DISCUSSION OF MERIT FOR APPROVAL Sample Clauses

DISCUSSION OF MERIT FOR APPROVAL. Xxxxxx concurs with PG&E management that the Xxxxxx XX contract merits CPUC approval. In Xxxxxx’x opinion the contract offers high net value, low contract price, and high project viability. It would contribute to PG&E's efforts to meet its RPS Goals. Xxxxxx has scored the project as moderate with respect to portfolio fit. Xxxxxx’x qualified opinion, based solely on post-hoc document review without direct observation of negotiations, is that the negotiations for this project’s output were fair to ratepayers and fair to competing developers. PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV AT&T Department of Water Resources North America Power Partners Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP Dept of General Services North Coast SolarResources Ameresco Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx Northern California Power Association Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx Xxxxxx & Brand Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. XXXX Xxxx Energy OnGrid Solar Xxxxxxxxx & Xxx, Inc. Economic Sciences Corporation Praxair Xxxxxx Xxxxx Associates Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx LLP X. X. Xxxx & Associates Bloomberg Xxxxxx Farms RCS, Inc. Bloomberg New Energy Finance G. A. Xxxxxx & Assoc. Recurrent Energy Boston Properties GLJ Publications SCD Energy Solutions Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx XxXxxxxxxx, P.C. GenOn Energy, Inc. SCE Brookfield Renewable Power Goodin, MacBride, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx XXXX CA Bldg Industry Association Green Power Institute XXXXX CLECA Law Office Xxxxx & Xxxxxx San Francisco Public Utilities Commission CSC Energy Services Hitachi Seattle City Light California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assn In House Energy Sempra Utilities California Energy Commission International Power Technology Sierra Pacific Power Company California League of Food Processors Intestate Gas Services, Inc. Silicon Valley Power California Public Utilities Commission Xxxxxxxx Berkeley National Lab Silo Energy LLC Calpine Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power Southern California Edison Company Cardinal Xxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx & Scripps LLP Spark Energy, X.X. Xxxxxx, Xxxxx XXX Lighting Consulting Sun Light & Power Center for Biological Diversity MBMC, Inc. Sunshine Design Xxxxx, Xxxx MRW & Associates Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxx City of Palo Alto Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx & Associates City of Palo Alto Utilities XxXxxxxx & Associates Tecogen, Inc. City of San Xxxx Xxxxxx Irrigation District Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. City of Santa Xxxx Xxxxxxx Irrigation District TransCanada Clean Energy Fuels Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx Turlock Irrigation Distri...
Sample 1See All (10)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
DISCUSSION OF MERIT FOR APPROVAL. In Xxxxxx’x opinion, both the contract amendment to extend price relief under the existing contract and the new five-year agreement with Wheelabrator Shasta merit CPUC approval. • The CPUC found the project’s 2011 price relief amendment to be reasonable, including its pricing; the current amendment’s pricing is than the price of the 2011 amendment that applied in the last eleven months of its term. While Xxxxxx ranks the PPA’s contract price as high compared to recent competing proposals from projects delivering renewable energy, the more relevant peer group to which to compare this short-term amendment is other recent opportunities available to PG&E from biomass-fueled facilities that agree to deliver power in the short term from biofuel harvested from High Hazard Zones. The pricing of the new contract ranks low to moderate compared to that peer group; its value ranks moderate to high. • Similarly, the contract amendment will likely result in payments above the market price of renewable energy. This might amount to excess payments in the vicinity of by ratepayers above what they would pay for renewable energy at market prices, depending on market and performance outcomes. The $/MWh net market value of the Wheelabrator Shasta amendment deliveries will however be those of previous price extensions that PG&E granted to other QFs that are burning HHZ fuel and those of proposals received in PG&E’s BioRAM solicitation for delivering energy derived from HHZ fuel. The contract amendment is an immediate means of obtaining bioenergy from HHZ fuel at a value better than or comparable to competing alternatives. • While the price of the new five-year contract ranks high compared to competing proposals to deliver renewable energy, the more relevant peer group to which to compare this contract is other proposals from biomass-fueled facilities that offered to deliver power from biofuel harvested from High Hazard Zones. The price of the new agreement ranks low when compared to those proposals that still remained available to PG&E after the BioRAM RFO selections were completed. • The Portfolio-Adjusted Value of the new contract in levelized $/MWh ranks high compared to those of competing proposals for HHZ fuel-derived energy that were available to PG&E after the BioRAM solicitation. Xxxxxx independently ranked the new contract as moderate in net market value among those proposals. However, Xxxxxx agrees that contracting with Wheelabrator Shasta was the highest-valued alter...
