alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 3,916

 2,243

 1,474

 1,076

 845

 644

 3,022

 3,119

 1,407

 890

 786

 480

 445

 408

 374

 346

 332

 322

 494

 1,287

 3,195

 3,115

 2,871

 4,476

 4,058

 5,878

 4,395

 3,041

 1,219

 766

 536

 874

 630

 441

 306

 274

 318

 403

 522

 435

 412

 420

 401

 390

 358

 306

 304

 288

 279

 283

 287

 305

 351

 353

 388

 390

 460

 563

 607

 444

 439

 359

 2,565

 1,374

 898

 672

 562

 479

 902

 988

 625

 543

 515

 440

 414

 379

 347

 328

 313

 302

 307

 474

 799

 909

 987

 1,245

 1,312

 1,824

 1,436

 1,447

 749

 526

 422

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 4, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
(No. 6232

#### Carmen Alonzo, d/b/a Carmen’s Movers, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid, Respondent.

*Opinion filed November*3, *1972.*

Edwin N. Raffel, Attorney for Claimant.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
#### J. Michael SCHAEFER, a/k/a Michael Schaefer, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 05-56055.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*799Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

J. Michael Schaefer, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Jeanette Schachtner, DCA, Office of the City Attorney, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendant-App ellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

J. Michael Schaefer appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying reconsideration of its summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his civil rights by issuing him a $38 parking ticket. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to address Schaefer’s contentions regarding the merits of the district court’s original entry of judgment because he failed to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of final judgment and failed to file a timely post-judgment tolling motion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4; *Maraziti v. Thorpe,*52 F.3d 252, 254 (9th Cir.1995) (“an appeal of a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up for review only the denial of the motion, unless it is filed within ten days of the entry of judgment”). Accordingly, by order dated August 18, 2005, this court limited the scope of Schaefer’s appeal to the denial of his motion for relief from the district court’s judgment.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Schaefer’s motion to *800reconsider because he failed to demonstrate any potential ground for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). *See ACandS, 5*F.3d at 1263.

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 98

 102

 129

 123

 125

 119

 126

 102

 120

 132

 119

 98

 107

 96

 116

 105

 96

 117

 114

 91

 150

 94

 134

 110

 118

 108

 114

 114

 140

 118

 68

 82

 90

 91

 89

 84

 89

 93

 91

 89

 87

 87

 88

 88

 87

 88

 86

 87

 86

 84

 85

 85

 85

 85

 84

 86

 86

 89

 86

 86

 75

 89

 95

 95

 95

 91

 101

 97

 95

 94

 96

 90

 92

 91

 91

 91

 89

 90

 89

 86

 90

 88

 90

 89

 89

 89

 89

 92

 91

 90

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2007 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 4, 2007

HIGH LOW MEAN

 59.7

 59.1

 59.0

 58.5

 58.3

 58.3

 58.6

 57.5

 58.1

 58.4

 59.1

 57.5

 57.7

 58.2

 58.2

 58.8

 58.5

 58.2

 57.8

 56.3

 54.6

 52.7

 52.0

 50.7

 50.6

 50.9

 51.4

 51.1

 51.2

 50.9

 57.2

 56.5

 56.2

 55.7

 55.2

 55.2

 55.2

 55.3

 55.7

 55.2

 57.6

 55.2

 55.2

 56.0

 55.8

 56.7

 56.2

 56.4

 55.8

 54.3

 52.3

 50.6

 49.6

 48.6

 49.0

 48.6

 49.3

 49.2

 48.6

 48.8

 58.3

 57.9

 57.7

 57.1

 56.8

 56.9

 57.0

 56.5

 56.9

 56.8

 58.5

 56.6

 56.6

 57.1

 57.1

 57.7

 57.4

 57.3

 56.8

 55.4

 53.3

 51.8

 50.7

 49.8

 49.8

 49.8

 50.4

 50.2

 49.8

 49.6

HIGH LOW MEAN

 8.5

 8.5

 8.6

 8.7

 8.8

 8.8

 8.8

 8.7

 8.6

 8.8

 8.2

 8.6

 8.9

 8.7

 8.7

 8.6

 8.7

 8.8

 8.9

 9.2

 9.7

 10.1

 10.4

 10.7

 10.7

 10.8

 10.6

 10.6

 10.8

 10.7

 7.7

 7.9

 8.2

 8.3

 8.2

 8.1

 8.2

 8.2

 8.0

 7.8

 7.4

 7.9

 8.4

 8.3

 8.1

 8.3

 8.1

 8.0

 8.2

 8.6

 9.0

 9.5

 9.8

 10.2

 10.3

 10.3

 10.2

 10.1

 10.2

 10.2

 8.0

 8.2

 8.4

 8.5

 8.5

 8.5

 8.5

 8.4

 8.3

 8.3

 7.9

 8.4

 8.6

 8.5

 8.5

 8.4

 8.4

 8.4

 8.6

 8.9

 9.4

 9.8

 10.1

 10.4

 10.5

 10.5

 10.4

 10.3

 10.4

 10.4

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
### §2412. Limitation on foreign assistance appropriations

