Conclusion and Recommendations D. Evaluations for Offenders without a sex offense conviction shall answer the following additional referral questions in the evaluations:
Conclusions and Recommendations For the reasons stated herein, Merrimack Energy concludes that the shortlisting decisions by PG&E in the 2007 RPS RFO were reasonable and based on the requirements and evaluation criteria set forth in the Solicitation Protocol. The selection of the shortlist was very inclusive and erred on the side of including more offers in what was a very ample shortlist relative to the procurement target. In the Shortlist Report, Merrimack Energy recommended a number of changes to the RPS procurement process, several of which were adopted by PG&E in the 2008 RPS RFO. Despite recommending certain changes, our assessment is that the PG&E evaluation methodology was appropriate and that it was administered fairly and reasonably. Consistent with suggestions we had made in and after the Shortlist Report, PG&E developed a negotiation prioritization strategy with shortlisted bidders that created an active group of negotiations based on price and viability factors. The Mojave Solar bid was consistently placed in the secondary group and although its proposal changed over time from the proposal initially shortlisted, it remained in the secondary group during the course of contract negotiations. While the project sponsor is a very viable and experienced developer of solar thermal projects and is capable of developing the project effectively, there are concerns associated with the timing of the project that adds risk to the ultimate success of the project. PG&E has done an effective job in managing these risks through contract provisions in both the original contract and the amended and restated agreement. The details of the PPA and the amended and restated agreement are addressed in the Confidential Appendix to this report. While the positive attributes of the project should be balanced against the negative attributes in assessing whether or not the amended and restated agreement should be approved, the IE has concerns about project value for the customers. In addition to the high project cost and low market value, the project contains a number of challenges to meet its proposed construction start date primarily associated with transmission interconnection and access. While PG&E has negotiated provisions in the Amended and Restated contract that generally protects the interests of consumers, should the firm interconnection be delayed longer than anticipated, PG&E customers may be exposed to higher RA costs to back-up the project should the cost of capacity in the market exceed the price caps established in the contract. In conclusion, the IE has reservations about the contract based on project value including the levelized net market value calculations relative to project benchmarks from other recent solicitations. PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV AT&T Dept of General Services Northern California Power Association Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. Ameresco Downey & Brand OnGrid Solar Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx Xxxx Energy Praxair Arizona Public Service Company Economic Sciences Corporation X. X. Xxxx & Associates XXXX Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx LLP RCS, Inc. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxx, Inc. Xxxxxx Farms Recurrent Energy Xxxxxx Xxxxx Associates G. A. Xxxxxx & Assoc. SCD Energy Solutions Bloomberg GLJ Publications SCE Bloomberg New Energy Finance GenOn Energy, Inc. SMUD Boston Properties Goodin, MacBride, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx XXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx XxXxxxxxxx, P.C. Green Power Institute San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Brookfield Renewable Power Xxxxx & Xxxxxx Seattle City Light CA Bldg Industry Association Hitachi Sempra Utilities CLECA Law Office In House Energy Sierra Pacific Power Company CSC Energy Services International Power Technology Silicon Valley Power California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assn Intestate Gas Services, Inc. Silo Energy LLC California Energy Commission Xxxxxxxx Berkeley National Lab Southern California Edison Company California League of Food Processors Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power Spark Energy, L.P. California Public Utilities Commission Xxxx, Forward, Xxxxxxxx & Scripps LLP Sun Light & Power Calpine MAC Lighting Consulting Sunshine Design Cardinal Cogen MBMC, Inc. Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx XXX & Associates Tabors Caramanis & Associates Xxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Tecogen, Inc. City of Palo Alto XxXxxxxx & Associates Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. City of Palo Alto Utilities Merced Irrigation District TransCanada City of San Xxxx Xxxxxxx Irrigation District Turlock Irrigation District Clean Energy Fuels Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx United Cogen Coast Economic Consulting Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx Utility Cost Management Commercial Energy NLine Energy, Inc. Utility Specialists Consumer Federation of California NRG West Verizon Crossborder Energy NaturEner Wellhead Electric Company Xxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx LLP Navigant Consulting Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) Day Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxx & Xxxx Associates eMeter Corporation Defense Energy Support Center North America Power Partners
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWS We may provide you areas on the Site to leave reviews or ratings. When posting a review, you must comply with the following criteria: (1) you should have firsthand experience with the person/entity being reviewed; (2) your reviews should not contain offensive profanity, or abusive, racist, offensive, or hate language; (3) your reviews should not contain discriminatory references based on religion, race, gender, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability; (4) your reviews should not contain references to illegal activity; (5) you should not be affiliated with competitors if posting negative reviews; (6) you should not make any conclusions as to the legality of conduct; (7) you may not post any false or misleading statements; and (8) you may not organize a campaign encouraging others to post reviews, whether positive or negative. We may accept, reject, or remove reviews in our sole discretion. We have absolutely no obligation to screen reviews or to delete reviews, even if anyone considers reviews objectionable or inaccurate. Reviews are not endorsed by us, and do not necessarily represent our opinions or the views of any of our affiliates or partners. We do not assume liability for any review or for any claims, liabilities, or losses resulting from any review. By posting a review, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, fully-paid, assignable, and sublicensable right and license to reproduce, modify, translate, transmit by any means, display, perform, and/or distribute all content relating to reviews.
Representations and Recommendations Unless otherwise stated in writing, neither Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc, nor its brokers or licensees have made, on their own behalf, any representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to any element of the Property including but not limited to, the legal sufficiency, legal effect, or tax consequences of this transaction. Any information furnished by either party should be independently verified before that party relies on such information. Xxxxxxxx Realty Inc. recommends that Buyer consult its attorneys and accountants before signing this Agreement regarding the terms and conditions herein and that Seller satisfy itself as to the financial ability of Buyer to perform.
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION I. All classroom teachers shall be evaluated each school year by their principal, assistant principal, or designee administrator.
Recommendation The Sheriff recommends approval of the Board Order. The County Administrator concurs with the recommendation of the Sheriff. Should the Board of Commissioners concur with their recommendations, approval of the Board Order will implement that action. Respectfully submitted, /s/ XXXXX XXXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxx County Administrator
