Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Funding No.#,Work Order No.#Company No: Funding No.#,Work Order No.#Company No: Funding No.#,Work Order No.#Company No: Prepared By: Xxxxxx Xxxxx Version: 1.0 Date: 06/24/11 Requested Date: 08/05/11 Requested by: Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx Request Documentation: EDIS e-mail Substation Engineering Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx 8/22/11 Manager Approval Xxx Xxxxxxxxxxx Date Protection Engineering Xxxx Stqnbro 8/15/11 Manager Approval Xxxx Xxxxxxx Date Summary Alternative # Cost (-25% to +50%) Project Duration Recommended Alternative #2 $1031K 60wks #1 $992K 59wks Other Alternatives #3 $1142K 62wks #4 $1783.5K 90wks # $K PRINTED COPIES ARE NOT DOCUMENT CONTROLLED. FOR THE LATEST AUTHORIZED VERSION PLEASE REFER TO THE APPROPRITATE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE OR DOCUMENTUM. File:RE.09.00.001 Conceptual Engineering Report for Substations Originating Department: Sponsor: App File: LUTHER FOREST - INTERCONNECTION WITH NYSEG Substation Engineering and Design Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxx 115KV/34.5KV STATION ENGINEERING DOCUMENT Conceptual Engineering Report for Substations Luther Forest - Interconnection with NYSEG 115kV/34.5kV station Version 1.0- 06/24/11 DOCUMENT CONTENTS Table of Contents 1.0 ALTERNATIVE 1 3 2.0 ALTERNATIVE 2 (ELECTRICAL SERVICE BULLITEN - ESB) 15
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. [Docket No. ER98–4051–000] Take notice that on July 31, 1998, Nigara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an unexecuted Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and an unexecuted Network Operating Agreement between NMPC and Village of Xxxxxx. The Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement specifies that Village of Xxxxxx will sign on to and will agree to the terms and conditions of NMPC’s Open Access Transmission Tariff as filed in Docket No. OA96–194– 000. This Tariff, filed with FERC on July 9, 1996, will allow NMPC and Village of Xxxxxx to enter into scheduled transactions under which NMPC will provide network integration transmission service for Village of Xxxxxx. NMPC requests an effective date of July 1, 1998. NMPC has requested waiver of the notice requirements for good cause shown. NMPC has served copies of the filing upon the New York State Public Service Commission and Village of Xxxxxx. Comment date: August 20, 1998, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. [Docket No. ER98–4053–000] Take notice that on July 31, 1998, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy regulatory Commission an unexecuted Network Integration transmission Service Agreement and an unexecuted network Operating Agreement between NMPC and Village of Mohawk. The Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement specifies that Village of Mohawk will sign on to and will agree to the terms and conditions of NMPC’s Open Access Transmission tariff as filed in Docket No. OA96–194–000. This Tariff, filed with FERC on July 9, 1996, will allow NMPC and Village of Mohawk to enter into scheduled transactions under which NMPC will provide network integration transmission service for Village of Mohawk. NMPC requests an effective date of July 1, 1998. NMPC has requested waiver of the notice requirements for good cause shown. NMPC has served copies of the filing upon the New York State Public Service Commission and Village of Mohawk. Comment date: August 20, 1998, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. [Docket No. ER98–4050–000] Take notice that on July 31, 1998, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an unexecuted Network between NMPC and Village of Richmondville. The Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement specifies that Village of Richmondville will sign on to and will agree to the terms and conditions of NMPC’s Open Access Transmission Tariff as filed in Docket No. OA96–194–000. This Tariff, filed with FERC on July 9, 1996, will allow NMPC and Village of Richmondville to enter into scheduled transactions under which NMPC will provide network integration transmission service for Village of Richmondville. NMPC requests an effective date of July 1, 1998. NMPC has requested waiver of the notice requirements for good cause shown. NMPC has served copies of the filing upon the New York State Public Service Commission and Village of Richmondville. Comment date: August 20, 1998, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. [Docket No. ER97–2587–000] Take notice that on April 16, 1997, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of FERC Rate Schedule No. 137 and any supplements thereto. Comment date: May 14, 1997, in accordance with Standard Paragraph E at the end of this notice.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp x. Xxxxxx River-Black River, 673 F.3d 84, 105 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Dow Xxxxx & Co. v. Harrods Ltd., 346 F.3d 357, There must be “an underlying legal cause of action that the declaratory defendant could have brought or threatened to bring, if not for the fact that the declaratory plaintiff had preempted it,” because otherwise “any adverse economic interest that the declaratory plaintiff may have against the declaratory defendant is not a legally cognizable interest sufficient to confer declaratory judgment jurisdiction.”51 In particular, “[t]he mere existence of a potentially adverse patent does not cause an injury [or] create an imminent risk of an injury; absent action by the patentee, a potential [infringer] is legally free to market its product in the face of an adversely-held patent.”52
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. 143 F.3d 704, 716 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). On this basis, “[a] court is not authorized to revisit or question the fact-finding or the reasoning which produced the award.” Id. Petitioner first challenges the Arbitrator’s determination that he was required to repay $593,797 of his 2017 bonus, on the ground that this was an “earned wage,” forfeiture of which, under New York’s “long-standing [public] policy,” is not permitted. Pet. Mem. at 41–42. Established New York public policy disfavors forfeiture of earned wages. E.g., Xxxxxxx v. Saatchi & Saatchi Holdings (USA), Inc., 958 F. Supp. 808, 824 (W.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d 159 F.3d 1348 (2d Cir. 1998). In furtherance of that policy, New York also disfavors forfeiture of annual bonuses where such bonus constitutes “an integral part of [Petitioner’s] compensation package.” Id. at 824–25 (citation omitted). But bonuses are not considered earned wages where they are “entirely discretionary and subject to the non-reviewable determination of [the] employer.” Xxxxxxxx v. Ne. Capital & Advisory, Inc., 000 X.X.0x 770, 772 (N.Y. 2000). And “whether unpaid compensation constitutes a discretionary bonus or nonforfeitable earned wage is a question of fact[.]” Xxxxxx v. Cap. Co. of America LLC, 000 X.X.X.0x 504, 504 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002). Here, the Arbitrator made a clear factual finding that the bonus at issue “was in the absolute and sole discretion” of MHR and, therefore, did not constitute earned wages protected from forfeiture. PFA at 63. The Court will not revisit or question the fact-finding that produced the Awards, and Petitioner cannot show that forfeiture of a discretionary bonus “creates an explicit conflict” with New York laws and legal precedents. See Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 143 F.3d at 716. Therefore, vacatur on this basis is unwarranted. Petitioner next challenges on public policy grounds the Arbitrator’s finding that he was required to forfeit $180,000 he received through a hedge fund distribution, because the interest “vested . . . no later than December 31, 2017,” and, therefore, was not “compensation earned” during his period of faithlessness that would otherwise be subject to forfeiture. Pet. Mem. at 41. The Arbitrator found that Petitioner breached his duty of loyalty under the faithless servant doctrine, and that under New York law, Petitioner was required to forfeit “all compensation that [he] received from his first faithless act”—a period she determined t...