Sample 1See All (7)
DISCUSSION OF MERIT FOR APPROVAL. Xxxxxx concurs with PG&E management that the ERP contract amendment merits CPUC approval, although Xxxxxx has a few reservations about the amendment, described in greater detail in the confidential appendix to this report. In Xxxxxx’x opinion the contract amendment offers moderate net value, moderate contract price, high portfolio fit, and high project viability. In Xxxxxx’x opinion, the price change is justified by the projections of Xxxxxxxxx Power’s cash flow model, though it is difficult to assess the quality of inputs to that model in the absence of a consistent historical record of financial performance. The amendment would help contribute to PG&E's efforts to meet its RPS Goals. In particular, the contract amendment would support continued compliance with Executive Order S-06- 06 regarding the goal for biomass-fueled generation in the state. It would protect against employment losses in a locality with a higher proportion of low-income residents than the state at large. Xxxxxx’x opinion is that the special considerations relating to the contract amendment’s support of RPS program goals outweigh the IE’s modest reservations. However, any individual decision-maker’s judgment about the merits of the ERP contract amendment may depend on the policy-maker’s relative emphasis placed on the cost impact of the amendment upon ratepayers or the fairness with how the amendment was negotiated, vs. the contribution of the projects’ continued operation to meeting the state’s biomass-fueled generation goal, and to employment stability. PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV AT&T Dept of General Services Northern California Power Association Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx Occidental Energy Marketing, Inc. Ameresco Downey & Brand OnGrid Solar Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx Xxxx Energy Praxair Arizona Public Service Company Economic Sciences Corporation X. X. Xxxx & Associates XXXX Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx LLP RCS, Inc. Xxxxxxxxx & Xxx, Inc. Xxxxxx Farms Recurrent Energy Xxxxxx Xxxxx Associates G. A. Xxxxxx & Assoc. SCD Energy Solutions Bloomberg GLJ Publications SCE Bloomberg New Energy Finance GenOn Energy, Inc. SMUD Boston Properties Goodin, MacBride, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx XXXXX Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx XxXxxxxxxx, P.C. Green Power Institute San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Brookfield Renewable Power Xxxxx & Xxxxxx Seattle City Light CA Bldg Industry Association Hitachi Sempra Utilities CLECA Law Office In House Energy Sierra Pacific...
Sample 1See All (6)
DISCUSSION OF MERIT FOR APPROVAL. In Arroyo’s opinion, the 83WI 8ME contract merits CPUC approval: • The contract price (after adjustment for time-of-delivery factors) ranks low when compared to all Offers received in PG&E’s 2012 RPS solicitation, and ranked low among the shortlisted proposals that PG&E considered for execution. • PG&E’s estimate of Portfolio-Adjusted Value ranks the contract as high compared to all 2012 Offers; it ranks moderate in PAV within the short list that PG&E considered for contract execution. Arroyo’s independent analysis ranks the contract as high in net value when compared to all 2012 Offers. • In Arroyo’s opinion, the proposed Midway Solar Farm I facility ranks as moderate in project viability. Its developers do not yet have experience developing, constructing, or owning, operating, and maintaining a single solar photovoltaic facility as large as 50 MW. However, European affiliates of GASNA have considerable experience bringing smaller solar PV projects into operation, the facility has obtained its interconnection agreement from IID and its conditional use permit from Imperial County, and does not face serious impediments to obtaining required network upgrades. Xxxxxx believes that Midway I should reasonably be able to meet its guaranteed commercial operation date. • The PPA ranks moderate to high in portfolio fit when compared to all 2012 Offers when using PG&E’s metric for adjusting PAV for timing of contribution to RPS compliance needs. • The project will be sited near a community afflicted with high unemployment, high poverty rates, and high emission levels. Overall, Arroyo’s opinion is that the 83WI 8ME contract merits CPUC approval based on superior pricing, moderate to high value, and moderate project viability. PG&E Gas and Electric Advice Filing List General Order 96-B, Section IV 1st Light Energy Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx OnGrid Solar AT&T Xxxxxx & Brand Pacific Gas and Electric Company Xxxxxxxx & Xxxx LLP Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxx LLP Praxair Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxx X. X. Xxxxxx & Xxxxx. Regulatory & Cogeneration Service, Inc. BART GenOn Energy Inc. SCD Energy Solutions Xxxxxxxxx & Xxx, Inc. GenOn Energy, Inc. SCE Xxxxxx Xxxxx Associates Goodin, MacBride, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxx SDG&E and SoCalGas Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx XxXxxxxxxx, X.X. Xxxxx Power Institute XXXXX CENERGY POWER Xxxxx & Xxxxxx San Francisco Public Utilities Commission California Cotton Ginners & Growers Assn In House Energy Seattle City Light California Energy Commission International Power Technology ...
Sample 1See All (5)