#### (a) Restrictions on appropriations in absence of or in excess of prior authorizations

Notwithstanding any provision of law enacted before January 12, 1971, no money appropriated for foreign assistance (including foreign military sales) shall be available for obligation or expenditure—

(1) unless the appropriation thereof has been previously authorized by law; or

(2) in excess of an amount previously prescribed by law.

#### (b) Exception

To the extent that legislation enacted after the making of an appropriation for foreign assistance (including foreign military sales) authorizes the obligation or expenditure thereof, the limitation contained in subsection (a) shall have no effect.

#### (c) Specific repeal or modification of section

The provisions of this section shall not be superseded except by a provision of law enacted after January 12, 1971, which specifically repeals or modifies the provisions of this section.

(Pub. L. 91–672, §10, Jan. 12, 1971, 84 Stat. 2055.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of Pub. L. 87–195, Sept. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 424, known as the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which comprises this chapter.
§ 219.65 Other types of evidence that may be required. ( a ) The Board may ask for a statement from an employer listing the annuitant's earnings by months and explaining any payments made to the annuitant when he or she was not working.
( b ) The Board may ask for copies of award notices from a public agency showing the amounts of periodic payments and the period covered by each payment.
( c ) The Board may ask for a statement from the applicant explaining discrepancies and may ask for sworn statements from persons who have personal knowledge of the facts or for any other convincing evidence.
( d ) The Board may ask for proof of the court appointment of a legal representative, such as: ( 1 ) Certified copy of letters of appointment;
( 2 ) “Short” certificate;
( 3 ) Certified copy of order of appointment; or
( 4 ) Any official document issued by the clerk or other proper official of the appointing court.
§ 404.1370 Evidence of active service and separation from active service. ( a ) *General.* When you file an application for a monthly benefit or lump-sum death payment based on the active service of a World War II or post-World War II veteran, you must submit evidence of— ( 1 ) Your entitlement as required by subpart H of this part or other evidence that may be expressly required;
( 2 ) The veteran's period in active service of the United States; and
( 3 ) The veteran's type of separation from active service of the United States.
( b ) *Evidence we accept.* We accept as proof of a veteran's active service and separation from active service— ( 1 ) An original certificate of discharge, or an original certificate of service, from the appropriate military service, from the United States Public Health Service, or from the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey;
( 2 ) A certified copy of the original certificate of discharge or service made by the State, county, city agency or department in which the original certificate is recorded;
( 3 ) A certification from the appropriate military service, United States Public Health Service, or United States Coast and Geodetic Survey showing the veteran's period of active service and type of separation;
( 4 ) A certification from a local selective service board showing the veteran's period of active service and type of separation; or
( 5 ) Other evidence that proves the veteran's period of active service and type of separation.
475 P.2d 319

#### Kenneth BALIZER and Arthur Bazan, a minor, by his next friend Isauro Bazan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Paul W. SHAVER, Chief of Police of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Frank Horan, City Attorney of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Richard B. Wilson, City Manager of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, Pete V. Domenici, Harry Kinney, Charles E. Barnhart, Word H. Payne and Louis E. Saavadra, Members of the City Commission of the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico, the City of Albuquerque, a Municipal Corporation, Raymond Stucker and William Hadaway, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 9001.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 9, 1970.

Paul A. Phillips, Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Lynn D. Smith, Jr., Frank M. Mims, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees.

Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, John P. Burton, Albuquerque, for William Hadaway.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

After this action had been submitted on oral arguments to this court, and without comment on the point by counsel for the parties, we discovered a jurisdictional problem.

Section 16-7-8, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (1969 Supp.) states in part:

> “The appellate jurisdiction of the court of appeals is coextensive with the state, and the court has jurisdiction to review on appeal:

> *“A.*any civil action which includes a count in which one or more of the parties seeks damages on an issue based on tort, including but not limited to products liability actions;”

Here the appeal is from a dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The first count of the complaint is for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief prohibiting the enforcement of portions of a city ordinance, alleging their unconstitutionality. The second and third counts, however, are for damages for false arrest, a tort action.

