Disputed Flowgates Clause Samples

Disputed Flowgates. If a Reciprocal Entity believes that another Reciprocal Entity implementing the congestion management portion of this process has a significant impact on one of their Flowgates, but that Flowgate was not included in the Coordinated Flowgate list, the involved Reciprocal Entities will use the following process. • If an operating emergency exists involving the candidate Flowgate, the Reciprocal Entities shall treat the facilities as a temporary Coordinated Flowgate prior to the study procedure below. If no operating emergency or imminent danger exists, the study procedure below shall be pursued prior to the candidate Flowgate being designated as a Coordinated Flowgate. • The Reciprocal Entity conducts studies to determine the conditions under which the other Reciprocal Entity would have a significant impact on the Flowgate in question. The Reciprocal Entity conducting the study then submits these studies to the other Reciprocal Entity implementing this process. The Reciprocal Entity’s studies should include each of the five studies described above; in addition to any other studies they believe illustrate the validity of their request. The other Reciprocal Entity will review the studies and determine if they appear to support the request of the Reciprocal Entity conducting the study. If they do, the Flowgate will be added to the list of Coordinated Flowgates. • If, following evaluation of the supplied studies, any Reciprocal Entity still disputes another Reciprocal Entity’s request, the Reciprocal Entity will submit a formal request to the NERC Operations Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) asking for further review of the situation. The ORS will review the studies of both the requesting Reciprocal Entity and the other Reciprocal Entity, and direct the participating Reciprocal Entities to take appropriate action.
View SourceView Similar (8)
Disputed Flowgates. ‌ If a Reliability Coordinator (RC) believes that a Market-Based Operating Entity implementing the congestion management portion of this process has a significant impact on one of their Flowgates, but that Flowgate was not included in the Coordinated Flowgate list, the involved parties will use the following process. The RC conducts studies to determine the conditions under which a Market-Based Operating Entity’s Market Flows would have a significant impact on the Flowgate in question. The RC then submits these studies to the Market-Based Operating Entities implementing this process. The RC’s studies should include each of the four studies described above, in addition to any other studies they believe illustrate the validity of their request. The Market-Based Operating Entities will review the studies and determine if they appear to support the request of the RC. If they do, the Flowgate will be added to the list of Coordinated Flowgates. If, following evaluation of the supplied studies, any Market-Based Operating Entity still disputes the RC’s request, the RC will submit a formal request to the NERC Operations Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) asking for further review of the situation. The ORS will review the studies of both the requesting RC and the Market-Based Operating Entities, and direct the participating Market-Based Operating Entities to take appropriate action.
View Source
Disputed Flowgates. If a Party believes that a Market-Based Operating Entity implementing the congestion management portion of this process has a significant impact on one of their Flowgates, but that Flowgate was not included in the Coordinated Flowgate list, the involved Parties will use the following process. The Party conducts studies to determine the conditions under which a Market-Based Operating Entity’s Market Flows would have a significant impact on the Flowgate in question. The Party then submits these studies to the Market- Based Operating Entities implementing this process. The Party’s studies should include each of the four studies described above, in addition to any other studies they believe illustrate the validity of their request. The Market-Based Operating Entities will review the studies and determine if they appear to support the request of the Party. If they do, the Flowgate will be added to the list of Coordinated Flowgates. If, following evaluation of the supplied studies, any Market-Based Operating Entity still disputes the Party’s request, the Party will submit a formal request to the NERC Operations Reliability Subcommittee (ORS) asking for further review of the situation. The ORS will review the studies of both the requesting Party and the Market-Based Operating Entities, and direct the participating Market-Based Operating Entities to take appropriate action.
View Source

Related to Disputed Flowgates

  • Disputed Bills Default in payment by the Designated ISTS Customers & Annual Reconciliation: ARTICLE: 11

