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
projects. Accordingly, we will approve PPL’s modified rebate cap calculation for its Custom Incentive Program. b. Exclusion of Internal Labor Costs i. Positions of the Parties PPLICA also takes issue with PPL’s failure to explain language in its black-line Phase II Plan indicating that the revised rebate cap calculation will exclude internal labor costs. See Petition, Appendix A at 120, 136. PPLICA argues that, because PPL did not conspicuously identify or substantiate this change in its Petition, it should be rejected on procedural grounds. Id. at 10. PPLICA states that the Commission had previously clarified that all proposed EE&C plan changes must be conspicuously identified to facilitate stakeholder and Commission review. Id. at 10, 11 (citing Petition of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation for Approval of its Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan, Docket No. M-2009-2093216 (Order entered May 6, 2011) (May 2011 Phase I Plan Change Order) at 22). In addition, PPLICA contends that PPL did not adequately define “internal labor costs.” PPLICA states that it would not oppose this proposal if such costs are confined to the use of internal measure implementation or installation resources. However, PPLICA asserts that, if the definition of “internal labor costs” includes design and scoping costs, then the proposal should be rejected because PPL has failed to support it. Id. at 10-11. PPLICA avers that Large C&I customers are more likely to retain qualified full-time energy management professionals on staff than Residential or Small C&I customers, and that these internal personnel would be available to perform scoping and design work. Thus, PPLICA contends that any internal labor costs excluded from the Custom Incentive Program rebate cap should be limited to expenses for which all