Util. Code §§ 2868-2869. If the related PV System is not located in California, either (i) the Parent utilizes a multiple listing service monitoring platform to monitor potential upcoming changes to the ownership of the real property underlying the PV System or (ii) a precautionary fixture filing on a form UCC-1 has been filed with respect to such PV System in the applicable real property records concerning third-party ownership of the PV System. The terms of the related Solar Service Agreement provide (or in the case of a New Construction Solar Asset (Non-Identified Customer), will provide) that the parties thereto agree that the related PV System is not a fixture.
Util. Code §§ 2868-2869. If the related PV System is not located in California, either (i) the Sponsor utilizes a multiple listing service monitoring platform to monitor potential upcoming changes to the ownership of the real property underlying the PV System or (ii) a precautionary fixture filing on a form UCC-1 has been filed with respect to such PV System in the applicable real property records concerning third-party ownership of the PV System.
Util. Art. §7-306 and the regulations promulgated thereunder at Code Maryland Reg 20.50.10.00 et seq (the “Maryland Net Metering Law”). The exhibits listed below are incorporated by reference and made part of this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, Purchaser shall pay to Seller concurrently with the execution of this Agreement the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00) in cash (the “Independent Contract Consideration”) which amount has been bargained for and agreed to as consideration for the parties’ respective promises, rights and duties under this Agreement. The Independent Contract Consideration is in addition and independent of all other consideration provided in this Agreement and is non-refundable. Exhibit 1 Pricing Attachment Exhibit 2 System Description, Delivery Point and Premises Exhibit 3 General Terms and Conditions Exhibit 4 Termination Payment Schedule Purchaser: The City of Xxxxxxxxx Seller: Shams Solar Energy Center LLC Signature: Printed Name: Title: Date: Signature: Printed Name: Title: Date: Exhibit 1 Pricing Attachment
Util. Code §§ 2868-2869 as in effect after the date of this Agreement, provided that such sections of the Cal. Pub.
Util. Code remain substantially similar to Cal. Pub.
Util. Code § 102000 et seq. Its employees have been subject to PEPRA, a law that applies to public sector employees, not to citizens or employees generally. By unilaterally reducing pension benefits, XXXXX exemplifies the "pernicious effect on the collective bargaining process" that concerned the Eleventh Circuit in Hull. The Realities of Public Sector Collective Bargaining The district court also concluded that the Department erred by not "considering the realities of public sector bargaining," including the fact that any modifications to state pension plans "must be ratified by the state legislature." California, 2014 WL 7409478, at *16-*17. XxxXXX adds that in the public sector, terms and conditions of employment are public decisions shaped by political processes and realities outside the direct control of a particular public sector employer and must operate within legislatively-imposed budget constraints and be consistent with the legislature's policy direction. SacRTD Response 11. In SacRTD's view, PEPRA is a legislative policy that California's public employers take to the bargaining table. Id. at 12. The ATU says that the reality of public sector collective bargaining adverted to by the district court is legally irrelevant because SacRTD is an independent agency authorized by state law to negotiate and enter into collective bargaining agreements, and nothing in California law requires submission of those agreements for ratification by the California legislature or any other higher authority in California with the power of the purse. ATU Response 15 & n.8. XxxXXX admits that it is required by state law to bargain collectively, and cites nothing in state law that requires the state legislature to ratify the agreements it reaches through collective bargaining. SacRTD Response 6; AR 725-27 (XxxXXX's discussion of tis authority to maintain an independent, collectively-bargained pension plan, and the review and ratification process for collective bargaining agreements). Thus, I agree with the ATU that ratification by the state legislature is not an issue for SacRTD. The concerns raised by the district court and SacRTD are also not new; they existed when section 13(c) was enacted. Then, as now, state legislatures could exercise control over the terms and conditions of employment outside the direct control of a particular public sector employer. Congress recognized that reality in considering state agencies that were prevented by state law from collective bargain...
Util. Comm’n, 558 U.S. 165 (2010) (the “Mobile-Sierra” doctrine).
Util. Code §§ 2868-2869 as in effect as of the date of this Agreement.
Util. Comm ’nt etal. v. City ofLancaster - Bureau of Water, Docket Nos. R-2010-2179103, et al. (Order entered July 14, 2011) at p. 11. Instead, the benchmark for determining the acceptability ofa settlement is whether the proposed terms and conditions are in the public interest. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm ’n v. Philadelphia Gas Works, Docket No. M- 00031768 (Order entered January 7, 2004). I&E submits that approval of the Settlement Agreement in the above-captioned matter is consistent with the Commission’s Policy Statement regarding Factors and Standardsfor Evaluating Litigated and Settled Proceedings Involving Violations ofthe Public Utility Code and Commission Regulations (“Policy Statement”), 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201; See also Xxxxxx X. Xxxx x. Xxxx-Atlantic-Pennsylvania, Inc., Docket No. C- 00992409 (Order entered March 16, 2000). The Commission’s Policy Statement sets forth ten factors that the Commission may consider in evaluating whether a civil penalty for violating a Commission order, regulation, or statute is appropriate, as well as whether a proposed settlement for a violation is reasonable and in the public interest. 52 Pa. Code §69.1201. Appendix B The Commission will not apply the standards as strictly in settled cases as in litigated cases. 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201(b). While many of the same factors may still be considered, in settled cases, the parties “will be afforded flexibility in reaching amicable resolutions to complaints and other matters so long as the settlement is in the public interest.” 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201(b). The first factor considers whether the conduct at issue was of a serious nature, such as willful fraud or misrepresentation, or if the conduct was less egregious, such as an administrative or technical error. Conduct of a more serious nature may warrant a higher penalty. 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201(c)(1). I&E submits that the violations at issue in this matter are of a serious nature in that they involve allegations of slamming and the Commission has stated that it maintains a “zero tolerance” regarding slamming. Therefore, I&E submits that Xxxxxx’s conduct is of a serious nature and was considered in arriving at the Settlement Agreement. The second factor considered is whether the resulting consequences of Xxxxxx’s alleged conduct were of a serious nature. When consequences of a serious nature are involved, such as personal injury or property damage, the consequences may warrant a higher penalty. 52 Pa. Code § 69.1201(c)(2). I&E’s investigatio...
Util. Code remain substantially similar to Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 2868-2869 as in effect as of March 26, 2018.” 2. Amendment to Section 4.03(f). Section 4.03(f) of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the text “0.65” with the text “0.68”. 3. Amendment to Section 4.03(g). Section 4.03(g) of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the text “0.65” with the text “0.68”. 4. Amendment to Section 5.23(k). Section 5.23(k) of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: “(k) In respect of each Eligible Project (other than, provided that a Qualifying California Code remains in effect in the State of California, any Eligible Project located in the State of California) with respect to which a Customer Agreement was prepared for execution on and from January 6, 2014, a fixture filing has been recorded against each Customer and the applicable property in respect of such Eligible Project in the filing office designated by Section 9-501 of the applicable Uniform Commercial Code (as adopted in the applicable jurisdiction of installation) prior to, or within, the period required under Section 2-A-309 of the applicable Uniform Commercial Code in order to perfect a first priority security interest following the delivery of any photovoltaic system components to a site for installation.”. 5. Amendment to Section 5.23(l). Section 5.23(l) of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: “(l) In respect of each Eligible Project in California with respect to which a Customer Agreement has been entered into, a filing in respect of such Eligible Project (pursuant to and in compliance with a Qualifying California Code) was made in the applicable local filing office where the Eligible Project is located.”. II.
