III. DISCUSSION 1. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Burden of Proof Section 332(a) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §332(a), provides that the party seeking a rule or order from the Commission has the burden of proof in that proceeding. It is that burden of proof before administrative tribunals as well as before “[a] litigant’s most civil proceedings is satisfied by establishing a preponderance of evidence which is substantial and 578 A.2d legally credible.” Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 600, 602 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). The burden of proof is comprised of two distinct burdens: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. The burden of production tells the adjudicator which party must come forward with evidence to support a particular proposition. See In re 430 Pa. 33, 240 A.2d 477, 482 (1968). The burden of persuasion Loudenslager’s Estate, determines which party must produce sufficient evidence to convince a judge that a fact has been established, and it never leaves the party on whom it is originally cast. Reidel v. County of 633 A.2d 1325, 1329 n. 11 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993). Allegheny, A party that offers a proposal not included in the original filing bears the burden of proof for that proposal. A.2d 1067 See Brockway Glass Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n,437 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981); Docket Nos. Pa. Pub. Util. v. Duquesne Light Company, Comm’n et al. (Opinion and Order entered April 23, 2014). Therefore, the Company has the burden of proving that its proposed default service provider program is just and reasonable, and any party contesting it has the burden of persuading the Commission that the filing is not just and reasonable. B. Standards for Default Service
III. DISCUSSION 1. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Burden of Proof Section 332(a) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. §332(a), provides that the party seeking a rule or order from the Commission has the burden of proof in that proceeding. It is 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. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 578 A.2d 600, 602 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). The burden of proof is comprised of two distinct burdens: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. The burden of production tells the adjudicator which party must come forward with evidence to support a particular proposition. See In re Loudenslager’s Estate, 430 Pa. 33, 240 A.2d 477, 482 (1968). The burden of persuasion determines which party must produce sufficient evidence to convince a judge that a fact has been established, and it never leaves the party on whom it is originally cast. Reidel v. County of Allegheny, 633 A.2d 1325, 1329 n. 11 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993). A party that offers a proposal not included in the original filing bears the burden of proof for that proposal. See Brockway Glass Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n,437 A.2d 1067 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981); Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n v. Duquesne Light Company, Docket Nos. et al. (Opinion and Order entered April 23, 2014). Therefore, the Company has the burden of proving that its proposed default service provider program is just and reasonable, and any party contesting it has the burden of persuading the Commission that the filing is not just and reasonable. B. Standards for Default Service
1322512.docx