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
redesign the program to better address and incentivize the new home construction market. OCA M.B. at 14. In response to the OCA’s recommendations, PECO states that the Smart Builder Rebates Program already reflects stakeholder input. PECO R.B. at 5. PECO notes that the Revised Plan has been amended to reflect that “It is common for baseline energy consumption to shift and PECO will make the necessary adjustments to program designs as these baseline shifts occur.” Revised Plan at 47. The Revised Plan also indicates that PECO will make rebate level adjustments over time depending on market reaction and program participation. Id. PECO does not agree with the OCA that the likelihood of future revisions warrants delaying implementation of the program. PECO argues that if this were the case, EE&C Plan implementation would be constantly disrupted by the evolution of other key standards, such as the TRM which is revised on an annual basis. PECO R.B. at 5-6. Disposition While we share the OCA’s concerns regarding the projected of the program and the potential changes to building code standards, we concur with PECO that the implementation of the Smart Building Rebates program should not be delayed. In the Phase II Implementation Order, the Commission required each EDC to develop plans that contain at least one comprehensive measure, such as whole-house treatments. Phase II Implementation Order at 20. Consequently, we will approve this program as an initial component of PECO’s Phase II Plan. However, we shall direct PECO to continue to work with stakeholders to develop modifications that will improve the long-term cost-effectiveness of the program. We would like this collaborative to begin shortly after the Phase II program begins and will direct PECO to begin to meet with stakeholders within six months of the date of entry of this Opinion and Order. PECO shall also propose modifications to this program in response to changes in
Commission did not set any peak demand reduction targets for the Phase II EE&C program period in the Phase II Implementation Order. Id. at 33. While demand reduction targets have not been established for Phase II, the Commission recognizes that the EDCs, and residential electric customers in particular, have made significant strides in the implementation of residential curtailment measures, such as direct load control programs. Therefore, to minimize customer confusion or adverse customer reaction if these programs were interrupted, we stated in the Phase II Implementation Order that the EDCs may continue, under the Act 129 EE&C Program, residential DR curtailment measures, such as direct load control programs, that will be cost effective, if continued. We noted that such specific measures, if continued, could be viewed as providing an interim DR program until the Commission determines whether or not there is a cost-effective Act 129 peak demand reduction program design. Id. at 42. We also noted that EDCs seeking to establish new, or continue existing, load management programs that are prudent and cost-effective are free to file a petition with the Commission for approval of such programs under 66 Pa. C.S. § 1505(b) (related to the Commission’s authority to order conservation and load management programs). We explained that all prudent and reasonable costs incurred with such programs are recoverable in accordance with 66 Pa. C.S. § 1319 (related to the recovery of conservation or load management program costs). Phase II Implementation Order at 43. In its Benchmark Petition, PECO, inter alia, requested that it be permitted to allocate Phase II funds to: 1) continue its existing Mass Market Direct Load Control (DLC) Program; and 2) to prepare for anticipated Phase III demand reduction targets. We denied PECO’s request because we found, inter alia, that it would not be prudent to carve out Phase II funds for DR programs if the EDC could not also meet its Phase II consumption reduction targets until the Commission has made a cost-effectiveness determination and has set additional peak demand reduction requirements. PECO Phase II Benchmark Order at 16-17.