Issue 2. .7.2 Whether BPA should examine whether the COUs that sign the Settlement have the authority to perform in accordance with its terms. 39
Issue 2. .7.5 Whether BPA should propose amending the Settlement to allow additional entities to sign the Settlement. 48
Issue 2. 7.4 Whether BPA should reform the Settlement to correct a scrivener’s error in the definition of “Party” in section 2 of the April 22, 2011, version of the Settlement.
Issue 2. Section 2501 imposes a tax for each calendar year on the transfer of property by gift by any individual. Section 2511(a) provides that subject to limitations contained in chapter 12, the tax imposed by section 2501 shall apply whether the transfer is in trust or otherwise, whether the gift is direct or indirect, and whether the property is real or personal, tangible or intangible.
Issue 2. 7.1 Whether the Settlement is unsound because the DSIs were not involved in all of the negotiations leading up to the proposed Settlement. 36
Issue 2. 7.6 Whether BPA should pay PF-02 Refund Amounts directly to Lost River Electric Cooperative and Salmon River Electric Cooperative and pay PF-02 Refund Amounts for all other PNGC members to PNGC for redistribution to its members. 50
Issue 2. 7.6 Whether BPA should pay PF-02 Refund Amounts directly to Lost River Electric Cooperative and Salmon River Electric Cooperative and pay PF-02 Refund Amounts for all other PNGC members to PNGC for redistribution to its members. Parties’ Positions PNGC states that PNGC, Lost River, and Salmon River believe that it is appropriate and advantageous for the Administrator to determine that all Lookback Credit Amounts due to Lost River and Salmon River should be paid or credited directly to those customers during FY 2012– 2013 and subsequent years, instead of paying or crediting any portion of those amounts to PNGC for the benefit of Lost River and Salmon River. PNGC Br., REP-12-B-PN-01, at 2. These parties state that this procedure is both consistent with the bilateral relationships that BPA and Lost River and Salmon River have under their respective FY 2012–2028 contracts and more efficient to administer. Id. PNGC also states that the Administrator should determine that the Customer Specific PF-02 Refund amounts shown in the Settlement, Exhibit B, for Lost River and Salmon River will be paid or credited by BPA directly to those customers for FY 2012–2013 and subsequent years, instead of any portion of those amounts being paid to PNGC for redistribution to Lost River and Salmon River. Id. at 3. PNGC states that because it holds a section 5(b)(7) contract for purchase from BPA, and resale to its members, of power for FY 2012–2013 and subsequent years, BPA should pay or credit to PNGC, for redistribution to its members, the Customer Specific PF-02 Refund amounts shown in the Settlement, Exhibit B, for all members of PNGC (except Lost River and Salmon River, who will then not be members). Id.
Issue 2. International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects This section will address the liability regime under current international space law and discuss how this regime may impact ADR activities. Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty establishes a general rule of liability for dam- age caused by space objects: “Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internation- ally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies.” As space activities are inherently dangerous, imposing liability for dam- age inflicted by space activities is the counterpart of the enjoyment of the freedom to explore and use outer space granted under Article I of the OST.135 In this sense, the rationale for imposing liability on the States involved in the launch of a space object for damage caused by such object to other States is “the interest of the international community in securing a reliable State liability regime to respond to the ultra-hazardous activities of launching States”.136 133 FCC. (8 August 2022). Facilitating Capabilities for In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufac- turing. FCC 22-66, para. 5. <xxxxx://xxxx.xxx.xxx/public/attachments/FCC-22-66A1.pdf>. 134 This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 Section 5.2. 135 Xxxxxxx, X. & Xxxxx, X. X. (2009). Article VII. In CoCoSL Vol. 1, p. 130 136 Ibid, p. 129. The general principle of liability under Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty has been elaborated in the Liability Convention, which establishes two separate patterns of liability, namely absolute liability and fault-based liabil- ity. The former applies to damage caused by a space object on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight, and the latter applies to damage caused in outer space.137 The rationale for distinguishing between absolute and fault- based liability according to the location of the damage caused is the degree of involvement in ultra-hazardous activities.138 Entities carrying out space activities are regarded as having accepted the high risks associated with the operation of a spacecraft and are therefore on a more or less equal footing for risk sharing.139 In contrast, uninvo...
Issue 2. 2.2. Unlo king the onjun tion of predi ates de xxx on a produ t The onjun tion of a set of predi ates is an important parti ular ase. Using this pe uliarity, lemma 5 gives the onstru tion of the orresponding unlo king m/f. Let I, (Xι)ι∈I be non-empty sets and def Y X = ι∈I Xι. (2.3) We all an element x ∈ X a tuple from X (or simply a tuple if the set X is xed) and denote the def ι th element of the tuple x by xι: xι = (x | {ι}) ∈ Xι. Denote by (y, x−ι) the tuple from X resulted from the tuple x ∈ X by substituting the element y ∈ Xι at the position of xι: ( (y, x−ι) def = y, = ι, x, ∈ I \ {ι} ∀x ∈ X ∀y ∈ Xι ∀ι ∈ I. Let a family of predi ates P ∈ PR(X), ∈ J on the produ t X be given. Let the predi ate P ∈ PR(X) have the form def P (x) ⇔ (P(x) ∀ ∈ J ) x ∈ X . Let |J | <= |I| and q ∈ IJ be the orresponding inje tion of J into I. De ne the m/f FP ∈ P(X)X as follows: def Y FP (x) = where m/f Bι, Bι ∈ P(Xι)X are de xxx by ( ι∈I Bι(x) ∀x ∈ X, (2.4) def Bι(x) = Bιq−1(ι)(x)((y, x−ι))}, ι ∈ q(J ), Xι, ι /∈ q(J ), (2.5) def Bι(x) = {y ∈ Xι | P((y, x−ι))}, x ∈ X, ι ∈ I, ∈ J . Lemma 5. FP ∈ UM(P ).
Issue 2. Another operational issue encountered during the project was that the wireless transmitter would randomly malfunction at temperatures above 32°F. This occurred sporadically throughout the data collection period (however it did occur more frequently during cold temperature periods). This random data transmission failure prevented the real-time transmission of data to the web-based database. In order to correct this problem, the wireless transmitter’s power had to be cycled, which must be performed on-site. The power breaker needed to be turned off manually for at least 30 seconds and then repowered. The cause of this failure may be that the unit, like many other routers used today, requires an occasional power cycle to return the device to an operational state. Resolution 2: Other more expensive equipment may or may not improve wireless transmitter malfunction. The heating system may improve this as well. If neither solves the problem, and on-site representative will need to cycle the power or a remote system to cycle power can be installed.
