I. BURDEN OF PROOF
UCAN alleges that the Decision incorrectly adopts a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for approving Sunrise, when the correct standard "clear and convincing" evidence. According to UCAN, although the standard of review in a CPCN proceeding is a question of first impression, because the CPCN approval will impact utility rates, the clear and convincing evidence standard generally applied in rate cases should be applied. In the Decision, we decline to adopt the clear and convincing evidence standard for SDG&E's application, adopting the more common preponderance standard. UCAN fails to show that the burden of proof is in error.
As a general matter, the preponderance of the evidence standard requires a party to have more weighty evidence on its side than there is on the other side. The clear and convincing standard is more stringent, requiring evidence "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt.... [Citations]" (Conservatorship of Wendland (2001) 26 Cal.4th 519, 552.) We have frequently adopted the "clear and convincing" standard in general rate cases, but as the Decision notes in a footnote, it can be unclear whether the Commission means "clear and convincing" in a lay sense, or is actually adopting the more technical "clear and convincing" standard. (Decision, at pp. 18-19, fn. 28.)
UCAN's argument on burden of proof does not allege any legal error. Although UCAN suggests that clear and convincing should be the burden of proof, it does not present any legal principle that we violate in adopting the preponderance standard. UCAN asserts the CPCN proceeding should be treated as a rate case because the projects impact rates, but it does not present any reason that our failure to accept its suggestion is in error.
Moreover, we adequately explain in the Decision that the clear and convincing standard has generally been limited to general rate cases and reasonableness reviews which are specialized proceedings. (Decision, at pp. 18-9.) The Decision also notes that the preponderance standard is the default standard in administrative proceedings and is therefore the appropriate standard for CPCN applications.3 (Id.; Evid. Code, § 115.) Our explanation adequately supports our decision to use the preponderance of the evidence standard in the current proceeding.
3 Because there have been many CPCN cases, whether or not the Commission explicitly discussed the issue, the burden of proof issue cannot be considered an issue of first impression. By default the Commission has applied the preponderance standard in CPCN proceedings, and therefore there is precedent for applying the less stringent standard.
