Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting Clause Samples

Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E negotiated the PPA on a bilateral basis because the offer was at a favorable price (i.e. below the 2009 MPR) with acceptable terms and conditions, and because there was a high probability that, if the offer had been deferred to PG&E’s 2011 RPS solicitation, the Project’s online date could have been significantly delayed and the project would be unable to qualify for the Treasury Grant, which is integral to Project’s economics. By negotiating this transaction on a bilateral basis, rather than through the 2011 RPS Solicitation, PG&E will be able to secure deliveries of RPS-eligible power from the PPA in 2012 to enhance its 20% RPS compliance position through 2013, as well as its long term compliance position. To address the issue of bilateral contracting, the Commission developed guidelines pursuant to which utilities may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts, provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”3 Later, in D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.4 Also in that decision, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.5 Based on D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ and D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission set forth the following four requirements for approval of bilateral contracts in a Resolution approving a bilateral RPS contract executed by PG&E: (1) the contract is submitted for approval by advice letter;
View SourceView Similar (5)
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ negotiated the PPA on a bilateral basis. PG&E proceeded with bilateral negotiations for this project because it has a reasonable price, is an existing resource, and can provide for immediate deliveries of RPS-eligible energy. If PG&E had required the Seller to bid into its 2010 Solicitation, deliveries from the project would have been delayed substantially. To address the issue of bilateral contracting, the Commission developed guidelines pursuant to which utilities may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts, provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”3 Later, in 2 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(3). D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration, and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.4 Also in that decision, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.5 (1) the contract is submitted for approval by advice letter; (2) the contract is longer than one month in duration; (3) the contract does not receive above-market funds (“AMFs”); and (4) the contract is deemed reasonable by the Commission.6 The Commission noted that it would be developing evaluation criteria for bilateral contracts, but that the above four requirements would apply in the interim.7 On June 19, 2009, the Commission issued D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ establishing price benchmarks and contract review processes for short-term and bilateral RPS contracts. D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ provides that bilateral contracts should be reviewed using the same standards as contracts resulting from RPS solicitations. The PPA satisfies the four requirements listed above and the requirements of D.09- 06-050. The PPA is being submitted for approval via this Advice Letter and is not eligible for AMFs because it resulted from bilateral negotiations. The PPA’s term is longer than one month in duration; it has a term of 20 years. Finally, the PPA is reasonable when considered against the pricing and other standards used for evaluating contracts resulting from PG&E’s 2009 RPS Solicitation, as PG&E explains in this Advice Letter and in the attached Confidential Appendices. The Commission should therefore approve the PPA. 4 D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ at 29. 5 Id. at 31. 6 Resolution E-4216 at 5.
View SourceView Similar (3)
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. Because the Amended and Restated PPA is a result of the 2005 RPS Solicitation, this section is not applicable.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E and SPI negotiated the PSA on a bilateral basis in 2009 prior to the Commission authorizing the solicitation of REC-only transactions in the annual RPS Solicitations. On October 29, 2009 PG&E filed A.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ seeking Commission approval of the PSA with SPI. In a Ruling, dated April 22, 2010, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ordered PG&E to seek approval of the contracts in A.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ using a Tier 3 advice letter process for RPS contracts and 3 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(3). present the information required by D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ for advice letters seeking approval of contracts for procurement of unbundled RECs. On May 12, 2010, the Commission issued D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ that stayed D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. On January 14, 2011, the Commission issued D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ that modified D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ and lifted the stay of D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ imposed by D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. PG&E negotiated the amendments to the original agreement with SPI, resulting in the Amended and Restated PSA, in order to comply with additional Commission requirements in D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ as amended by D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. Rather than requesting that SPI bid the TRECs into PG&E’s 2011 RPS Solicitation, PG&E and SPI proceeded with bilateral negotiations because the transaction was offered at a competitive price and will provide deliveries of RPS-eligible TRECs during the 2010-2013 RPS flexible compliance period, which will help PG&E achieve its RPS goals.4 To address the issue of bilateral contracting, the Commission developed guidelines pursuant to which utilities may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts, provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”5 Later, in D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration, and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.6 Also in that decision, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.7 Based on D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ and D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission set forth the following four requirements for approval of bilateral contracts in a Resolution approving a bilateral RPS contract executed by PG&E: (1) the contract is submitted for approval by advice letter;
View Source
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. The Commission has developed guidelines for how the IOUs may enter into bilateral RPS contracts. In D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission authorized entry into bilateral RPS contracts provided that such contracts did not require Public Goods Charge funds and were “prudent.”5 In D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission again held that bilateral contracts were permissible provided that they were at least one month in duration, and also found that such contracts must be reasonable and submitted for Commission approval by advice letter.6 In addition, the Commission stated that bilateral contracts were not eligible for supplemental energy payments.7 Similarly, the Commission required that bilateral contracts be: (1) submitted for Commission approval; (2) longer than one month in duration; (3) do not receive above-market funds (“AMFs”); and (4) are deemed reasonable by the Commission.8 Finally, in D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇, the Commission determined that bilateral contracts should be reviewed using the same standards as contracts resulting from RPS solicitations.9 The Amended PPA satisfies the four requirements listed above and the requirements of D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. The Original PPA was approved by the Commission in Resolution E-4340 on July 29, 2010, and the Amended PPA is being submitted for approval through this Advice Letter. The Amended PPA is not eligible for AMFs because it resulted from bilateral negotiations. The Amended PPA has a 25-year term, and is therefore longer than one month in duration. Finally, as PG&E explains in attached Confidential Appendix D, the terms and conditions in the Amended PPA do not materially change the economics of the Project for PG&E as compared to the Original PPA. In Resolution E- 4340, the Commission concluded that: “[t]he total all-in costs of the Rice Solar Energy, LLC power purchase agreement are reasonable based on their relation to bids received in response to Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s 2009 solicitation for renewable resources.”10 5 D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ at pp. 57-58. 6 D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ at p. 29. 7 Id. at p. 31. 8 Resolution E-4216 at p. 5. 9 D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ at p. 29. 10 Resolution E-4340, Findings and Conclusions No.7.
View Source
Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting. PG&E and TransAlta negotiated the PSA on a bilateral basis in 2009 prior to the Commission authorizing the solicitation of REC-only transactions in the annual RPS Solicitations. On October 29, 2009, PG&E filed Application A.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ seeking Commission approval of the PSA with TransAlta. In a Ruling dated April 22, 2010, ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ordered PG&E to seek approval of the contracts in A.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ using a Tier 3 advice letter process for RPS contracts and present the information required by D.10-03- 021 for advice letters seeking approval of contracts for procurement of RECs only. On May 12, 2010, the Commission issued D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ that stayed D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. Finally, on January 14, 2011, the Commission issued D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ that modified D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ and lifted the stay of D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ imposed by D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. PG&E negotiated the First Amendment to the original agreement with TransAlta in order to comply with additional Commission requirements in D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇ as amended by 3 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(3).
View Source

