Commission Decision Sample Clauses
A Commission Decision clause outlines the authority and process by which a commission or governing body makes binding determinations on specific matters within an agreement. Typically, this clause specifies the scope of issues subject to the commission’s decision, the procedures for submitting matters for review, and the effect of the commission’s rulings on the parties involved. Its core practical function is to provide a clear and authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes or ambiguities, thereby ensuring efficient decision-making and reducing the potential for prolonged disagreements.
Commission Decision. The Commission will determine the amount, if any, of Issue Fund Grants that will be made available for each Eligible Proceeding. The Commission may make this determination based upon the following factors: (a) the breadth and complexity of the issues; (b) the significance of any policy issues; (c) the procedural schedule; (d) the dollar magnitude of the issues at stake; (e) the participation of other parties that adequately represent the interests of customers; (f) the amount of funds being provided by CUB; (g) CUB’s qualifications and experience before the Commission; (h) the level of available funds in the Fund account or accounts involved; and (i) other Eligible Proceedings in which CUB may seek additional Issue Fund Grants from the same Fund account. The Commission shall condition Issue Fund Grants on CUB’s providing evidence that CUB has used in-house resources or outside funding to account for or pay at least 20% of the Eligible Expenses for the work to be performed in the proceeding for which CUB is seeking an Issue Fund Grant. The Commission may deny, in whole or in part, a request for an Issue Fund Grant based on the above criteria and requirements. The Commission may place reasonable conditions on Issue Fund Grants, including but not limited to requiring that CUB use in-house resources or outside funding to account for or pay more than 20% of the Eligible Expenses for the work to be performed in the proceeding for which CUB is seeking an Issue Fund Grant. Except as provided in this Section, an Issue Fund Grant shall constitute a binding obligation on the Commission to order reimbursement of Eligible Expenses subject to satisfaction of any conditions imposed on the Issue Fund Grant and the requirements set forth in Article 7 and Article 8 below. The Commission may amend an Issue Fund Grant if it finds that there has been a material change in the breadth and complexity of the issues, the significance of the policy issues, or the dollar magnitude at stake, such that the initial Issue Fund Grant is no longer warranted. If the Commission amends an Issue Fund Grant, it will provide notice to CUB and afford an opportunity to comment and provide a revised budget. A Commission amendment of an Issue Fund Grant shall take effect on a prospective basis only. Eligible Expenses incurred or accrued before the Commission amendment will be reimbursed according to the terms set forth in Article 7 below notwithstanding the Commission amendment of the Issue Fund Gra...
Commission Decision. This Agreement shall at all times be subject to such review by the Commission or FCC as permitted by the Act. If any such review renders the Agreement inoperable or creates any ambiguity or requirement for further amendment to the Agreement, the Parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon any necessary amendments to the Agreement.
Commission Decision. Commission Staff and Idaho Power recommend that the Application in Case No. IPC-E-10-17 (▇▇▇▇▇▇ Farms) be processed pursuant to Modified Procedure, i.e., by written submission rather than by hearing. Reference IDAPA 31.01.01.201-204. Does the Commission agree with the recommended procedure?
Commission Decision. The Commission has approved the attached revised version of the Operating Agreement4 published on 23rd May 2008 pursuant to Regulation 8 of S.I. No. 760 of 2005 (as amended). The Commission believes that the revised Operating Agreement meets both the letter and the spirit of the Regulations and also that it provides the basis for an efficient and sustainable relationship between the two companies for discharging their obligations and meeting the needs of the Irish gas industry in the coming years. While the arrangements described in the Agreement, and indeed in the Regulations themselves, may appear to have adopted what might be termed a relatively “light” ISO model, it is important to bear in mind that many of the “owner” functions charged to BGE will be in fact discharged by BG Networks which will continue to act as a separate division within BGE whose staff will be bound by strict ring fencing licence rules regarding non-disclosure of information etc. Examples of such functions include carrying out Gaslink’s Development Programme, managing all contracts with subcontractors etc. Even allowing for this, the Agreement also makes it clear that legal responsibility for the key statutory function of planning, developing and operating the gas network systems will rest exclusively with Gaslink. This Operating Agreement has been amended from that proposed operating agreement published in CER 08/073, this is to reflect changes agreed between the parties and the Commission since the consultation paper was issued and takes into account the comments received during the consultation. In a separate but related development, the Commission is also publishing transmission and distribution operator and owner ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ for Gaslink and BGE respectively following a separate public consultation exercise. This was as required by the Regulations. These licences confine themselves to providing that, with regard to the Operating Agreement, the parties shall comply with its terms.
Commission Decision. On August 20, 2018, the Division issued two Notices of Probable Violation to Fountaintown alleging violations of minimum safety standards for transportation and related pipeline facilities under Ind. Code ch. 8-1-22.5. The first Notice alleged 14 violations, including three violations relating to Fountaintown’s failure to properly odorize its gas and failing to appropriately monitor and document its odorization levels. The second Notice alleged six violations concerning Fountaintown’s failure to manage corrosion and document compliance. The Consent Agreement resolves the alleged violations for which Fountaintown has taken remedial action and agreed to pay a monetary civil penalty of $106,000. Upon review of the information provided by the Commission’s General Counsel, the Commission finds the Consent Agreement reasonably resolves the alleged violations. Accordingly, the Commission approves the December 4, 2020 Consent Agreement entered into between Fountaintown and the Division.
1. The December 4, 2020 Consent Agreement entered into between Fountaintown and the Division, a copy of which is attached to this Order, is approved.
2. Within 30 days from the date of this Order, Fountaintown shall pay a civil penalty of $106,000 to the Treasury of the State of Indiana through the Secretary of the Commission.
Commission Decision of 5 February 2010 on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third countries under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Commission Decision. The Company recommends that its Application be processed under Modified Procedure. Staff contends that a hearing is necessary. Staff recommends that the Commission establish an intervention deadline and schedule a prehearing conference. How does the Commission wish to process the Company’s Application?