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. 7.4 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. 45
Issue 2. 7.5 Whether BPA should propose amending the Settlement to allow additional entities to sign 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. 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.
Issue 2. Effects on Threatened and Endangered Species:
Issue 2. Gender agreement when feminine and neuter nouns are conjoined The part of the survey covering Issue 2 was concerned with conditions under which FCA, LCA or default agreement can be found with feminine and neuter conjuncts. As noted earlier, when conjoined, whether uniform or with mixed genders, feminine and neuter nouns can trigger either feminine, neuter or default agreement. Test examples for this issue were designed to check under which circumstances we get FCA, LCA or default agreement when feminine and neuter nouns are conjoined. Sixteen test-examples were used, covering 4 conditions – FPL+FPL, NPL+NPL, FPL+NPL, NPL+FPL (2 examples with preverbal (animate + inanimate), and 2 examples with postverbal (animate + inanimate) conjuncts for each condition). Sentences with both feminine or both neuter conjuncts were used in order to test under which circumstances we can expect to have default agreement with uniform non-masculine conjuncts. The results of the survey for the first condition (FPL+FPL) are presented in (43), and test examples are given in (42).
