In Commission proceedings, the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof. 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a). To satisfy that burden, the proponent of a rule or order must prove each element of its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Samuel J. 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). A preponderance of the Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. PUC, evidence is established by presenting evidence that is more convincing, by even the smallest amount, than that presented by the other parties to the case. Se-Ling Hosiery v. 364 Pa. 45, 70 A.2d 854 (1950). Additionally, this Commission’s decision Marqulies, 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 that 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. Cmwlth. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Pa. PUC, 1993); 485 A.2d 1217 (Pa. also see, generally, University of Pennsylvania v. Pa. PUC, Cmwlth. 1984). A. Act 129 Conservation and Demand Reduction Requirements 1. Overall Conservation Requirements The at 8, noted that both the 1% consumption Implementation Order, reduction, to be met by May 31, 2011, and the 3% consumption reduction, to be met by May 31, 2013, are to be measured against the EDC’s expected consumption as forecasted
In Commission proceedings, the proponent of a rule or order bears the burden of proof. 66 Pa. C.S. § 332(a). To satisfy that burden, the proponent of a rule or order must prove each element of its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Samuel J. Lansberry, Inc. v. Pa. PUC, 578 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). A preponderance of the evidence is established by presenting evidence that is more convincing, by even the smallest amount, than that presented by the other parties to the case. Se-Ling Hosiery v. Marqulies, 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 that 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 Corporation 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. Act 129 Conservation and Demand Reduction Requirements 1. Overall Conservation Requirements The Implementation Order, at 8, noted that both the 1% consumption reduction, to be met by May 31, 2011, and the 3% consumption reduction, to be met by May 31, 2013, are to be measured against the EDC’s expected consumption as forecasted
1058256.docx