Related to Consistency With Commission Guidelines for Bilateral Contracting

  • Performance and Compliance with Contracts and Credit and Collection Policy The Seller shall (and shall cause the Servicer to), at its expense, timely and fully perform and comply with all material provisions, covenants and other promises required to be observed by it under the Contracts related to the Receivables, and timely and fully comply in all material respects with the applicable Credit and Collection Policies with regard to each Receivable and the related Contract.

  • Hot Weather Guidelines For the purposes of site based discussions regarding the need to plan and perform work during expected periods of hot weather, the following issues shall be considered in conjunction with proper consideration of Occupational Health and Safety issues.

  • Publication of Procurement Contract 48.1 Within fourteen days after signing the contract, the Procuring Entity shall publish and publicize the awarded contract at its notice boards, entity website; and on the Website of the Authority in manner and format prescribed by the Authority. At the minimum, the notice shall contain the following information: a) name and address of the Procuring Entity; b) name and reference number of the contract being awarded, a summary of its scope and the selection method used; c) the name of the successful Tenderer, the final total contract price, the contract duration. d) dates of signature, commencement and completion of contract; e) names of all Tenderers that submitted Tenders, and their Tender prices as read out at Tender opening;

  • Required Procurement Procedures for Obtaining Goods and Services The Grantee shall provide maximum open competition when procuring goods and services related to the grant- assisted project in accordance with Section 287.057, Florida Statutes.

  • Compliance with Contracts and Credit and Collection Policy Such Seller Party will timely and fully (i) perform and comply with all provisions, covenants and other promises required to be observed by it under the Contracts related to the Receivables, and (ii) comply in all respects with the Credit and Collection Policy in regard to each Receivable and the related Contract.