DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS Sample Clauses

DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that the negotiations between the parties were, overall, fair to competitors. However, Xxxxxx agrees that it would have been challenging for the utility to proceed from scratch with a second formal competitive solicitation while meeting Resolution E- 4805’s requirements and achieving an executed agreement by the legislative and regulatory deadline of December 1. The process of quickly seeking refreshed BioRAM offers plus two offer from non-participants was more efficient and expeditious, if more opaque. One issue was whether it was fair for PG&E to invite Wheelabrator Shasta to submit offer forms for a bilaterally negotiated contract but to invite no other non-participants of PG&E’s BioRAM RFO. There are several other woody biomass- fueled projects that could have participated in the BioRAM solicitation but did not. Among these are biomass QFs currently under long-term contract with PG&E. Some received price relief amendments in 2011 in parallel with Wheelabrator Shasta, such as Covanta Energy’s Mendota facility, which was shut down in 2014, DG Fairhaven, and the cogeneration facility of Humboldt Redwood Company (previously “Eel River Power”) that had a price relief amendment through March 2016. Other projects that could have participated in the BioRAM solicitation included facilities that had previously been contracted to other utilities, such as the Buena Vista biomass plant in Xxxx, formerly contracted with Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Blue Lake Power in Humboldt County, formerly contracted with SDG&E; both are now shut down. had a bilateral dialogue with PG&E in April 2016 prior to the BioRAM RFO in which the project’s commercial team asked whether PG&E would consider a bilateral contract rather than just PPAs obtained through a competitive solicitation. Similarly, the management of , held discussions with PG&E in February and March 2016 in which it asked whether a bilateral contract could be considered. Was it fair for PG&E to reach out to Wheelabrator Shasta to solicit a proposal for a bilateral contract, while not contacting other projects whose owners had previously asked the utility specifically about such a bilateral negotiation, such as ? Xxxxxx speculates that would likely be disadvantaged Xxxxxx believes that it would have improved the robustness of PG&E’s effort to seek the most competitively priced bilateral contract to have invited more projects to submit proposals. Shasta unfair. among non-participants in ...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS. The developers of the Midway I project requested numerous changes from the revised version of PG&E’s 2012 RPS Form Agreement provided to the seller in May 2013. The siting of the project deep within the IID grid rather than interconnected to the CAISO grid required variances from PG&E’s Form Agreement in several provisions, and posed incremental risks to the buyer, making this a complex and lengthy negotiation. Of the requested changes, PG&E granted few concessions. Xxxxxx regards the changes from the Form Agreement to the 83WI 8ME contract to have minimal adverse impact on ratepayers. Most of these seem modest changes that are, in Xxxxxx’x opinion, reasonable accommodations to the commercial situation, such as the provision governing the Xxxxxx believes that PG&E’s refusal to grant a large number of requested concessions succeeded in maintaining fairness to direct competitors of 8minutenergy Renewables and GASNA, by avoiding disparate treatment of Midway I compared to other projects. '' ' ' Xxxxxx did not observe PG&E providing the developers of the Midway I project with non-public information that advantaged it against competing sellers. PG&E’s treatment of 83WI 8ME during negotiations was, overall, comparable with the treatment of its competitors in the 2012 RPS RFO. Much of the challenge in the negotiation was to arrive at terms that treat this IID-interconnected project roughly similarly to those granted to CAISO-interconnected projects while protecting ratepayers from risks that come with purchasing power from a project in a foreign balancing area. Xxxxxx believes that the parties largely succeeded in avoiding disparate treatment, neither advantaging nor disadvantaging the seller excessively compared to its competitors, and keeping ratepayers whole when buying renewable energy from a seller whose long-term ability to deliver Resource Adequacy attributes to PG&E’s customers is at greater risk than a CAISO-interconnected project. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s negotiations with 83WI 8ME were conducted fairly with respect to ratepayers and competitors.
DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS. Xxxxxx observed four negotiation sessions between the PG&E and Iberdrola teams during the summer of 2013. The parties agreed to a few changes from the version of the Form Agreement for REC-only sales that PG&E had developed in the first several months of 2013. In a few cases, Iberdrola acquiesced to PG&E’s preferences '

Related to DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS

  • Preparatory Contract Negotiations Meetings Where operational requirements permit, the Employer will grant leave without pay to an employee to attend preparatory contract negotiations meetings.

