince us Change Order that we should exercise our discretion to amend or rescind a prior order, at the same time . ., cannot be permitted by a second motion to review and reconsider, to raise “[p]arties . the same questions which were specifically considered and decided against them.” (Order entered December 17, 1982) (quoting Such petitions are likely to succeed only when they raise and not previously heard or considerations which “new novel arguments” appear to have been overlooked or not addressed by the Commission. at 559. Duick In this case, there is no question that PPL has satisfied the standards. Duick proposed Plan Changes do not require the Commission to reconsider the same PPL’s questions that were previously decided in this proceeding. Rather, PPL has proposed changes to its Phase II Plan based on ongoing experience with the Plan, changes in the TRM, and input from stakeholders. The question before us is whether or not to approve the proposed changes. In addition, PPL requested that the Commission resolve all issues in this proceeding on the basis of Comments and Reply Comments, if possible, and to avoid referring any issue to an Administrative Law Judge for hearings and Recommended Decision that is unopposed, or for which no legitimate issues of law or fact have been raised. We note that the majority of the proposed changes are unopposed, and we find
III. Discussion A. Consideration of PPL’s Petition As noted above, PPL requested that its Petition be addressed in accordance with the procedures for addressing “non-minor” changes as set forth in the Minor Plan Change Order. We have previously held that a request for approval of “non-minor” changes to a Commission-approved Act 129 EE&C Plan must be filed as a petition to amend a Commission Order, pursuant to 52 Pa. Code §§ 5.41 and 5.572. Minor Plan Change Order at 20. While such a petition may raise any matter designed to convince us that we should exercise our discretion to amend or rescind a prior order, at the same time “[p]arties . . ., cannot be permitted by a second motion to review and reconsider, to raise the same questions which were specifically considered and decided against them.” (Order entered December 17, 1982) (quoting Such petitions are likely to succeed only when they raise “new and novel arguments” not previously heard or considerations which appear to have been overlooked or not addressed by the Commission. Duick at 559. In this case, there is no question that PPL has satisfied the Duick standards. PPL’s proposed Plan Changes do not require the Commission to reconsider the same questions that were previously decided in this proceeding. Rather, PPL has proposed changes to its Phase II Plan based on ongoing experience with the Plan, changes in the TRM, and input from stakeholders. The question before us is whether or not to approve the proposed changes. In addition, PPL requested that the Commission resolve all issues in this proceeding on the basis of Comments and Reply Comments, if possible, and to avoid referring any issue to an Administrative Law Judge for hearings and Recommended Decision that is unopposed, or for which no legitimate issues of law or fact have been raised. We note that the majority of the proposed changes are unopposed, and we find
1360675.docx