Summary Narrative. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ….” See Residential Exchange Program Settlement Agreement Evaluation and Analysis Study, REP-12-E-BPA-01, at 1 (Evaluation Study), quoting in part Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, A TALE OF TWO CITIES, at 13 (Signet Classic 1997) (1859). The past decade has not been, in many respects, the best of times for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) with regard to its implementation of the statutory exchange program established by section 5(c) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act), known as the Residential Exchange Program (REP). 16 U.S.C. § 839c(c)(1). For the better part of the last decade, BPA, six regional investor-owned utilities (IOUs), over a hundred consumer-owned utilities (COUs), and many other regional parties have been locked in continuous litigation over BPA’s implementation of the REP. During this period, BPA has issued 15 records of decision (RODs) relating to the REP, many of which were challenged by parties in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit or Court). The legacy of these contentious legal battles is three published court decisions, five unpublished opinions, two remands, and 56 newly filed petitions with the Court. With the closing of the litigious 2000–2010 period, BPA and the region are now facing yet another decade of contentious litigation and uncertainty over the REP. Better times, however, may yet lie ahead. In December of 2010, a number of regional parties presented BPA with a proposed settlement of the existing REP-related disputes that would replace BPA’s disputed implementation of the REP with a negotiated compromise. This settlement, the 2012 Residential Exchange Program Settlement (“2012 REP Settlement” or “Settlement”),1 reflects the efforts of a broad coalition of regional parties to replace the cycle of instability and litigation over the REP with stability and certainty for the benefit of all regional ratepayers. These parties, which include six IOUs, three state utility commissions, a number of COU representative groups, a retail ratepayer advocacy group, and COUs representing
Summary Narrative. A summary narrative of problems encountered with Collection and processing activities and actions taken. Indicate type and number of Non-Collection Notices left at Service Recipient locations. Indicate instances of property damage or injury, significant changes in operation, market factors, publicity conducted, needs for publicity. Include description of processed material loads rejected for sale, reason for rejection and disposition of load after rejection.
Summary Narrative. After review of presented materials and ongoing monitoring of adherence to contractual requirements throughout this eighteen-month period, it is determined that Metro West Ambulance (MWA) did not satisfactorily meet their obligations. As noted above, single lapses in compliance are circumstantial and does not constitute a failure of that criterion. As presented in this document, the lapses in Metro West Ambulance’s performance were not singular events. Strictly citing response time metrices, MWA failed to meet standard in all categories in multiple months; several consecutively. During initial investigation into the cause of these continued failures, several factors were discussed, but no one singular reason was discovered. With no demonstrated improvement from MWA, a performance improvement plan was submitted by MWA on November 26th, 2021. In review of this plan, it was discovered that MWA was offering significant sign-on and retention bonuses. The Washington County EMS Program (WCEMS) found this to be odd and inquired with MWA. It was with this inquiry that MWA noted they were having a significant staffing issue that was materially affecting their ability to maintain response readiness. It is important to note that staffing was not initially cited as a potential factor. Through collaboration with WCEMS and other Washington County EMS agencies, several plans were developed to help improve performance and maintain adequate EMS coverage for the county. However, these plans did not take effect until after the end of this review period. With the material submitted and continued review, it is the recommendation of the Washington County EMS Program, that an additional eighteen-months NOT be granted. This effectively reduces the term of the current contract to four and one-half years (4.5). According to the Franchise Agreement Section II.A, “reestablishment of a 6-year term may occur at the approval of the EMS Office under the following conditions: After completion of 5 consecutive 18-month periods above standard performance, the 5th 18-month period may be added back to the term reestablishing a 6-year contract term. Above standard performance is defined as follows: response time performance at 90% in all 4 equity zones, overall Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) shall be 0.400 or below and any standards involved in the loss of the 18-month period shall have no incidents of noncompliance. Overall 18 Month Assessment Meets Standard: Yes No X Xxx Xxxx 6/6/22 Assessment L...
