P-2013-2389572, in sufficient time to allow the TOU Program to be fully implemented at the beginning of DSP III Program period, i.e., June 1, 2015. 54. The parties acknowledge that currently pending before the Commission is a Proposed Rulemaking Order at Docket No. L-2014-2404361 that proposes to modify the Commission's regulations to, among other things, provide guidance and clarity regarding net metering and compensation under net metering. See Implementation of the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards Act of 2004, Docket No. Docket No. [sic] L-2014-2404361 (Order entered Feb. 20, 2014). The Parties agree that PPL Electric will file a new net metering Tariff consistent with the outcome of the Commission's Proposed Rulemaking Order at Docket No. [sic]. The Parties retain the right to review and file testimony concerning such tariff filing as permitted by the normal Commission process for the review of a new tariff filing. End Terms of Direct Quotation from the Joint Petition for Partial Settlement. Note that there are additional numbered paragraphs in the JPPS discussing public interest and terms of settlement that are not listed here. The following are the ALJ's Findings of Fact on the litigated issues: 3. Litigated Issues 55. PPL Electric's small business customers are generally aggregated into the Small Commercial & Industrial rate class group which is served by full requirements contracts. OSBA Stmt. 1 at 2. 56. PPL Electric currently has a maximum demand limit of 500 kW for customers to be included in the Small C&I generation default service rate class group which is currently served under Rate Schedule GSC-1. OSBA Stmt. 1 at 2. 57. PPL Electric default customers whose maximum demand exceeds 500 kW currently are served by hourly spot market purchases in Rate Schedule GSC-2. PPL Stmt. No. 1 at 30.
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
The Commission adopted the RD's recommendation, which was based on the Company's Brief and the lack of any opposition to the Company's position that it postpone action on this matter until the DSP III: The Company currently provides real time hourly default service pricing to its large C&I customer class. This class includes customers with demands greater than 500 kW. In the December 16 RMI Order, the Commission noted that PPL Electric has interval metering capability and directed the Company to file testimony in this default service case setting forth the cost to convert its billing system to allow hourly price service to all default service customers larger than 100 kW. In compliance with this directive, PPL Electric estimated that it would cost over $360,000 to implement real-time default service pricing for all default service customers larger than 100 kW. (PPL Electric St. p. 31). The Company also provided additional information relevant to implementing real time pricing for default service customers larger than 100 kW. As of August 2012, there were 4,007 Small C&I customers larger than 100 kW who are eligible for fixed-price default service. Of this number, 3,709, or 93%, of the customers are currently shopping. (PPL Electric St. 1-R, p. 32). The Company further explained that the procurement contracts currently in effect and scheduled under the DSP I Program for Small C&I customers specifically established that supplies for the Small C&I class were being acquired for customers smaller than 500 kW. The last of these DSP I contracts will not expire until March 2015. (PPL Electric St. 4, p. 33). Based upon the terms of existing contracts with wholesale suppliers under DSP I for service to Small C&I customers, the small number of customers over 100 kW actually taking default service and the cost of making necessary billing system modifications, the Company proposed in a Petition for Approval to Modify Its Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation Plan and to Extend Its Grace Period, at Docket No. 2012 Pa. PUC LEXIS 1232 (August 2, 2012) (“Smart Meter Order”), to undertake the modifications necessary to provide hourly service for all default service customers larger than 100 kW on a schedule intended to permit the introduction of this capability by June of 2015, which would be the start of the next procurement plan period for PPL Electric default