  • Exclusive Negotiations The State will not bargain collectively or meet with any employee organization other than MSEA-SEIU with reference to terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by this Agreement. If any such organizations request meetings they will be advised by the State to transmit their requests concerning terms and conditions of employment to MSEA-SEIU.

  • Completion of Negotiations This Agreement represents complete collective bargaining and full agreement by the District and the Federation with respect to wages, hours of employment, and all other terms and conditions of employment which shall prevail during the term or terms hereof. This Agreement expresses the entire understanding between the parties and supersedes all previous agreements between them, written or oral. Any matter or subject not herein covered has been satisfactorily adjusted, compromised, or waived by the parties for the life of this Agreement.

  • COMPLETION OF MEET AND NEGOTIATION 24.1 During the term of this Agreement, the Association expressly waives and relinquishes the right to meet and negotiate and agrees that the District shall not be obligated to meet and negotiate with respect to any subject or matter whether referred to or covered in this Agreement or not, even though each subject or matters may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both the District or the Association at the time they met and negotiated on and executed this Agreement, and even though such subjects or matters were proposed and later withdrawn.

  • Additional Wet Weather Procedure 14.15.1 Remaining On Site a) for more than an accumulated total of four hours of ordinary time in any one day; or b) after the meal break, as provided for in clause 17.1 of the Award, for more than an accumulated total of 50% of the normal afternoon work time; or c) during the final two hours of the normal work day for more than an accumulated total of one hour, the Enterprise will not be entitled to require the employees to remain on site beyond the expiration of any of the above circumstances.

  • NEGOTIATIONS PROCEDURE A. Upon the request of Local 149 or the Board, not earlier than ninety (90) calendar days prior to the expiration of this Agreement, the parties may open negotiations for a successor contract. The first meeting will be held within fifteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the request unless the parties mutually agree to a later date. B. The Board and the Union shall be represented at negotiation meetings by a team of not more than six (6) members each. C. The Board and the Union negotiating teams shall exchange items for negotiations at the first negotiating session. All contract proposals shall be presented in writing by both parties. No issue shall be introduced by either party following the first session unless mutually agreed by both negotiating teams. D. Neither team shall release information to the public media without mutual agreement of the other team until such time as impasse is declared by either side. E. When tentative agreement is reached covering the matters of negotiation, it shall be reduced to writing, reproduced at Board expense for the Local 149 membership to ratify or reject. When approved by Local 149 membership, it shall be presented to the Board for its approval or rejection. F. In the event agreement is not reached within thirty (30) calendar days after the first actual negotiating session, either party may request that Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service be notified and requested to furnish the services of a mediator for the purpose of assisting the parties in reaching agreement. The request for a mediator shall be jointly filed. This procedure is intended to serve as an alternate dispute resolution procedure to those set forth in Chapter 4117 of the Ohio Revised Code. G. The procedures set forth above may be modified prior to the start of negotiations by joint agreement of the parties. Should that occur, the bargaining shall be governed by the ground rules agreed to modifying these procedures.

