California Refund Proceeding Sample Clauses

California Refund Proceeding. The costs associated with activities and initiatives related to the California Refund Proceeding shall be allocated in accordance with the refund methodology approved by the Commission from time‐to‐time for that matter.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
California Refund Proceeding. A number of parties purchasing energy in markets operated by the California Independent System Operator (California ISO) or the California Power Exchange (PX) have asserted prices paid for such energy were unjust and unreasonable and that refunds should be made in connection with sales in those markets for the period Oct. 2, 2000 through June 20, 2001. PSCo supplied energy to these markets during this period and has been an active participant in the proceedings. The FERC ordered an investigation into the California ISO and PX spot markets and concluded that the electric market structure and market rules for wholesale sales of energy in California were flawed and have caused unjust and unreasonable rates for short-term energy under certain conditions. The FERC ordered modifications to the market structure and rules in California and established an ALJ to make findings with respect to, among other things, the amount of refunds owed by each supplier based on the difference between what was charged and what would have been charged in a more functional market, i.e., the “market clearing price,” which is based on the unit providing energy in an hour with the highest incremental cost. The initial proceeding related to California’s demand for $8.9 billion in refunds from power sellers. The ALJ subsequently stated that after assessing a refund of $1.8 billion for power prices, power suppliers were owed $1.2 billion because the state was holding funds owed to suppliers. Because of the low volume of sales that PSCo had into California after this date, PSCo’s exposure is estimated at approximately $3.4 million, which is offset by amounts owed by the California ISO to PSCo in excess of that amount. Certain California parties sought rehearing of this decision. Among other things, they asserted that the refund effective date should be set at an earlier date. They have based this request in part on the argument that the use by sellers of certain trading strategies in the California market resulted in unjust and unreasonable rates, thereby justifying an earlier refund effective date. The FERC subsequently allowed the purchasing parties to request from sellers, including PSCo, additional information regarding the market participants’ use of certain strategies and the effect those strategies may have had on the market. Based on the additional information they obtained, these purchasing entities argued to the FERC that use of these strategies did justify an earlier refund eff...
Sample 1
California Refund Proceeding. (PSCo) — In October 2003, the FERC determined that the refund effective date should not be reset to an earlier date, and gave clarification how refunds should be determined for the previously set refund period. Certain California parties appealed the FERC’s decision not to establish an earlier refund effective date to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In a related case certain California parties also appealed the FERC orders dismissing a complaint by the California Attorney General challenging market-based rates as inconsistent with the Federal Power Act. The California Attorney General also argued that wholesale sellers, including PSCo, were violating their market-based rate authorizations by not reporting their market-based sales on an individual transaction basis. Prior to a clarification of its rules, most sellers, including PSCo, reported their transactions on an aggregate basis. On Sept. 9, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion rejecting the California Attorney General’s general challenge to market-based rates, but agreed with its challenge regarding the failure to report individual transactions. It remanded the case to the FERC to consider action to take to address these failures and suggested that refunds would be appropriate.
Sample 1

Related to California Refund Proceeding

  • Judgment and Proceedings (1) The entry of any judgment or decree against Servicer or any of its respective Subsidiaries if the aggregate amount of all judgments and decrees then outstanding against Servicer and its Subsidiaries exceeds $1,000,000, (2) the institution of any litigation, arbitration proceeding or governmental proceeding against Servicer that could, individually or in the aggregate, reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Effect and (3) the entry of any judgment or decree or the institution of any litigation, arbitration proceeding or governmental proceeding against Seller.

  • Right of Claimant to Bring Suit If a written claim received by the Company from or on behalf of an indemnified party under this Article VIII is not paid in full by the Company within 90 days after such receipt, the claimant may at any time thereafter bring suit against the Company to recover the unpaid amount of the claim and, if successful in whole or in part, the claimant shall be entitled to be paid also the expense of prosecuting such claim. It shall be a defense to any such action (other than an action brought to enforce a claim for expenses incurred in defending any proceeding in advance of its final disposition where the required undertaking, if any is required, has been tendered to the Company) that the claimant has not met the standards of conduct which make it permissible under the DGCL for the Company to indemnify the claimant for the amount claimed, but the burden of proving such defense shall be on the Company. Neither the failure of the Company (including the Board, independent legal counsel, or the Member) to have made a determination prior to the commencement of such action that indemnification of the claimant is proper in the circumstances because he or she has met the applicable standard of conduct set forth in the DGCL, nor an actual determination by the Company (including the Board, independent legal counsel, or the Member) that the claimant has not met such applicable standard of conduct, shall be a defense to the action or create a presumption that the claimant has not met the applicable standard of conduct.

  • California Judicial Reference If any action or proceeding is filed in a court of the State of California by or against any party hereto in connection with any of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement or any other Loan Document, (a) the court shall, and is hereby directed to, make a general reference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 638 to a referee (who shall be a single active or retired judge) to hear and determine all of the issues in such action or proceeding (whether of fact or of law) and to report a statement of decision, provided that at the option of any party to such proceeding, any such issues pertaining to a “provisional remedy” as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.8 shall be heard and determined by the court, and (b) without limiting the generality of Section 10.04, the Borrower shall be solely responsible to pay all fees and expenses of any referee appointed in such action or proceeding.

  • Defense of the Underlying Proceeding (a) Indemnitee shall notify the Company promptly in writing upon being served with any summons, citation, subpoena, complaint, indictment, request or other document relating to any Proceeding which may result in the right to indemnification or the advance of Expenses hereunder and shall include with such notice a description of the nature of the Proceeding and a summary of the facts underlying the Proceeding. The failure to give any such notice shall not disqualify Indemnitee from the right, or otherwise affect in any manner any right of Indemnitee, to indemnification or the advance of Expenses under this Agreement unless the Company’s ability to defend in such Proceeding or to obtain proceeds under any insurance policy is materially and adversely prejudiced thereby, and then only to the extent the Company is thereby actually so prejudiced.

  • Claims and Proceedings 13 3.17 Taxes........................................................... 14 3.18 Personnel....................................................... 14 3.19

  • Litigation and Proceedings There are no actions, suits, -------------------------- proceedings or investigations pending or, to the knowledge of the Company after reasonable investigation, threatened by or against the Company or affecting the Company or its properties, at law or in equity, before any court or other governmental agency or instrumentality, domestic or foreign, or before any arbitrator of any kind. The Company has no knowledge of any default on its part with respect to any judgment, order, writ, injunction, decree, award, rule or regulation of any court, arbitrator, or governmental agency or instrumentality, or any circumstance which after reasonable investigation would result in the discovery of such default.

  • Arbitration Proceedings Arbitration between the parties will be subject to the following:

  • Condemnation Proceedings; Roadways The Seller has not received notice of any condemnation or eminent domain proceeding pending or threatened against the Property or any part thereof. The Seller has no knowledge of any change or proposed change in the route, grade or width of, or otherwise affecting, any street or road adjacent to or serving the Real Property.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!