Extended Discussion Sample Clauses

Extended Discussion. “Force Majeure” Provisions‌‌ A “Force Majeure” provision in an energy sale or PPA sets out each party’s respective rights and obligations in the event of an “Act of God” or event beyond the party’s reasonable control. Standard events of Force Majeure include wars and acts of terrorism; earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters; labor strikes; embargos; and any other event or occurrence beyond the reasonable control of a party. Most often, upon the occurrence of a Force Majeure event, the contract will require the party claiming an impact from the event to notify the other party and begin steps to cure or address the event. Following written notice and upon beginning steps to address the impact, the “claiming party” is usually temporarily relieved of its obligations to perform under the contract. If the party claims that the event cannot be remedied and the contract cannot be fulfilled, the Force Majeure provision usually then allows that party to terminate the contract without penalty. In the context of a distributed-generation PPA between a third-party System Owner and a municipal government, where power is delivered from an on-site solar generation system to a municipal host-customer, the parties also may be concerned with moratoriums on the activities contemplated by the contract, events of non-appropriation, and concurrent but conflicting uses. As a result, force majeure provisions in the PPAs we reviewed generally contained standard Force Majeure definitions as well as events that are unique to government contracting. Many PPAs we reviewed included, as events beyond the control of the parties, government moratoriums on any activity related to the PPA and budget non-appropriation events. On the other hand, some PPAs addressed non-appropriation events separately and created alternatives for the parties to address events of non-appropriation, such as selling power to unrelated third parties or utilities, in the event of non-appropriation. In those PPAs, the definition of Force Majeure expressly excluded non- appropriation events. Whether an event of non-appropriation may be considered an event outside of the parties’ control will turn on whether the contracting party is also the budgeting or appropriating party. In circumstances where the customer may not have budgetary control, inclusion of non-appropriations may be appropriate. Similarly, where the definition of Force Majeure included government moratoriums or actions of other governmental au...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Extended Discussion. Termination of a PPA‌ Before a system is fully installed, connected to the utility meter, and operating, a PPA may be terminated for a variety of causes, such as convenience, failure to obtain necessary permits and approvals, or failure of a system owner to secure financing. These early termination rights are usually set out within specific timeframes, such as 30 or 60 days after the effective date of the PPA and may vary depending upon the parties’ anticipated lead time for securing equipment, conducting due diligence, signing an interconnection agreement, and so forth. When a PPA encompasses multiple sites owned by a single municipality, the parties typically ensure that early termination rights may be exercised in part, as to one or more sites, while leaving the PPA in effect as to remaining customer sites.
Sample 1Sample 2
Extended Discussion. Facility Relocation Provisions‌ The needs of a local government, including the need for, or use of, a specific building or facility, may change over time (e.g., a school or government building may be closed or repurposed). While it is unlikely, and inadvisable, that a prospective PPA entrant would seek to enter an agreement for a site that is expected to experience such a change, predicting local needs 10 or 15 years in advance is likely to be difficult. Providers are sensitive to this potential, which represents a risk that their investment in the system could become “stranded” with a change in ownership, use, or closure. The Model PPA template provided in this Toolkit addresses this concern with two provisions. The first allows the power customer to substitute a mutually agreeable replacement site for the facility, and holds the customer responsible for all relocation costs. It likewise provides that should the customer be unable to provide a replacement site, the customer is considered to be in default. In a default event, the customer is obligated to pay for the removal of the system and remit an early termination fee to the system owner, though where available, the system owner may exercise an option to retain the system on-site and sell electricity to another party. In the situation in which the power buyer sells or transfers its real property (that is, the PV system’s location), the PPA template provides several options: • With the system owner’s consent, the customer may assign the agreement to a new owner of the premises after demonstrating that the assignee has the financial ability to meet the purchase obligations; • The customer may elect to purchase the system if the conveyance takes place after the 6th anniversary of the commercial operation date; or • The customer may terminate the PPA and pay an early termination fee This general scenario is likewise laid out in some of the PPAs surveyed for this Toolkit, though several contain additional details related to the specifics of customer-borne costs, replacement site suitability (beyond simple mutual consent) and compensation due to the system owner if the replacement site has inferior insolation that results in lower revenue (i.e., a revised PPA rate that makes the system owner whole for foregone sales). While the PPA template is more general in these areas, the end result is the same; the system owner retains discretion to accept or not accept the substitute site. Further remedies, such as add...
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to Extended Discussion