  • Disputed Amounts 28.1.1 If any portion of an amount due to a Party (the “Billing Party”) under this Agreement is subject to a bona fide dispute between the Parties, the Party billed (the “Non-Paying Party”) shall, prior to the ▇▇▇▇ Due Date, give written notice to the Billing Party of the amounts it disputes (“Disputed Amounts”) and include in such written notice the specific details and reasons for disputing each item; provided, however, a failure to provide such notice by that date shall not preclude a Party from subsequently challenging billed charges provided that such charges were paid. The Non-Paying Party shall pay when due all undisputed amounts to the Billing Party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, except as provided in Section 28.2, a Party shall be entitled to dispute only those charges for which the Date was within the immediately preceding eighteen (18) months of the date on which the other Party received notice of such Disputed Amounts. 28.1.2 If the Non-Paying Party disputes charges and the dispute is resolved in favor of such Non-Paying Party, the Billing Party shall credit the invoice of the Non-Paying Party for the amount of the Disputed Amounts along with any applicable late payment charges no later than the second ▇▇▇▇ Due Date after the resolution of the Dispute. Accordingly, if a Non-Paying Party disputes charges and the dispute is resolved in favor of the Billing Party, the Non-Paying Party shall pay the Billing Party the amount of the Disputed Amounts and any associated late payment charges no later than the second ▇▇▇▇ Due Date after the resolution of the Dispute. Late payment charges shall be assessed as set forth in Section 27.8. 28.1.3 If the Parties are unable to resolve the issues related to the Disputed Amounts in the normal course of business within sixty (60) days after delivery to the Billing Party of notice of the Disputed Amounts, each of the Parties shall appoint a designated representative who has authority to settle the Dispute and who is at a higher level of management than the persons with direct responsibility for administration of this Agreement. The designated representatives shall meet as often as they reasonably deem necessary in order to discuss the Dispute and negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve such Dispute. The specific format for such discussions will be left to the discretion of the designated representatives; however all reasonable requests for relevant information made by one Party to the other Party shall be honored. 28.1.4 If the Parties are unable to resolve issues related to the Disputed Amounts within forty-five (45) days after the Parties' appointment of designated representatives pursuant to Section 28.3, then either Party may file a complaint with the Commission to resolve such issues or proceed with any other remedy pursuant to law or equity. The Commission or the FCC may direct payment of any or all Disputed Amounts (including any accrued interest) thereon or additional amounts awarded, plus applicable late fees, to be paid to either Party. 28.1.5 The Parties agree that all negotiations pursuant to this Section 28.1 shall remain confidential in accordance with Article XX and shall be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations for purposes of the Federal Rules of Evidence and state rules of evidence.

  • Billing and Payment; Disputed Amounts 9.1 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party shall submit to the other Party on a monthly basis in an itemized form, statement(s) of charges incurred by the other Party under this Agreement. 9.2 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, payment of amounts billed for Services provided under this Agreement, whether billed on a monthly basis or as otherwise provided in this Agreement, shall be due, in immediately available U.S. funds, on the later of the following dates (the “Due Date”): (a) the due date specified on the billing Party’s statement; or (b) twenty (20) days after the date the statement is received by the billed Party. Payments shall be transmitted by electronic funds transfer. 9.3 If any portion of an amount billed by a Party under this Agreement is subject to a good faith dispute between the Parties, the billed Party shall give notice to the billing Party of the amounts it disputes (“Disputed Amounts”) and include in such notice the specific details and reasons for disputing each item. A Party may also dispute prospectively with a single notice a class of charges that it disputes. Notice of a dispute may be given by a Party at any time, either before or after an amount is paid, and a Party’s payment of an amount shall not constitute a waiver of such Party’s right to subsequently dispute its obligation to pay such amount or to seek a refund of any amount paid. The billed Party shall pay by the Due Date all undisputed amounts. Billing disputes shall be subject to the terms of Section 14, Dispute Resolution. 9.4 Charges due to the billing Party that are not paid by the Due Date, shall be subject to a late payment charge. The late payment charge shall be in an amount specified by the billing Party which shall not exceed a rate of one-and- one-half percent (1.5%) of the overdue amount (including any unpaid previously billed late payment charges) per month. 9.5 Although it is the intent of both Parties to submit timely statements of charges, failure by either Party to present statements to the other Party in a timely manner shall not constitute a breach or default, or a waiver of the right to payment of the incurred charges, by the billing Party under this Agreement, and, except for assertion of a provision of Applicable Law that limits the period in which a suit or other proceeding can be brought before a court or other governmental entity of appropriate jurisdiction to collect amounts due, the billed Party shall not be entitled to dispute the billing Party’s statement(s) based on the billing Party’s failure to submit them in a timely fashion.

  • Disagreement Any dissension between the parties other than a grievance defined in the agreement and other than a dispute defined in the Labour Code.

  • Problem Solving Employees and supervisors are encouraged to attempt to resolve on an informal basis, at the earliest opportunity, a problem that could lead to a grievance. If the matter is not resolved by informal discussion, or a problem-solving meeting does not occur, it may be settled in accordance with the grievance procedure. Unless mutually agreed between the Employer and the Union problem-solving discussions shall not extend the deadlines for filing a grievance. The Union ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ or in their absence, the Local Union President, or Area ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, or Chief ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, either with the employee or alone, shall present to the appropriate supervisor a written request for a meeting. If the supervisor agrees to a problem- solving meeting, this meeting shall be held within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the request. The supervisor, employee, Union ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and up to one (1) other management person shall attempt to resolve the problem through direct and forthright communication. If another member of management is present that person will not be hearing the grievance at Step Two, should it progress to that Step. The employee, the Union ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ or in their absence, the Local Union President, or Area ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, or Chief ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, may participate in problem-solving activities on paid time, in accordance with Article 31, Union Rights, Section 1H.