DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS Sample Clauses

DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS. Xxxxxx observed three negotiation sessions between the PG&E and Sterling Planet teams in the summer of 2013. Sterling Planet requested very few changes from the version of PG&E’s Form Agreement provided to the seller in July. Instead, most of the variances from the Form Agreement were introduced by PG&E, apparently in an effort to ensure that, in the interest of fair treatment, there were no significant disparities in treatment of Sterling Planet vs. other sellers with whom the utility was negotiating in parallel. ' ' The Sterling Planet PSA may usefully be compared to two bilaterally negotiated contracts that PG&E signed with Barclays Bank PLC in 2010, which were amended earlier in 2010. While the Barclays transactions were to sell firmed-and-shaped bundled RPS-eligible energy to PG&E for a shorter delivery term, they are somewhat analogous to the Sterling Planet PSA in the nature of benefits. The confirmation agreements with Barclays did specify particular generation projects to deliver the product; this was consistent with the nature of the deliverables as firmed bundled RPS-eligible energy. It appears that the Sterling Planet contract has stronger ratepayer protections in these specific areas than these older Barclays agreements that were recently amended. Xxxxxx did not observe PG&E providing Sterling Planet with non-public information that advantaged it against competing sellers. Overall, Sterling Planet’s treatment by PG&E during negotiations was comparable with the treatment of its competitors Iberdrola and NextEra. Because of PG&E’s effort to minimize disparate treatment of sellers whose PSAs were developed in parallel with the Sterling Planet PSA, in Xxxxxx’x opinion the negotiations with Sterling Planet were conducted fairly with respect to competitors. The remaining disparities among the NextEra, Iberdrola, and Sterling Planet PSAs do not seem sufficient in likely impact to lead Xxxxxx to regard Sterling Planet as having been competitively disadvantaged. One issue with the Sterling Planet negotiation is whether the modifications that PG&E introduced to ensure greater fairness in its treatment of Sterling Planet compared to competitors actually impeded the fairness with which ratepayers were treated. These changes amounted to concessions that Sterling Planet did not request, and which arguably reduced ratepayer protections compared to PG&E’s Form Agreement. '' ' Xxxxxx’x opinion is that PG&E’s negotiations with Sterling Planet were, overall, con...
Sample 1See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
DEGREE OF FAIRNESS OF PROJECT- SPECIFIC NEGOTIATIONS. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that the negotiations between the parties were, overall, fair to competitors. Fairness to competitors of the new contract. In essence, PG&E ran an informal mini- solicitation after the BioRAM RFO was complete in order to meet its increased HHZ fuel- based energy compliance obligation imposed by Resolution E-4805. This competition, leading to negotiation of the new bilateral contract, was opaque compared to how PG&E conducts formal competitive solicitations. There were no protocols published, no webpages posting the questions and answers about the follow-on process, no public posting of the rider that was revised to meet the requirements of Resolution E-4805. PG&E did not seek feedback from participants about how fairly they felt they were treated as would be the usual case with formal RFOs (in fact, PG&E did not seek feedback from either participants or non-participants in the BioRAM RFO). Situations such as this are more vulnerable to concerns about fairness and transparency than formal RFOs because many of the usual practices employed to ensure that competitors are treated fairly were omitted or accelerated. 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 w...
Sample 1

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.

  • Response/Compliance with Audit or Inspection Findings A. Grantee must act to ensure its and its Subcontractors’ compliance with all corrections necessary to address any finding of noncompliance with any law, regulation, audit requirement, or generally accepted accounting principle, or any other deficiency identified in any audit, review, or inspection of the Contract and the services and Deliverables provided. Any such correction will be at Grantee’s or its Subcontractor's sole expense. Whether Xxxxxxx's action corrects the noncompliance shall be solely the decision of the System Agency.

  • 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 14.1 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 Where, because of wet weather, the employees are prevented from working:

  • NEGOTIATIONS PROCEDURE Table of Contents

  • Schedule for Completing Agreement Closeout Activities Provide All Draft and Final Written Products on a CD-ROM or USB memory stick, organized by the tasks in the Agreement. Products: • Final Meeting Agreement Summary (if applicable) • Schedule for Completing Agreement Closeout Activities • All Draft and Final Written Products

  • Conducting Negotiations 5-2-1 The Association and the District agree that negotiations shall be guided by the following procedures, which may be modified at any time by mutual consent. 5-2-2 The parties agree to negotiate in good faith. Good faith is defined as an honest attempt to resolve issues, which arise during the negotiations process. Both parties agree to present reasonable proposals, which demonstrate educational and fiscal responsibility. The obligations of good faith negotiations does not compel either party to agree or to make concessions on a specific issue. 5-2-3 The parties agree that the primary teams at the table for each side will be limited to a mutually agreed upon number of participants. A majority of each team shall be District employees.

  • Initiating Negotiations A. Upon written request by the Association to the Board, or by the Board to the Association, after September 1 and no later than November 1, the Board and the Association will arrange for negotiation as provided for herein.

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