The complaint was filed on February 11, 1969. Section 16-7-8(A), supra, became effective on March 1, 1966 (ch. 28, N.M.S.L.1966).

Jurisdiction in this matter having been given to the Court of Appeals, the appeal should have been docketed there, and, therefore, pursuant to § 16-7-10, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. (1969 Supp.), we direct the transfer of this case to that court.

It is so ordered.

TACKETT, WATSON, and 'SISK, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-921]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 300

[REG-124018-10]
RIN 1545-BJ65


User Fees Relating to Enrolled Agents and Enrolled Retirement 
Plan Agents; Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed rulemaking 
that amends the regulations relating to the imposition of user fees for 
enrolled agents and enrolled retirement plan agents.

DATES: The public hearing, originally scheduled for January 14, 2011, 
at 10 a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Hurst of the Publications 
and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 
Counsel (Procedure and Administration), at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8fac1cbc0c9dacc86e986e0dddadbdce8c1dadbcbc7ddc6dbcdc486dcdacdc9db86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ecbe858f848d9e88c2adc2a4999e9f98ac859e9f8f8399829f8980c2989e898d9fc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of public hearing that appeared in 
the Federal Register on Friday, December 10, 2010 (75 FR 76940), 
announced that a public hearing was scheduled for January 14, 2011, at 
10 a.m., in the auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public 
hearing is under section 300 of the Internal Revenue Code.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on January 
10, 2011. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing were due on 
January 5, 2011. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public 
hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing 
to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Wednesday, 
January 12, 2011, the taxpayer, who wished to present oral comments, 
has requested to withdraw. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for 
January 14, 2011, is cancelled.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2011-921 Filed 1-12-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 404.1203 Evidence—for wages paid prior to 1987. ( a ) *State's responsibility for submitting evidence.* The State, under the provisions of the agreement, is responsible for accurately reporting the wages paid employees for services covered by the agreement and for paying the correct amount of contributions due on those wages. This responsibility includes submitting evidence to verify the accuracy of the reports and payments.
( b ) *Failure to submit requested evidence.* The State is required to submit information timely to SSA. If we request additional evidence to verify the accuracy of reports and payments, we specify when that evidence must be submitted. If we do not receive the evidence timely, and the State provides no satisfactory explanation for its failure to submit the evidence timely, we may proceed, if appropriate, on the basis of the information we have. Proceeding on the basis of the information we have permits us to credit the wage records of employees properly, where possible, while continuing to work with the State to resolve remaining discrepancies.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0960-0425) [53 FR 32976, Aug. 29, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 28836, May 25, 2001]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 634

 722

 1,250

 927

 1,142

 956

 1,359

 1,492

 1,965

 2,339

 2,656

 2,776

 2,327

 2,003

 2,382

 3,146

 5,100

 6,183

 6,438

 8,951

 9,599

 9,815

 9,906

 9,680

 9,071

 8,150

 6,979

 6,690

 6,013

 6,752

 6,488

 161

 175

 181

 178

 189

 183

 176

 172

 202

 240

 255

 306

 319

 326

 357

 385

 485

 518

 588

 789

 899

 1,142

 1,387

 1,756

 1,709

 1,549

 1,521

 1,743

 1,859

 1,777

 1,669

 276

 282

 346

 361

 413

 410

 430

 486

 625

 777

 907

 995

 1,049

 1,010

 952

 1,033

 1,472

 1,971

 2,495

 3,170

 3,654

 4,085

 4,565

 5,129

 4,858

 4,372

 4,049

 3,898

 3,609

 3,476

 3,424

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 1, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 3.13
 State of Delaware
Secretary of State
Division of Corporations
Delivered 01:48 PM 04/18/2007
FILED 01:47 PM 04/18/2007
SRV 070448794  4336500 FILE
 
 
      th
 /s/ Morgan D. ElwynMorgan D. ElwynSole Organizer




---



##### 



State of Delaware
Secretary of State
Division of Corporations
Delivered 03:47 PM 08/19/2008
FILED 03:38 PM 08/19/2008
SRV 080884316  4336500 FILE
 CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF
CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
 OF
 MEDASSETS FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC
 
 LLC
 FIRST
 SECOND FIRST.
 FIRST
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 MedAssets Net Revenue Systems, LLC,
as Sole Member/s/ Jonathan H. GlennJonathan H. GlennExecutive Vice President




