GWR Decision Sample Clauses

GWR Decision. This matter concerns the “GWR Decision,” which specifically is whether Cal-Am shall: (i) pursue a water purchase agreement, acceptable to Cal-Am, for the purchase of water from the GWR Project, and consequently Cal-Am shall develop smaller Desalination Infrastructure with a capacity of approximately 6.4 MGD (or as specified in the CPCN); or (ii) forgo the pursuit of a water purchase agreement for the GWR Project, and consequently Cal-Am shall develop larger Desalination Infrastructure with a capacity of approximately 9.6 MGD (or as specified in the CPCN). The settlement agreement entered among various settling parties to the proceeding within CPUC A.12.04.019 on July 31, 2013 (“Settlement Agreement”) provides for a bifurcated phase of the proceeding to determine the GWR Decision. The Settlement Agreement at Section 4.3(d) provides that the Governance Committee’s opinion on any one or more of the findings for the GWR Decision, as set forth in Section 4.2 the Settlement Agreement, should be provided to the Commission for the Commission’s consideration, and should the Governance Committee issue a written statement concerning any one or more of the findings for the GWR Decision before testimony is submitted in the bifurcated proceeding, California American Water shall file said written statement with the Commission within ten (10) days of receipt for the Commission’ s consideration. Consistent with Section 4.3(d) of the Settlement Agreement, any one or more of the Public Entity Members of the Governance Committee may request that any of the matters pertaining to findings respecting the GWR Decision, as set forth in Section 4.2 of the Settlement Agreement, be agendized for discussion and potential recommendation of the Governance Committee at any time prior to the submission of testimony in the bifurcated proceeding for the GWR Decision. After discussion by the Governance Committee during a meeting for which the matter was agendized, the Governance Committee may approve any written statement included within the agenda for that meeting relating to one or more of the GWR findings, including any modification to such written statement made upon motion at the Governance Committee meeting. Cal-Am shall promptly submit any such written statement approved by the Governance Committee to the Commission, and in no event later than ten (10) days after receipt of notice of the written statement from the Governance Committee.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to GWR Decision

  • Hearing Decision The decision of the Board shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact and the personnel action approved, if any. The findings may reiterate the language of the pleadings or simply refer to them. The decision of the Board shall be certified to the Superintendent or designee who recommended the personnel action, and he/she shall enforce and follow this decision. A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the appellant or his/her designated representative personally or by registered mail. The decision of the Board shall be final.

  • Final Decision Concessionaire covenants that the decision of the Commissioner of Department, relative to the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be final and conclusive.

  • The Decision If mediation fails, or is not appropriate, and if the decision can be rendered after a short deliberation, the Arbitrator will do so. By meeting first with counsel to explain the framework of the Arbitrator’s decision, the parties are provided with an opportunity to influence the exact terms of resolution. Within the framework of settlement as outlined by the Arbitrator, the parties can work out exact terms which best suit the specifics of the case. Such an opportunity should not be wasted by continuing to argue the merits of the case.

  • Arbitration Decision The arbitrator’s decision will be final and binding. The arbitrator shall issue a written arbitration decision revealing the essential findings and conclusions upon which the decision and/or award is based. A party’s right to appeal the decision is limited to grounds provided under applicable federal or state law.

  • Arbitration Decisions Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) Calendar Days of appointment and shall notify the Parties in writing of such decision and the reasons therefor. The arbitrator(s) shall be authorized only to interpret and apply the provisions of this LGIA and shall have no power to modify or change any provision of this Agreement in any manner. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be final and binding upon the Parties, and judgment on the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. The decision of the arbitrator(s) may be appealed solely on the grounds that the conduct of the arbitrator(s), or the decision itself, violated the standards set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act or the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. The final decision of the arbitrator(s) must also be filed with FERC if it affects jurisdictional rates, terms and conditions of service, Interconnection Facilities, or Network Upgrades.

  • Final Decisions The Contracting Officer will issue a final decision as required by 33.211 if—

  • Shared Decision Making 33-1 Purpose The purpose of a shared decision making program is to create an atmosphere in which decision making is a collegial, shared, process that fosters an exchange of ideas and information necessary for effective professional practice and for improved student performance. The Association and District agree to continue pursuing jointly the implementation of legitimately recognized school councils as a foundation of a shared decision-making program. All provisions of this Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect throughout the process.

  • Arbitrator’s Decision 27.3.3.1 The arbitrator's decision and award shall be in writing and shall state concisely the reasons for the award, including the arbitrator's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

  • Initial Decision Maker The Architect will serve as the Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Article 15 of AIA Document A201–2017, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as the Initial Decision Maker. (If the parties mutually agree, insert the name, address and other contact information of the Initial Decision Maker, if other than the Architect.) « » « » « » « »

  • Automated decisions For purposes hereof “automated decision” shall mean a decision by the data exporter or the data importer which produces legal effects concerning a data subject or significantly affects a data subject and which is based solely on automated processing of personal data intended to evaluate certain personal aspects relating to him, such as his performance at work, creditworthiness, reliability, conduct, etc. The data importer shall not make any automated decisions concerning data subjects, except when:

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