  • Regulatory and Special Allocations Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.1: (a) If there is a net decrease in Company Minimum Gain (determined according to Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-2(d)(1)) during any Fiscal Year, each Member shall be specially allocated income and gain for such Fiscal Year (and, if necessary, subsequent Fiscal Years) in an amount equal to such Member’s share of the net decrease in Company Minimum Gain, determined in accordance with Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-2(g). The items to be so allocated shall be determined in accordance with Treasury Regulations Sections 1.704-2(f)(6) and 1.704-2(j)(2). This Section 6.2(a) is intended to comply with the “minimum gain chargeback” requirement in Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-2(f) and shall be interpreted consistently therewith. (b) Member Nonrecourse Deductions shall be allocated in the manner required by Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-2(i). Except as otherwise provided in Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-2(i)(4), if there is a net decrease in Member Nonrecourse Debt Minimum Gain during any Fiscal Year, each Member that has a share of such Member Nonrecourse Debt Minimum Gain shall be specially allocated income and gain for such Fiscal Year (and, if necessary, subsequent Fiscal Years) in an amount equal to that Member’s share of the net decrease in Member Nonrecourse Debt Minimum Gain. Items to be allocated pursuant to this paragraph shall be determined in accordance with Treasury Regulations Sections 1.704-2(i)(4) and 1.704-2(j)(2). This Section 6.2(b) is intended to comply with the “minimum gain chargeback” requirements in Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-2(i)(4) and shall be interpreted consistently therewith. (c) In the event any Member unexpectedly receives any adjustments, allocations or Distributions described in Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d)(4), (5) or (6), income and gain shall be specially allocated to such Member in an amount and manner sufficient to eliminate the Adjusted Capital Account Deficit created by such adjustments, allocations or Distributions as quickly as possible. This Section 6.2(c) is intended to comply with the qualified income offset requirement in Treasury Regulations Section 1.704-1(b)(2)(ii)(d) and shall be interpreted consistently therewith. (d) The allocations set forth in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above (the “Regulatory Allocations”) are intended to comply with certain requirements of the Treasury Regulations under Code Section 704. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article VI (other than the Regulatory Allocations), the Regulatory Allocations shall be taken into account in allocating Net Income and Net Losses among Members so that, to the extent possible, the net amount of such allocations of Net Income and Net Losses and other items and the Regulatory Allocations to each Member shall be equal to the net amount that would have been allocated to such Member if the Regulatory Allocations had not occurred. (e) The Company and the Members acknowledge that allocations like those described in Proposed Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(xii)(c) (“Forfeiture Allocations”) result from the allocations of Net Income and Net Loss provided for in this Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, the Company is entitled to make Forfeiture Allocations and, once required by applicable final or temporary guidance, allocations of Net Income and Net Loss shall be made in accordance with Proposed Treasury Regulation Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(xii)(c) or any successor provision or guidance.

  • Outside Activities of Limited Partners Subject to any agreements entered into by a Limited Partner or its Affiliates with the General Partner, Partnership or a Subsidiary, any Limited Partner and any officer, director, employee, agent, trustee, Affiliate or stockholder of any Limited Partner shall be entitled to and may have business interests and engage in business activities in addition to those relating to the Partnership, including business interests and activities in direct competition with the Partnership or that are enhanced by the activities of the Partnership. Neither the Partnership nor any Partners shall have any rights by virtue of this Agreement in any business ventures of any Limited Partner or Assignee. Subject to such agreements, none of the Limited Partners nor any other Person shall have any rights by virtue of this Agreement or the partnership relationship established hereby in any business ventures of any other Person, other than the Limited Partners benefiting from the business conducted by the General Partner, and such Person shall have no obligation pursuant to this Agreement to offer any interest in any such business ventures to the Partnership, any Limited Partner or any such other Person, even if such opportunity is of a character which, if presented to the Partnership, any Limited Partner or such other Person, could be taken by such Person.

  • Proposed Policies and Procedures Regarding New Online Content and Functionality By October 31, 2017, the School will submit to OCR for its review and approval proposed policies and procedures (“the Plan for New Content”) to ensure that all new, newly-added, or modified online content and functionality will be accessible to people with disabilities as measured by conformance to the Benchmarks for Measuring Accessibility set forth above, except where doing so would impose a fundamental alteration or undue burden. a) When fundamental alteration or undue burden defenses apply, the Plan for New Content will require the School to provide equally effective alternative access. The Plan for New Content will require the School, in providing equally effective alternate access, to take any actions that do not result in a fundamental alteration or undue financial and administrative burdens, but nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the same benefits or services as their nondisabled peers. To provide equally effective alternate access, alternates are not required to produce the identical result or level of achievement for persons with and without disabilities, but must afford persons with disabilities equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement, in the most integrated setting appropriate to the person’s needs. b) The Plan for New Content must include sufficient quality assurance procedures, backed by adequate personnel and financial resources, for full implementation. This provision also applies to the School’s online content and functionality developed by, maintained by, or offered through a third-party vendor or by using open sources. c) Within thirty (30) days of receiving OCR’s approval of the Plan for New Content, the School will officially adopt, and fully implement the amended policies and procedures.

  • Public Posting of Approved Users’ Research Use Statement The PI agrees that information about themselves and the approved research use will be posted publicly on the dbGaP website. The information includes the PI’s name and Requester, project name, Research Use Statement, and a Non-Technical Summary of the Research Use Statement. In addition, and if applicable, this information may include the Cloud Computing Use Statement and name of the CSP or PCS. Citations of publications resulting from the use of controlled-access datasets obtained through this DAR may also be posted on the dbGaP website.

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