  • Results and Discussion Table 1 (top) shows the root mean square error (RMSE) between the three tests for different numbers of topics. These results show that all three tests largely agree with each other but as the sample size (number of topics) decreases, the agreement decreases. In line with the results found for 50 topics, the randomization and bootstrap tests agree more with the t-test than with each other. We looked at pairwise scatterplots of the three tests at the different topic sizes. While there is some disagreement among the tests at large p-values, i.e. those greater than 0.5, none of the tests would predict such a run pair to have a significant difference. More interesting to us is the behavior of the tests for run pairs with lower p-values. ≥ Table 1 (bottom) shows the RMSE among the three tests for run pairs that all three tests agreed had a p-value greater than 0.0001 and less than 0.5. In contrast to all pairs with p-values 0.0001 (Table 1 top), these run pairs are of more importance to the IR researcher since they are the runs that require a statistical test to judge the significance of the per- formance difference. For these run pairs, the randomization and t tests are much more in agreement with each other than the bootstrap is with either of the other two tests. Looking at scatterplots, we found that the bootstrap tracks the t-test very well but shows a systematic bias to produce p-values smaller than the t-test. As the number of topics de- creases, this bias becomes more pronounced. Figure 1 shows a pairwise scatterplot of the three tests when the number of topics is 10. The randomization test also tends to produce smaller p-values than the t-test for run pairs where the t- test estimated a p-value smaller than 0.1, but at the same time, produces some p-values greater than the t-test’s. As Figure 1 shows, the bootstrap consistently gives smaller p- values than the t-test for these smaller p-values. While the bootstrap and the randomization test disagree with each other more than with the t-test, Figure 1 shows that for a low number of topics, the randomization test shows less noise in its agreement with the bootstrap com- Figure 1: A pairwise comparison of the p-values less than 0.25 produced by the randomization, t-test, and the bootstrap tests for pairs of TREC runs with only 10 topics. The small number of topics high- lights the differences between the three tests. pared to the t-test for small p-values.

  • Mutual Discussions The Employer and the Union acknowledge the mutual benefits to be derived from dialogue between the parties and are prepared to discuss matters of common interest.

  • Informal Discussion If an employee has a problem relating to a work situation, the employee is encouraged to request a meeting with his or her immediate supervisor to discuss the problem in an effort to clarify the issue and to work cooperatively towards settlement.

  • Informal Discussions The employee's concerns will be presented orally by the employee to the appropriate supervisor. Every effort shall be made by all concerned in an informal manner to develop an understanding of the facts and the issues in order to create a climate which will lead to resolution of the problem. If the employee is not satisfied with the informal discussion(s) relative to the matter in question, he/she may proceed to the formal grievance procedure.

  • Formal Discussions Section 3.1.1. Pursuant to 5 USC 7114(a)(2)(A), the Union shall be given the opportunity to be represented at any formal discussion between one or more employees it represents and one or more representatives of the Employer concerning any grievance (to include settlement discussions) or any personnel policy or practice or other general condition of employment. This right to be represented does not extend to informal discussions between an employee and a supervisor concerning a personal problem, or work methods and assignments.

  • Formal Discussion In the event that a difference of a general nature arises regarding interpretation, application, operation or alleged contravention of this Collective Agreement, the Union shall first attempt to resolve the difference through discussion with the Employer, as appropriate. If the difference is not resolved in this manner, it may become a policy grievance.

  • Effective Date Term Termination and Disconnection 3.1 Effective Date 3.2 Term of Agreement 3.3 Termination

  • DISMISSAL, SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINE 13 11.1 Procedure 13 11.2 Dismissal and Suspension 13 11.3 Burden of Proof 13 11.4 Right to Grieve Other Disciplinary Action 13 11.5 Personnel File 13 11.6 Right to Have Union Representative Present 14 11.7 Abandonment of Position 14 11.8 Probation 14 11.9 Employee Investigations 15 ARTICLE 12 - SENIORITY 15 12.1 Seniority Defined 15 12.2 Seniority List 16 12.3 Loss of Seniority 16 12.4 Re-Employment 17 12.5 Bridging of Service 17 12.6 Same Seniority 17 ARTICLE 13 - LAYOFF AND RECALL 17 13.1 Definition of a Layoff 17 13.2 Pre-Layoff Canvass 17 13.3 Layoff 18 13.4 Bumping 18 13.5 Recall 19 13.6 Advance Notice 19 13.7 Grievance on Layoffs and Recalls 19 13.8 Worksite Closure 19 ARTICLE 14 - HOURS OF WORK 20 14.1 Definitions 20 14.2 Hours of Work 20 14.3 Rest Periods 21 14.4 Meal Periods 22 14.5 Flextime 22 14.6 Staff Meetings 22 (ii) 14.7 Standby Provisions 22 14.8 Conversion of Hours 23 ARTICLE 15 - SHIFTS 23 15.1 Exchange of Shifts 23 15.2 Shortfall of Shifts 23 15.3 Short Changeover Premium 23 15.4 Split Shifts 23 15.5 Work Schedules 23 ARTICLE 16 - OVERTIME 24 16.1 Definitions 24 16.2 Overtime Entitlement 24 16.3 Recording of Overtime 24 16.4 Sharing of Overtime 24 16.5 Overtime Compensation 24 16.6 No Layoff to Compensate for Overtime 24 16.7 Right to Refuse Overtime 25 16.8 Callback Provisions 25 16.9 Rest Interval 25 16.10 Overtime for Part-Time Employees 25 16.11 Authorization and Application of Overtime 25 ARTICLE 17 - HOLIDAYS 26 17.1 Paid Holidays 26 17.2 Holiday Falling on Saturday or Sunday 26 17.3 Holiday Falling on a Day of Rest 26

  • SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINE 29.01 When an employee is suspended or discharged from duty, the Employer undertakes to notify the employee in writing, with a copy to the Association, of the reason for such suspension or discharge. The Employer shall endeavour to give such notification at the time of suspension or discharge.

  • MEET AND DISCUSS A. Upon request of either party, the Chancellor and/or designees of the Chancellor shall during the term of this Agreement meet with a committee appointed by the Association for the purpose of discussing matters necessary to the implementation of this Agreement.

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