Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting Sample Clauses

Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E negotiated the PPA on a bilateral basis because the offer was at a favorable price (i.e., below the 2009 MPR) with acceptable terms and conditions, and because there was a high probability that, if the offer had been deferred to PG&E’s 2011 RPS solicitation, the Project’s online date could have been significantly delayed. By negotiating this transaction on a bilateral basis, rather than under the 2011 RPS Solicitation, PG&E will be able to secure deliveries of RPS-eligible power from the PPA by the end of 2012 to enhance its 20% RPS compliance position through 2013. To address the issue of bilateral contracting, the Commission developed guidelines pursuant to which utilities may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.00-00-000, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts, provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”3 Later, in D.00-00-000, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.4 Also in that decision, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.5 Based on D.00-00-000 and D.00-00-000, the Commission set forth the following four requirements for approval of bilateral contracts in a Resolution approving a bilateral RPS contract executed by PG&E: (1) the contract is submitted for approval by advice letter;
Sample 1See All (6)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E and Xxxxxx negotiated the PPA on a bilateral basis. PG&E proceeded with bilateral negotiations for this project because it has a reasonable price, is an existing resource, and can provide for immediate deliveries of RPS-eligible energy. If PG&E had required the Seller to bid into its 2010 Solicitation, deliveries from the project would have been delayed substantially. To address the issue of bilateral contracting, the Commission developed guidelines pursuant to which utilities may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.00-00-000, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts, provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”3 Later, in 2 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(3). D.00-00-000, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration, and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.4 Also in that decision, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.5
Sample 1
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. Because the Amended and Restated PPA is a result of the 2005 RPS Solicitation, this section is not applicable.
Sample 1
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. The Commission has developed guidelines for how the IOUs may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.00-00-000, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”5 In D.00-00-000, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration, and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.6 In addition, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.7 Similarly, the Commission required that bilateral contracts be: (1) submitted for Commission approval; (2) longer than one month in duration; (3) do not receive above-market funds (“AMFs”); and (4) are deemed reasonable by the Commission.8 Finally, in D.00-00-000, the Commission determined that bilateral contracts should be reviewed using the same standards as contracts resulting from RPS solicitations.9 The Amended PPA satisfies the four requirements listed above and the requirements of D.00-00-000. The Original PPA was approved by the Commission in Resolution E-4340 on July 29, 2010, and the Amended PPA is being submitted for approval through this Advice Letter. The Amended PPA is not eligible for AMFs because it resulted from bilateral negotiations. The Amended PPA has a 25-year term, and is therefore longer than one month in duration. Finally, as PG&E explains in attached Confidential Appendix D, the terms and conditions in the Amended PPA do not materially change the economics of the Project for PG&E as compared to the Original PPA. In Resolution E- 4340, the Commission concluded that: “[t]he total all-in costs of the Rice Solar Energy, LLC power purchase agreement are reasonable based on their relation to bids received in response to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s 2009 solicitation for renewable resources.”10 5 D.00-00-000 at pp. 57-58. 6 D.00-00-000 at p. 29. 7 Id. at p. 31. 8 Resolution E-4216 at p. 5. 9 D.00-00-000 at p. 29. 10 Resolution E-4340, Findings and Conclusions No.7.
Sample 1
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. The parties have an existing QF contract, and discussions pursuant to that QF contract led both parties to explore an alternative contract structure with different terms and conditions that would extend the relationship. The Commission has developed guidelines 4 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(3). 5 D.00-00-000 at 73. pursuant to which the utilities may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.00-00-000, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”6 Later, in D.00-00-000, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration, and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.7 Also in that decision, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.8
Sample 1
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E and TransAlta negotiated the PSA on a bilateral basis in 2009 prior to the Commission authorizing the solicitation of REC-only transactions in the annual RPS Solicitations. On October 29, 2009, PG&E filed Application A.00-00-000 seeking Commission approval of the PSA with TransAlta. In a Ruling dated April 22, 2010, XXX Xxxxx ordered PG&E to seek approval of the contracts in A.00-00-000 using a Tier 3 advice letter process for RPS contracts and present the information required by D.10-03- 021 for advice letters seeking approval of contracts for procurement of RECs only. On May 12, 2010, the Commission issued D.00-00-000 that stayed D.00-00-000. Finally, on January 14, 2011, the Commission issued D.00-00-000 that modified D.00-00-000 and lifted the stay of D.00-00-000 imposed by D.00-00-000. PG&E negotiated the First Amendment to the original agreement with TransAlta in order to comply with additional Commission requirements in D.00-00-000 as amended by 3 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(3).
Sample 1

Related to Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting

  • Agreed Guidelines Applications With respect to the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to this case, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

  • Hot Weather Guidelines For the purposes of site based discussions regarding the need to plan and perform work during expected periods of hot weather, the following issues shall be considered in conjunction with proper consideration of Occupational Health and Safety issues.

  • Effect of Non-Agreement on Guidelines Applications The parties understand, acknowledge and agree that there are no agreements between the parties with respect to any Sentencing Guidelines issues other than those specifically listed in Paragraph 10, and its subsections. As to any other Guidelines issues, the parties are free to advocate their respective positions at the sentencing hearing.

  • Procurement and Consultant Guidelines All goods, works and services required for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Grant shall be procured in accordance with the requirements set forth or referred to in:

  • Required Procurement Procedures for Obtaining Goods and Services The Grantee shall provide maximum open competition when procuring goods and services related to the grant-assisted project in accordance with Section 287.057, Florida Statutes.

  • Interpretation & Application of Guidelines It is jointly agreed that the site representatives (union and management) are empowered to implement the guidelines as per the scope provided. It is jointly agreed that refresher training to explain the interpretation and application of the inclement weather clauses is to be conducted to ensure correct use. Unless these guidelines are followed, the employer will not be required to pay for lost time through inclement weather and the Disputes Board will be so briefed.

  • General Guidelines 1. Conduct yourself in a responsible manner at all times in the laboratory.

  • Sentencing Guidelines Calculations 8. Defendant understands that in imposing sentence the Court will be guided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines in determining a reasonable sentence.

  • CONTRACTOR’S SUBMISSION OF CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS In connection with any Contract modification, OGS reserves the right to:  request additional information  reject Contract modifications  remove Products from Contract modification requests  request additional discounts for new or existing Products

  • Deadlines for Providing Insurance Documents after Renewal or Upon Request As set forth herein, certain insurance documents must be provided to the OGS Procurement Services contact identified in the Contract Award Notice after renewal or upon request. This requirement means that the Contractor shall provide the applicable insurance document to OGS as soon as possible but in no event later than the following time periods:  For certificates of insurance: 5 business days  For information on self-insurance or self-retention programs: 15 calendar days  For other requested documentation evidencing coverage: 15 calendar days  For additional insured and waiver of subrogation endorsements: 30 calendar days Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Contractor shall have promptly requested the insurance documents from its broker or insurer and shall have thereafter diligently taken all steps necessary to obtain such documents from its insurer and submit them to OGS, OGS shall extend the time period for a reasonable period under the circumstances, but in no event shall the extension exceed 30 calendar days.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.