Related to DISCUSSION OF MERIT FOR APPROVAL

  • SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals will be submitted to the attention of Xx. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx-Green, via e- mail at XXX.Xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxXXX.xxx no later than 5:00 p.m. Central, Wednesday, March 10, 2021.

  • 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.

  • Effect of non-approval of proposals (6) Notwithstanding that under subclause (1) any proposals of the Company are approved by the Minister or determined by arbitration award, unless each and every such proposal and matter is so approved or determined by 31 October 1992 or by such extended date or period if any as the Company shall be granted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement then the Minister may give to the Company 12 months notice of intention to determine this Agreement and unless before the expiration of the said 12 months period all the detailed proposals and matters are so approved or determined this Agreement shall cease and determine subject however to the provisions of Clause 35. Implementation of proposals

  • PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the Agreement is to provide the City with the services for one full-time equivalent senior criminalist from the Department to perform DNA testing, analysis, and forensic-related consulting as requested by the City, effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. The City’s current agreement with the County for this position expires on June 30, 2016. This Agreement will not result in the creation of an additional senior criminalist position, as the position was created during the previous agreement.

  • Evaluation of Proposals 29.1 UNDP shall examine the Proposal to confirm that all terms and conditions under the UNDP General Terms and Conditions and Special Conditions have been accepted by the Proposer without any deviation or reservation.

  • 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.

  • Rejection of Proposals The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals or to accept the proposal or any part thereof which it determines to best serve the needs of the County and to waive any informalities or irregularities in the proposals. While cost is a factor in any contract award, it is not the only factor and may not be the determining factor.

  • Clarification of Proposals Evaluations will be in accordance with the selection criteria set forth in the proposal request. Upon completion of evaluations, the CO will issue a task order to the contractor whose proposal provides the best value to the Government.

  • COMPLETION OF MEET AND NEGOTIATE During the term of this Agreement, the parties waive and relinquish the right to meet and negotiate except as provided below and elsewhere in this Agreement, and agree that they shall not be obligated to meet and negotiate with respect to any subject or matter referred to or covered in this Agreement, nor on those subjects or matters which were proposed by either party and later withdrawn. Negotiations may be reopened at any time on any section of this contract on petition of either party and with the concurrence of the second party.

  • NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC EVENTS AND MEETINGS 2 A. CONTRACTOR shall notify ADMINISTRATOR of any public event or meeting funded in 3 whole or in part by the COUNTY, except for those events or meetings that are intended solely to serve 4 clients or occur in the normal course of business.

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