Substantive Matters Sample Clauses
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective August 1, 2019, as requested, subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002. We find that SPP’s proposed revisions to the AEP Agreement either conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA or represent non-conforming terms and conditions that were previously accepted by the Commission.21 Because the AEP Agreement was originally filed within 30 days of the commencement of service, we grant SPP’s request for waiver of prior notice to permit the AEP Agreement to become effective on August 1, 2019, as requested.22 Although AEP protests SPP’s inclusion of Creditable Upgrade information within section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the NITSA, we find that SPP does not propose to revise that information in this version of the AEP Agreement. Therefore, section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the NITSA contains the currently-effective language, which the Commission accepted in the October 2018 Order.23 We note, however, that our approval of the AEP Agreement is subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing in Docket No. ER18-1702-002, which involves issues relating to Creditable Upgrade information in section 8.13 of Attachment 1 in the AEP NITSA. Finally, insofar as AEP raises concerns regarding SPP’s administration of its Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during the period between 2008-2016, we note that the issue in the instant proceeding is whether SPP has appropriately included certain information in its service agreements pursuant to its Tariff, not SPP’s administration of its Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during a prior period. That latter issue is pending in several proceedings that are before the Commission, including requests for rehearing in Docket Nos. EL17-21-001, EL18-9-001, and ER16-1341-004 and a refund proceeding following the Commission’s order on voluntary remand in Docket No. ER16- 1341-003. The Commission will consider issues pertaining to SPP’s administration of the Attachment Z2 revenue crediting process during the 2008-2016 period in those proceedings.
Substantive Matters. We accept the Western Farmers Agreement, as discussed below. We find that the proposed revisions to the Western Farmers Agreement conform to SPP’s pro forma NITSA and that the non-conforming terms and conditions previously accepted by the Commission were not directly challenged by Western Farmers.14 We also find that the issues raised in Western Farmers’ comments are the subject of the pending Complaint proceeding in Docket No. EL19-93-000, and the Commission will consider those issues in that proceeding.
Substantive Matters a. A stenographic transcript of the arbitration hearings shall be prepared by the stenographer supplied by the Bureau of Conciliation and Arbitration if there is one available. In the event that the Bureau were not able to supply said Stenographer, the Arbitrator will notify the parties prior to the Arbitration Hearing so that any of them, if they wish to obtain a stenographic transcript, shall supply the Stenographer and pay the cost for the same. If both parties wish a copy of the stenographic transcript, they shall pay for it in equal parts. In the event that any of the parties decides to submit a brief, the Arbitrator shall grant a term no greater then thirty (30) working days in which to submit the same.
b. The Arbitrator shall not have power or faculty to in any way whatsoever alter, amend, change, modify, add or subtract in any way whatsoever from any of the provisions of this Agreement, even from any of the provisions of the article regarding "Management Rights". An award in violation of what has been indicated above shall be null and without effect.
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective February 1, 2020, as requested, subject to the outcome of the pending rehearing proceeding in Docket No. ER18-1702-002.
Substantive Matters. We find the Agreement just and reasonable. Schedule 6, section 1.5.9 of the Operating Agreement provides that a state governmental entity may agree to voluntarily be responsible for the allocation of all costs of a proposed transmission expansion or enhancement that addresses state public policy requirements and that PJM will include such transmission expansion or enhancements in the RTEP. PJM states that the Agreement effectuates the State Agreement Approach by providing the services to be performed under that provision: (1) the performance of planning studies to identify system improvements to interconnect and provide for the deliverability of offshore wind generation capacity at specific points of interconnection to the Transmission System, and
Substantive Matters. We accept the Flat Ridge GIA, effective February 24, 2021, as requested. We find that the Flat Ridge GIA conforms to the pro forma GIA in SPP’s Tariff.46 We are not persuaded by Flat ▇▇▇▇▇’s argument that the Flat Ridge GIA subjects Flat Ridge to commercially unreasonable and unnecessary timing contingencies.47 The Flat Ridge project’s interconnection studies identified the Blackberry-Wolf Creek upgrade, with an expected in-service date of January 1, 2026, as a contingent facility. Consistent with article 5.9 of the GIA, SPP is performing a limited operations impact study to determine whether the Flat Ridge project may operate at a limited capacity prior to the in-service date of the Blackberry-Wolf Creek upgrade. Further, SPP followed the required timelines in its Tariff for negotiating the Flat Ridge GIA and ultimately filing it unexecuted at Flat Ridge’s request. Accordingly, we find that SPP has not violated the terms of the GIP in its Tariff, and has not subjected Flat Ridge to unreasonable or unnecessary timing contingencies given the scope of network upgrades required to interconnect the Flat Ridge project at its desired output.
Substantive Matters. We accept the Amended Agreement, to be effective August 15, 2018, as requested, subject to the outcome of Docket Nos. EL15-68-003, EL15-36-003, ER16- 696-004, and ER18-2054-000. In MISO I, the Commission dismissed as moot proposed language in section 11.3 of MISO’s pro forma GIA that would have allowed Transmission Owner Initial Funding effective as of June 24, 2015.18 The Commission dismissed this filing as moot because, in a concurrent order, the Commission allowed Transmission Owner Initial Funding to be included in ▇▇▇▇’s pro forma GIA only prospectively as of the date of that order – August 31, 2018 – and instituted a briefing schedule to determine how to address GIAs, Facility Construction Agreements, and Multi-Party Facility Construction Agreements that were entered into during the time period between June 24, 2015 and August 31, 2018.19 Therefore, as of the proposed 17 Id. (referencing Midcontinent Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 164 FERC ¶ 61,158 (2018) (MISO II)). 18 MISO I, 164 FERC ¶ 61,157 at P 40. The June 24, 2015 date is in reference to the effective date that the Commission set when it originally directed MISO to revise its pro forma GIA to provide that the transmission owner may provide the initial funding or network upgrades only upon the mutual agreement of the interconnection customer.
Substantive Matters. 7. Applicants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the Capacity Agreement is just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. As a result of the Capacity Agreement, Duke Carolinas and Duke Progress, two affiliated entities, would share capacity with one another outside of the market at no charge. Applicants state that the reciprocal nature of the Capacity Agreement justifies the zero price term, citing
Substantive Matters a. A typewritten transcript of the Arbitration Hearings shall be prepared by the Reporter supplied by the Bureau of Conciliation and Arbitration, if there is one available. In the event that the Bureau cannot supply said Reporter, the Arbitrator will notify the parties prior to the Arbitration Hearing so that any of them, if they wish to obtain a typewritten transcript, will supply the Reporter and pay the cost of the same. If both parties wish a copy of the typewritten transcript, they will pay for it in equal parts. In the event that one of the parties decides to submit a brief, the Arbitrator shall grant a term no greater then thirty (30) working days in which to submit the same.
b. The Arbitrator will have no power or faculty to in any way alter, amend, change, modify, add or subtract from any of the provisions of this Agreement, including from any of the provisions of the Article regarding "Management Rights". An award in violation of what has been indicated above shall be void and without effect.
Substantive Matters. We accept the AEP Agreement, effective May 1, 2018, as requested. As discussed above, in the May 2018 Order, the Commission accepted Tariff revisions that require SPP to include, in transmission service and generator interconnection agreements, “a list of those upgrades associated with the agreement that are eligible for credits ”60