CPUC DECISIONS REQUIRING INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR PARTICIPATION Sample Clauses

CPUC DECISIONS REQUIRING INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR PARTICIPATION. The CPUC first mandated a requirement for an independent, third-party evaluator to participate in competitive solicitations for utility power procurement in its Decision 04-12- 048 on December 16, 2004 (Findings of Fact 94-95, Ordering Paragraph 28). In that Decision, which addressed the approval of three utilities’ long-term procurement plans, the CPUC required the use of an IE when Participants in a competitive procurement solicitation include affiliates of investor-owned utilities (IOUs), IOU-built projects, or IOU-turnkey projects. The Decision envisaged that establishing a role for an IE would serve as a safeguard in the process of evaluating IOU-built or IOU-affiliated projects competing against Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with independent power developers, a safeguard to protect consumers from any anti-competitive conduct between utilities and their corporate affiliates or from anti-competitive conduct by utilities developing their own generation. Later, in approving the IOUs’ 2006 RPS procurement plans and solicitation protocols, the CPUC issued Decision 00-00-000 on May 25, 2006. In that Decision, the CPUC expanded its requirement, ordering that each IOU use an IE to evaluate and report on the entire solicitation, evaluation, and selection process, for the 2006 RPS RFO and all future competitive solicitations. This requirement to employ an IE now applies whether or not IOU-owned or IOU-affiliate generation participates in the solicitation (Finding of Fact 20, Conclusion of Law 3, and Ordering Paragraph 8). This requirement, among others, was intended by the CPUC to increase the fairness and transparency of the proposal selection process. Subsequently, as part of Rulemaking 00-00-000 to continue implementation of the RPS program, the CPUC issued Decision 00-00-000 on June 19, 2009. In that decision, the Commission concluded that short-term bilaterally negotiated contracts (e.g. those with term of less than ten years) should be governed by the same contract review processes and standards as contracts that arise through competitive solicitations, including review by an independent evaluator.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (10)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to CPUC DECISIONS REQUIRING INDEPENDENT EVALUATOR PARTICIPATION

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • Presentence Investigation Report/Post-Sentence Supervision 24. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney’s Office in its submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at sentencing shall fully apprise the District Court and the Probation Office of the nature, scope, and extent of defendant’s conduct regarding the charges against him, and related matters. The government will make known all matters in aggravation and mitigation relevant to sentencing.

  • Promotions Requiring Higher Qualifications Consideration for promotion shall be given to the senior applicant who does not possess the required qualifications but is presently obtaining such qualifications prior to filling the vacancy. At the discretion of the Employer, such an employee may be given a trial period to qualify within a reasonable length of time and will revert to her former position if the required qualifications are not met within such time.

  • SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND DVBE PARTICIPATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS a. If for this Contract Contractor made a commitment to achieve small business participation, then Contractor must within 60 days of receiving final payment under this Contract (or within such other time period as may be specified elsewhere in this Contract) report to the awarding department the actual percentage of small business participation that was achieved. (Govt. Code § 14841.)

  • PARTICIPATION, CONTRACT ACCESS, AND PARTICIPATING ENTITY REQUIREMENTS A. PARTICIPATION. Sourcewell’s cooperative contracts are available and open to public and nonprofit entities across the United States and Canada; such as federal, state/province, municipal, K-12 and higher education, tribal government, and other public entities. The benefits of this Contract should be available to all Participating Entities that can legally access the Equipment, Products, or Services under this Contract. A Participating Entity’s authority to access this Contract is determined through its cooperative purchasing, interlocal, or joint powers laws. Any entity accessing benefits of this Contract will be considered a Service Member of Sourcewell during such time of access. Supplier understands that a Participating Entity’s use of this Contract is at the Participating Entity’s sole convenience and Participating Entities reserve the right to obtain like Equipment, Products, or Services from any other source. Supplier is responsible for familiarizing its sales and service forces with Sourcewell contract use eligibility requirements and documentation and will encourage potential participating entities to join Sourcewell. Sourcewell reserves the right to add and remove Participating Entities to its roster during the term of this Contract.

  • ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 9. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan. SCHEDULE 5

  • OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (OMB) AUDIT REQUIREMENTS The parties shall comply with the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984, P.L. 98-502, ensuring that the single audit report includes the coverage stipulated in 2 CFR 200.

  • PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 28. Acceptance of this Settlement Agreement shall be sought at a hearing of the Central Regional Council of the MFDA on a date agreed to by counsel for Staff and the Respondent.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • State Approval of Replacement Personnel The Engineer may not replace the project manager or key personnel without prior consent of the State. The State must be satisfied that the new project manager or other key personnel is qualified to provide the authorized services. If the State determines that the new project manager or key personnel is not acceptable, the Engineer may not use that person in that capacity and shall replace him or her with one satisfactory to the State within forty-five (45) days.

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