---



##### 



State of Delaware
Secretary of State
Division of Corporations
Delivered 12:13 PM 03/18/2009
FILED 11:46 AM 03/18/2009
SRV 090278050  4336500 FILE
   MEDASSETS SERVICES LLC
   MEDASSETS SERVICES LLC
    /s/ Jonathan H. GlennName:
    Jonathan H. GlennTitle:
    Authorized Person
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1339 Suspension due to flight to avoid criminal prosecution or custody or confinement after conviction, or due to violation of probation or parole. ( a ) *Basis for suspension.* An individual is ineligible for SSI benefits for any month during which he or she is— ( 1 ) Fleeing to avoid prosecution for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees (or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of that State); or
( 2 ) Fleeing to avoid custody or confinement after conviction for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the individual flees (or which, in the case of the State of New Jersey, is a high misdemeanor under the laws of that State); or
( 3 ) Violating a condition of probation or parole imposed under Federal or State law.
( b ) *Suspension effective date.* ( 1 ) Suspension of benefit payments because an individual is a fugitive as described in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section or a probation or parole violator as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is effective with the first day of whichever of the following months is earlier— ( i ) The month in which a warrant or order for the individual's arrest or apprehension, an order requiring the individual's appearance before a court or other appropriate tribunal (e.g., a parole board), or similar order is issued by a court or other duly authorized tribunal on the basis of an appropriate finding that the individual— ( A ) Is fleeing, or has fled, to avoid prosecution as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
( B ) Is fleeing, or has fled, to avoid custody or confinement after conviction as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
( C ) Is violating, or has violated, a condition of his or her probation or parole as described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or
( ii ) The first month during which the individual fled to avoid such prosecution, fled to avoid such custody or confinement after conviction, or violated a condition of his or her probation or parole, if indicated in such warrant or order, or in a decision by a court or other appropriate tribunal.
( 2 ) An individual will not be considered to be ineligible for SSI benefits and benefit payments will not be suspended under this section for any month prior to August 1996.
( c ) *Resumption of payments.* If benefits are otherwise payable, they will be resumed effective with the first month throughout which the individual is determined to be no longer fleeing to avoid such prosecution, fleeing to avoid such custody or confinement after conviction, or violating a condition of his or her probation or parole.
[65 FR 40495, June 30, 2000]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

December 20, 2020

Annual Power System Generation Summary

12/31/2019 RUN DATE:

 3,272

 2,297,258

SHASTA 

 2,293,986

 357,696

 1,735

 355,961

 271,713

 275,168

 1,437

 263,501

 149

 375,188

 769

 780,328

 6,045

 774,283

 40,467

 208

 40,259

 12,420

 184

 12,236

 4,108

 3,663

 120,339

 5,143,698

 5,264,037

 5,128,110

 5,248,449

KESWICK 

TRINITY 

JF CARR

SPRING CREEK

FOLSOM 

NIMBUS 

Total Net

Total Gross

Federal Share of San Luis

O'NEILL

STAMPEDE (Washoe Project)

GROSS GEN

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

GROSS GEN 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

TR GEN.

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

GROSS GEN.

STA. SERV. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

Generation 

With Federal Share of San Luis 

Generation 

With Federal Share of San Luis 

Out Meter

GROSS GEN 

NET GEN. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN.

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

LN GEN. 3,455

MWH 

NET GEN. 273,731 MWH

 263,352 NET GEN. MWH 

 374,419 NET GEN. MWH 

 749,984

 1,528

 748,456

NEW MELONES

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

Calendar Year 2019: 01/01/2019 -

:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

December 20, 2020

Annual Power System Generation Summary

09/30/2019 RUN DATE:

 3,372

 2,230,430

SHASTA 

 2,227,058

 353,221

 1,702

 351,519

 246,525

 250,002

 1,513

 227,988

 135

 339,820

 546

 730,186

 6,502

 723,684

 35,441

 170

 35,271

 11,629

 177

 11,452

 1,666

 1,478

 89,290

 4,858,574

 4,947,864

 4,842,861

 4,932,151

KESWICK 

TRINITY 

JF CARR

SPRING CREEK

FOLSOM 

NIMBUS 

Total Net

Total Gross

Federal Share of San Luis

O'NEILL

STAMPEDE (Washoe Project)

GROSS GEN

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

GROSS GEN 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

TR GEN.

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

GROSS GEN.

STA. SERV. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

Generation 

With Federal Share of San Luis 

Generation 

With Federal Share of San Luis 

Out Meter

GROSS GEN 

NET GEN. 

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN.

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

LN GEN. 3,477

MWH 

NET GEN. 248,489 MWH

NET GEN. 227,853 MWH 

 339,274 NET GEN. MWH 

 689,820

 1,585

 688,235

NEW MELONES

GROSS GEN. 

STA. SERV. 

NET GEN. 

MWH 

MWH 

MWH 

Fiscal Year 10/01/2018 -

MWH 

2019: