zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
conserving scarce Commission resources, and allowing parties to reduce the risk that litigation will produce unacceptable results. The Commission’s standard for the approval of settlements is set forth in Rule 12.1(d), which states that the Commission will not approve a settlement “unless the settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.” In assessing whether a settlement agreement satisfies this standard, the Commission evaluates the entire agreement as a package, not just its individual parts: In assessing settlements we consider individual settlement provisions but, in light of strong public policy favoring settlements, we do not base our conclusion on whether any single provision is the optimal result. Rather, we determine whether the settlement as a whole produces a just and reasonable outcome. (D.10-04-033 at 9.) As discussed below, we conclude that the Settlement Agreement, taken in its entirety, satisfies Rule 12.1(d). Reasonable in Light of the Whole Record We conclude pursuant to Rule 12.1(d) that the Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record of this proceeding. As described in the preceding summary of the Settlement Agreement, the specific outcomes on the issues resolved by the Settlement are within the range of the parties’ positions defined by A.15-07-014 and the Settling Parties’ written testimony. None of the Settlement outcomes is inconsistent with the law or the public interest. Although we find the Settlement Agreement reasonable in light of the whole record, we note that the Settlement Agreement allocates a larger share of
The updated naming convention for the Avoided Cost Calculator is reasonable. It is reasonable that all cost-effectiveness analysis should use the latest approved after-tax Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) for each utility as the discount rate. The updates to the Avoided Cost Calculator found reasonable in this resolution are adopted for use in demand-side distributed energy resource cost-effectiveness analyses. This Resolution is effective today. I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held on September 29, 2016, the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon: /s/TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN_______ TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN Executive Director MICHAEL PICKER President MICHEL PETER FLORIO CATHERINE J.K.SANDOVAL LIANE M. RANDOLPH Commissioners Commissioner J. Peterman, being necessarily absent, did not participate.
with said extension being inclined 45° away from the fenced facilities wherever possible. BART intends to install a 7 -foot architectural mounted on a stem wall for a total height of 8. 5 to 11 feet from finished grade at the public side of the wall to the top of fence. For the portion of the fence beyond the limits of the station platform and supervisor's building, the architectural fence will be further secured by a 12-inch inclined extension with three strands of barbed wire. The extension will be inclined 45° away from the fenced facilities. The portion of the fence along the station platform/supervisor's building will have an anti-climb flashing at the base of the architectural fence which reduces the possibility of a foothold on the stem wall supporting the fence and thus achieving an effective height of 10 to 11 feet above finish grade.
MISSION CREEK (DRAINAGE CHANNEL "L" ) (E) VENTILATION STRUCTURE "LES" MISSION CREEK ACCESS ROADI--- MISSION CREEK BRIDGE------ -- f . . ::--- ( LAKE EUZABETH (E) SOUTH TRANSITION STRUCTURE ...J 111111111111 H-1+1 ++ BART TRACKWAY - STRUCTURE BART TRACKWAY - SUBWAY EXISTING UPRR EXISTING UPRR TO BE REMOVED/ABANDONED (BY OTHERS) LIMIT OF FUTURE STATION SITE "t" SABRE CAT CREEK (DRAINAGE CHANNEL ''K'') TO OAKLAND NORTH TRANSITION STRUCTURE-=-- (E) VENTILATION STRUCTURE CPS CHANNEL "L-10" DRAINAGE CHANNEL "L-10" BRIDGE (E)ACCESS ROAD ..../ (E)WASHINGTON BLVD OVERHEAD PLAN HALF SIZE 500' o· 5oo· 1000' GRAPHIC SCALE .... 2.01502.2.0 SUBt.IITTED APPROVED GENERAL PLAN SHEET 1 OF 2 / D H-
FOR LEGEND SEE CONTRACT SHEEr NO. X031A. TRACTION POWER SUBSTATION SBR ANO TRAIN CONTROL/ cm.tt.1UNICATIONS HOUSE S12 ANCILLARY BUILDING AND TRAIN CONTROL/ COt.1t.1UNICATION HOUSE 520 TO MILPITAS TRACTION POWER SUBSTATION SWS Warm Springs/ South Fremont Station Site Warm Fremont Station Platform PLAN HALF SIZE 500' o· 5oo· GRAPHIC SCALE 1000' DATE: 2.01502.2.0 APPROVED GENERAL PLAN SHEET 2
Warm Springs/South Fremont Station Site FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES, LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS, SEE CONTRACT SHEET NOS. COOl AND C181. .- I 2465+00 6 S2 2467+75 9.67- LT 7 I I I \ \ Hr-i -r r- -Q-- -- -- -- -- -Q-- -( :----=,_--_ Q-------0 -- -Q-- -- --<j BART " (/) Ill -- =----''+----- ==1==- ===+== ==!':::= ===+== ==!====+====+====+====+==----+--- ==+==-==+==-==+==-==+==- ==+==- ===+== ==l==== ===i(/) == == ==== 4= =+== ====+=== ===+====1====+=== == ==== 4= =+== ====+=== PLAN Alternative Architectural Fence w/Barbed Wire S2 2476+39 10.17' LT END RW WITH TYPE CL7WV FENCE BEGIN RW WITH TYPE CL7WA FENCE S2 TRACK HALF SIZE 40' I GRAPHIC SCALE 80' ML SBH REVISED FOR NIJC/FDC NO. SBH REVISED FOR NIJC/FDC NO. 007 .. - DESIGNED: J. LEE CHEI:KEI), M. LOPEZ N'I'RC\IEJl: S. B-HESER ... ..
APPENDIX Compensation Decision Summary Information Compensation Decision: D1609053 Modifies Decision? No Contribution Decision(s): D1505051 Proceeding(s): A1407009 Author: ALJ Yacknin Payer(s): N/A Intervenor Information Intervenor Claim Date Amount Requested Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance World Business Academy July 28, $62,392.00 $0.00 N/A Ineligibility to claim intervenor compensation Advocate Information First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year Hourly Fee Requested Hourly Fee Adopted Laurence Chaset Attorney World Business Academy $370.00 $0.00 Laurence Chaset Attorney World Business Academy $370.00 $0.00 Rinaldo Brutoco Advocate World Business Academy $400.00 $0.00 Rinaldo Brutoco Advocate World Business Academy $400.00 $0.00 Jerry Advocate World Business Academy $320.00 2014 $0.00 Jerry Brown Advocate World Business Academy $320.00 $0.00 Robert Perry Advocate Business Academy $320.00 2014 $0.00 Robert Perry Advocate World Business Academy $320.00 2015 $0.00 (END OF APPENDIX)
060090001212, 060090001221, 060090001222, 060090001223, 060090002101, 060090002102, 060090002103, 060090002104, 060090002201, 060090002202, 060090003001, 060090003002, 060090003003, 060090003004, 060090003005, 060090004001, 060090004002, 060090004003, 060090004004, 060090004005, 060090004006, 060090005011, 060090005012, 060090005031, 060090005032,060090005033, 060090005041, 060090005042 Median Household Income (by Census Block Group) $53,650 Zip Codes 95222, 95223, 95225, 95228, 95232, 95245, 95246, 95247, 95248, 95249, 95251, 95252, 95255, 95640, 95642, 95666, 95669, 95685 Estimated potential subscriber size 4,878 households Applicant expectations 2,308 households (in 2 years after construction is completed); 3,249 households (in 5 years after construction is completed) Pricing Plan (Monthly) $69.95 for 6.0 Mbps/2.0 Mbps; $84.95 for 10.0 Mbps/3.0 Mbps; $99.95 for 15 Mbps/3.0 Mbps; $159.95 for 25.0 Mbps/4.0 Mbps; No installation fees Deployment Schedule (from Commission approval date) 24 months Proposed Project Budget (Total) $4,682,180 Amount of CASF funds requested (60%) $2,862,388 Applicant funded (40%) $1,819,792 Appendix B Resolution Cal.net’s Amador, Calaveras and Alpine project Project Location Map
You should see the certificate in the Server Certificates list. The next step is to ensure the SMTP Server is correctly configured to use the certificate. Open IIS Manager 6.0 (Start->Administrative Tools->Internet Information Services (IIS) 6.0 Manager). In the left window, expand the server name. Find your Direct Gateway SMTP server, right-click it and select Properties. Select the Access tab. In the “Secure Communication” section you should see the text “A TLS certificate is found with expiration date: “… Refer to Figure 22. Figure 22: TLS certificate is available. If you see the text, the TLS certificate is correctly installed, and clients can initiate TLS channels with the Direct Gateway. When Exchange Online relays messages to the Direct Gateway it will use a secure TLS connection since we instructed it earlier to validate against a self-signed certificate. Note: If you don’t see the text above, the TLS certificate can’t be found by the SMTP Server. Ensure the “CN=” property of the certificate you created earlier matches the Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) of your Direct Gateway. The FQDN of the Direct Gateway can be retrieved by clicking on the “Delivery” tab shown at the top of Figure 22, and then clicking Advanced… Testing your new Direct-enabled Exchange Online instance At this point everything is configured and we can verify the new Exchange Online instance is working with the Direct gateway. Here are some steps to perform to validate your configuration: Validate incoming messages to Exchange Online Send a Direct message TO the Office 365 user you created earlier. Log-in as the user to Office 365 and navigate to the Outlook inbox to see the message. Of course, trust will need to be established between the sender’s Direct instance and your new instance in order to receive the message. Information on configuring anchor certificates to establish trust is beyond the scope of this document; details can be found at the links in the “Learning about Direct” section. Repeat the above, but try sending the message from an address for which trust does not exist with your new Exchange-enabled Direct instance. The message should be rejected by the Gateway. You can verify this through the Direct Gateway logs.
ALJ/RIM/ge1 PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID 15153 (Rev. 1) Ratesetting 10/13/16 Item # 9 Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ MASON (Mailed 9/9/16) BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902G) and Southern California Gas Company (U904G) to Recover Costs Recorded in their Pipeline Safety and Reliability Memorandum Accounts. Application 14-12-016 (Filed December 17, 2014) PROPOSED DECISION GRANTING APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
PROPOSED DECISION GRANTING APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Summary This decision finds reasonable the costs for three completed projects that San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) recorded in the Pipeline Safety and Reliability Memorandum Accounts. SoCalGas is authorized to recover $33,130,567. SDG&E is authorized to recover $108,000, making the total award $33,238,567. The authorization is broken down by category and reflects the positions taken by each applicant in the proceeding: Comparison: Fully Loaded Cost Completed Projects and Cost Category Sempra Amount Authorized for Recovery by this Decision SoCalGas 2000-A $26,374,878 $24,302,928 42‐66‐1/ 42-66‐2 $813,327 $747,897 Playa Del Rey 1&2 $683,036 $639,416 Descoped $127,639 $127,639 Facilities $2,882,687 $2,882,687 Program Management Office $2,068,000 $2,068,000 Other: Interim safety measures, pressure protection, and remediation costs $2,362,000 ($1,568,000 for leak survey and pipeline patrol; $312,000 for $2,362,000
versus commitments to identify/resolve problems inherent in the management of resources for the programs/organizations supported. Familiar with standard concepts, practices, and procedures. Relies on experience to plan and accomplish goals. Works under general direction. Administration or closely related field of study is highly preferred. Experience in use of Microsoft Office Suite of products is required. Resource Analyst III Enters data from a variety of sources into systems, forms, reports, and scheduled for designated projects and/or organizations. Makes adjustments to ensure accurate portrayal of funds’ status. Consolidates data for viable overview of financial status of projects/organizations. Analyzes expenditures versus commitments to identify/resolve problems inherent in the management of resources for the programs/organizations supported. Familiar with standard concepts, practices, and procedures. Relies on experience and judgment to plan and accomplish goals. May perform a variety of complex tasks. Must be able to work independently and present data. Seven (7) to nine (9) years of experience in business administration or closely related field is required. And B.A. or B.S. degree in Business Administration or closely related field of study is highly preferred. Experience in use of Microsoft Office Suite of products is required. Resource Analyst IV Enters data from a variety of sources into systems, forms, reports, and scheduled for designated projects and/or organizations. Makes adjustments to ensure accurate portrayal of funds’ status. Consolidates data for viable overview of financial status of projects/organizations. Analyzes expenditures versus commitments to identify/resolve problems inherent in the management of resources for the programs/organizations supported. Familiar with standard concepts, practices, and procedures. Relies on expertise and judgment to plan and accomplish goals. Performs a variety of complex tasks. Must be able to work independently and present data. May lead and direct the effort of contractor personnel. A wide degree of creativity and latitude is expected. More than ten (10) experience in business administration or closely a related field is required. And B.A. or B.S. degree in Business Administration or closely related field of study is highly preferred. Experience in use of Microsoft Office Suite of products is required.
PE. Column 2 identifies the specific content of each PE. Column 3 identifies the primary method of surveillance used by the Government to assess contractor performance; however, the Government is not limited to the listed methods. Column 4 list the APL associated with each PE. Column 5 defines incidents that lead to price deductions. Refer to Clause B.5, Price Deductions for Failure to Meet Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs). PRS Performance Element Method of Surveillance Acceptable Performance Levels (APLs) Price Deductions for failure to meet APLs 1 Timely staffing of new positions and existing vacancies. COR will track the number of days taken to bring staff on-board. New staff positions filled within 30 calendar days after written authority from the CO or COR. Vacancies filled within 30 calendar days from when the vacancy becomes effective, unless notified in writing by the CO or COR that the position has been put on hold by the customer. $1,000 for exceeding the initial 30 calendar days and an additional $250 for every additional 7 calendar days the position or vacancy remains unfilled. Incident Deduction Schedule: 0 - 30 days $0 31 - 36 days $1000 Every additional 7 days $250 2 Contractor maintain an “Excellent” adjectival rating. The COR will semi-annually distribute Attachment J-6, Customer Survey, to all ABSS contract customers. Inputs will be averaged to determine an overall adjectival rating. Excellent adjectival rating on customer surveys. Deduction Schedule: Excellent 0% Very Good TBP % Good TBP % Satisfactory TBP % Poor/Unsatisfactory TBP %
APPENDIX A A-1. PG&E Current and Expected Filings for CHSRA Project Relocation Work Item No. Filing Number/Type Agreements Signed Filing Date / Expected Description CHSRA Funding in Filing Resolution No. 1 AL 3484-G/4443-E (Tier 3) 4/2014 6/14/14 PG&E relocation work Master Agreement No. HSR 13-52 None identified G-3498 2 AL (Tier 3) 12/2014 and 8/2015 12/22/15 PG&E relocation work utility agreements including CP01 (Nos. HSR 14-49 and HSR 15-36) $29 million 3 AL 3484-G-B/4443-E-B (Tier 3) 2/2016 4/1/16 PG&E relocation work supplemental agreement to master agreement (natural gas disconnection work coordinated by PG&E) None identified Add 2 Information-Only Filings TBD 2016 PG&E relocation work utility agreements for covering CP02 and CP03 TBD None Add about 8 Information-Only Filings TBD 2017–2029 TBD TBD None Add about 13 Tier 2 TBD 2017–2029 Annual compliance filing throughout construction TBD TBD Total = about 26 PG&E filings for CHSRA Project relocation work through 2029
Key: AL = Advice Letter, CHSRA = California High-Speed Rail Authority, CP = Construction Package for CHSRA Project, TBD = to be determined Table A-2. SCE Current and Expected Filings for CHSRA Project Relocation Work Item No. Filing Number/Type Agreements Signed Filing Date / Expected Description CHSRA Funding in Filing Resolution No. 1 AL 3315-E (Tier 3) 3/2015 11/25/15 SCE relocation work Master Agreement No. HSR 15-54 None identified G-3498 Add about 4 Information-Only Filings TBD 2016–2029 SCE relocation work utility agreements TBD None Add about 13 Tier 2 TBD 2017–2029 Annual compliance filing throughout construction TBD TBD Total = about 18 SCE filings for CHSRA Project relocation work through 2029 Key: AL = Advice Letter, CHSRA = California High-Speed Rail Authority, TBD = to be determined Table A-3. SoCalGas Current and Expected Filings for CHSRA Project Relocation Work Item No. Filing Number/Type Agreements Signed Filing Date / Expected Description CHSRA Funding in Filing Resolution No. 1 AL 4946 (Tier 3) 12/2014 4/5/16 SoCalGas relocation work Master Agreement No. HSR 14-27 None identified G-3498 Add about 10 Information-Only Filings TBD 2016–2029 SoCalGas relocation work utility agreements TBD None
APPENDIX Compensation Decision Summary Information Compensation Decision: D1610013 Modifies Decision? Contribution Decision(s): D1507001 Proceeding(s): R1206013 Author: ALJ McKinney Payer(s): Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Gas and Electric Intervenor Information Intervenor Claim Date Amount Requested Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. (IREC) 09/09/14 $280,239.50 $209,169.85 N/A See CPUC Disallowances and Adjustments, above. Advocate Information First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year Hourly Fee Requested Hourly Fee Adopted Thad Culley Attorney IREC $190 2012 $190.00 Thad Culley Attorney IREC $195 2013 $195.00 Thad Culley Attorney IREC $200 2014 $200.00 Thad Culley Attorney IREC $200 2015 $200.00 Thad Culley Attorney IREC $200 2016 $205.00 Jason Keyes Attorney IREC $300 2012 $300.00 Keyes Attorney IREC $300 2013 $305.00 Jason Attorney IREC $300 2014 $315.00 Keyes Attorney IREC $300 2015 $315.00 Steve McClary Expert IREC $300 2012 $300.00 Steve McClary Expert IREC $300 2013 $305.00 Steve McClary Expert IREC $300 2014 $315.00 Mark Fulmer Expert IREC $275 2014 $290.00 Mark Fulmer Expert IREC $275 2015 $290.00 Briana Expert IREC $135 2013 $135.00 Briana Expert IREC $135 2014 $140.00 Julia Getchell Expert IREC $135 2013 $135.00 Julia Getchell Expert IREC $135 2014 $140.00 Gupta Expert IREC $135 2014 $135.00 Parjanya Rijal Expert IREC $135 2014 $135.00 Laurel Passera Advocate IREC $80 2014 80.00 Laurel Passera Advocate IREC $80 2015 80.00 (END OF APPENDIX)
9. Give the names of the Finnish scientists/research group leaders with whom you have had preliminary contact (see Required annexes 5) 10. When you have the possibility to work/study in Finland and for how long? 11. Hobbies Signature Place and date Signature Signed and scanned application form and other annexes in pdf-format to the e-mail address edufi_winter_school@oph.fi by 18 October 2018 at 16:15. Please also send the (unsigned) application form in word/rtf -format to the same e-mail address. Required annexes 1. Copies of latest degree certificates and scores certificates (supplements to the diploma) and their translations 2. Description of your current research work (1-2 including introduction, aims of study, experimental design and current status 3. Letter of recommendation from a supervisor or a senior colleague who is well acquainted with your work 4. Complete list of publications in the peer-reviewed English language scientific journals (if any) 5. Evidence of contacting at least one scientist/research group leader from Finnish Universities and of their replies: Copy/copies of correspondence or a letter of intent from a potential Finnish host which includes an outline of the research project for the applicant. 6. One recent photograph of the applicant (please attach the photo to the application form). *The applicants must be citizens of Russia or Ukraine. **A good knowledge of English language is required since only English is used in the Winter School (see more on CEFR language level at ). No official certificate is required.
APPENDIX B SUBSCRIPTION USAGE METRICS BY SDO AND NASA FACILITY All Downloads from 1/1/2010 to 11/30/2014 AFRC ARC GRC GSFC HQ JPL JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC Total 61537 AIA/NAS All 3555 3031 1755 9682 7 4205 16794 8630 4035 9645 198 61537 Unique 2380 1733 1152 5095 7 2271 8997 5389 2193 5753 149 35119 NFPA All 662 674 2261 1522 76 476 2584 4677 897 2244 1217 Unique 418 400 1322 888 54 279 1463 2951 553 1249 685 10262 15803 IPC All 467 444 613 6128 42 1775 2206 2421 338 1347 22 15803 Unique 83 104 194 1410 13 582 665 765 125 456 13 4410 2353 NEMA All 61 65 118 224 3 152 455 785 124 316 50 2353 Unique 44 53 84 114 3 84 275 480 93 187 39 1456 1085 ISA All 6 72 108 19 2 21 160 467 57 136 37 1085 341 SMACNA All 14 21 35 16 7 15 158 21 43 11 341
Late offers/bids will be processed in accordance with FAR 214-7, “Late Submissions, Modifications and Withdrawals of Bids, “FAR 52.215-1, “Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition,” FAR 52.212-1, “Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items,” or FAR 52.214-23, “Late Submission, Modifications, and Withdrawals of Technical Proposals Under Two-Step Sealed Bidding,” included in this solicitation. (End of Provision)
PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), § 1803(a), and D.98-04-059). Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) CPUC Discussion CforAT worked to ensure that education and outreach regarding the GHG allowance would be effective, including efforts to reach hard-to-reach customers and accessible communications with customers with disabilities, as well as general customer understanding. CforAT worked to ensure that outreach efforts effectively target customers, including people with disabilities through use of accessible formats. See CforAT Comments on submitted on October 7, 2013, addressing outreach to hard-to-reach populations, including people with disabilities (Resolution E-4611 rejected IOU Advice Letters for failing to provide effective messaging and failing to eliminate duplicative spending. See Final Decision at p. 3); CforAT and Greenlining Joint Comments on Scoping Memo (Joint Comments on Scoping Memo), filed on March 6, 2015 at pp. 1-3; CforAT and Greenlining Opening Brief on Joint Assigned Commissioner’s and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling and Scoping Memo (Joint Scoping Memo Brief), filed on May 29, 2015, at pp. 1-2. Verified. Consistent with overall efforts to improve customer awareness and understanding, CforAT supported changing the naming flexibility to improve customer understanding of the GHG program. Opening Brief of the Greenlining Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for Accessible Technology on Phase 1 Issues (Joint Phase 1 Brief), filed on December 6, 2013, at p. 7. Verified. CforAT worked to ensure that the GHG allowance program would be managed in an effective and cost-effective manner, including efficient governance and oversight of outreach efforts (including efforts to address flaws in the IOUs’ 2013 greenhouse gas allowance education and outreach plans, which were eventually rejected in Resolution E-4611). As part of efforts to support effective governance, CforAT supported ongoing reliance on a See e.g. CforAT Comments on Resolution E-4611, submitted on October 7, 2013. Initially, the Commission rejected the IOUs’ proposals for outreach as lacking competitive neutrality and failing to provide efficient and effective messaging. See Decision at pp. 3-4, discussion Resolution E-4611. Verified.
RCCBC’s budget request of $208,000 covers a two-year period. CD staff determined that the budget is reasonable for the tasks proposed and should be adopted. SJVRBC’s budget request of $180,000 covers a three-year period. CD staff determined that the budget is reasonable for the tasks proposed and should be adopted. Regional Consortium’s/Members’ Experience IMBC and its members have experience with community groups and have demonstrated success in helping to achieve broadband deployment in the region, particularly as part of ESC. They have also had success in building regional, collaborative broadband related efforts. Members have direct experience with managing broadband services at worksites. Members have worked with a culturally and linguistically diverse community. RCCBC operates as a network for member organizations. All member organizations are public entities that have a diverse group of stakeholders with a long history of working on broadband issues. They have direct experience working with culturally and linguistically diverse communities and continue to be active in broadband issues in the region. SJVRBC’s members have direct experience with broadband deployment and adoption efforts. They held scheduled and noticed meetings regularly to discuss infrastructure project proposals, and provided guidance and direction to the 4 Work Groups (Infrastructure Work Group, Digital Literacy/Education Work Group, Telehealth Work Group, and Agtech Work Group) to further regional deployment, accessibility and adoption of broadband services. Regional Consortium Representation and Endorsements IMBC representation includes city and counties who have formed a Joint Powers Agreement Agency to work on issues of regional importance. Two elected officials from each of Inyo and Mono Counties, the City of Bishop, and the Town of Mammoth Lakes serve as Consortium members. CD received four endorsements from local governments, and five endorsements from a school district superintendent, a hospital, a fire district, and business representatives. RCCBC representation includes city and county agencies, and regional rural and economic development interests. CD received eight endorsements from local governments, tribal entities, an economic development organization, and an academic institution.
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section A (Submit with Bid) Invitation for Bids IFB-1 – IFB-2 Table of Contents TOC-1 – TOC-2 Conditions and Instructions C&I-1 – C&I-11 Bid Form BF-1 – BF-3 Anticollusion / Nondiscrimination / Drug Free Workplace Clauses AND-1 Proof of Authority to Transact Business in Virginia POA-1 Exception Page EP-1 Notice of Escrow Option NEO-1 Bid Bond BB-1 – BB-2 Section B (Successful Bidder Submits) Insurance Requirements INS-1 – INS-7 Performance Bond PB-1 – PB-2 and Material Payment Bond LMB-1 – LMB-3 Construction Contract Escrow Agreement EA-1 – EA-4 Contract C-1 – C-3 Section C General Conditions GC-1 – GC-23 Technical Specifications Division 1 - General Requirements Summary of Work 01110-1 – 01110-4 Measurement and Payment Procedures 01200-1 – 01200-8 Project Meetings – 01310-2 Submittals 01330-1 – 01330-6 Regulatory Requirements 01410-1 – 01410-2 References 01420-1 – 01420-2 Quality Control 01450-1 - 01450-3 Construction Facilities and Temporary Controls 01500-1 – 01500-7 Traffic Regulation 01570-1 – 01570-2 Materials and Equipment 01600-1 – 01600-3 Material Options and Substitutions 01620-1 – 01620-2 Project Cleanup 01710-1 – 01710-2 Field Engineering 01720-1 – 01720-2 Cutting and Patching 01730-1 – 01730-2 Closeout Procedures 01770-1 – 01770-2 Division 2 - Sitework Excavation Support Systems 02260-1 – 02260-4 Excavating, Backfilling and Compacting 02315-1 – 02315-9
Section C (continued) Technical Specifications (continued) Division 2 - Sitework (continued) Management of Volatile Organic Compound-Impacted – 02316-4 Soil and Groundwater Erosion and Sediment Control 02370-1 – 02370-3 Sanitary Structures and Appurtenances 02605-1 – 02605-5 Sanitary Sewer Gravity Pipe Installation 02610-1 – 02610-8 Paving and Surfacing 02700-1 – 02700-4 Lawns and Grasses 02920-1 – 02920-3 Division 3 – Concrete Cast in Place Concrete 03300-1 – 03300-12 Appendices Appendix A – Soil Analysis Results Appendix B – Pavement Cores Schedule of Drawings 1 through 7, inclusive
GRIEVANCE REVIEW HEARING REQUEST FORM IDENTIFYING INFORMATION (Provide the following information) Complainant’s name: foster parent; legal parent/guardian, relative/non-relative extended family member Address: Phone: Child’s Case Number: CSW’s Name: Phone: SPA: Office Address: GRIEVANCE (Describe your concerns. Attach additional pages, if necessary) REQUESTED ACTION (Describe how you would like the situation to be resolved) SIGNATURE DATE An explanation of the Grievance Review procedure and instructions are on the reverse of this form. If you need assistance completing this form or have questions about the Grievance Review procedure, contact the DCFS Grievance Review Information Line, (833) 782-0173 or by fax at (213) 427-6154, or by e-mail: DCFS GRIEVANCE REVIEW PROCEDURES California Department of Social Services’ (CDSS) Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Division 31, Section 020 requires a grievance process to review complaints from foster parents includes approved relative and non-relative extended family members caregivers), legal parents, legal guardians and children regarding the placement or removal/replacement of a child or non-minor dependent from a foster home. CDSS also requires that DCFS provide you
TURN submits that under the circumstances this information should suffice to address the allocation requirement under the Commission’s rules. Should the Commission wish to see additional or different information on this point, TURN requests that the Commission so inform TURN and provide a reasonable opportunity for TURN to supplement this showing accordingly. Specific Claim:* Claimed CPUC Award ATTORNEY, EXPERT, AND ADVOCATE FEES Item Year Hours Rate $ Basis for Rate* Total $ Hours [1] Rate $ $ Robert Finkelstein 2014 17 $505 D.15-08-023 $8,585.00 17.00 505.00 8,585.00 R. Finkelstein 2015 412.8 $505 2014 Rate $208,186.25 377.75 505.00 190,763.75 R. Finkelstein 2016 63.5 $510 Res. ALJ-329 $32,385.00 63.50 510.00 32,385.00
Discussion The Environmental Impact Reports Background In July 2014, the Commission’s Energy Division staff issued its CEQA Alternatives Screening Report (Screening Report). This report presents the results of the Commission’s process of selection and review of project alternatives that were identified in the applicant’s PEA, formulated by the Commission Staff, and/or proposed during public scoping for the EIR. The alternatives screening process identified and reviewed the following 11 potential alternatives to the SOCRE Project: Alternative A – No Project. Alternative B1 – Reconductor Laguna Niguel–Talega 138 kV Line Alternative B2 – Use of Existing Transmission Lines (Additional Talega–Capistrano 138 kV Line). Alternative B3 – Phased Construction of Alternatives B1 and B2. Alternative B4 – Rebuild South Orange County 138 kV System. Alternative C1 – SCE 230 kV Loopin to Capistrano Substation. Alternative C2 – SCE 230 kV Loopin to Capistrano Substation Routing. Alternative D – SCE 230 kV Loop In to ReducedFootprint Substation at Landfill. Alternative E – New 230 kV Talega–Capistrano Line Operated at 138 kV. Alternative F – 23 kV Rancho Mission Viejo Substation. Alternative G – New 138 kV San Luis Rey–San Line and San Luis Rey Substation Expansion. Trial
South Orange County load of 494 MW, while the CAISO forecast was revised downward. FRONTLINES concludes that SDG&E’s inflated forecast resulted in SDG&E wrongly identifying numerous unlikely contingency events. Specifically, according to FRONTLINES, because SDG&E erroneously assumes a minimum 466 MW peak load level, the Category C overload concerns it predicts will not occur within the 10 year planning horizon, if at all. ORA agrees with FRONTLINES and notes that SDG&E’s having been less than forthcoming with contradictory 2015 peak load data (despite the numerous corrections made by SDG&E to its showing), further calls into question SDG&E’s claim that load is increasing in the South Orange County area. In addition to being disputed by SJC, FRONTLINES, and ORA, SDG&E’s forecast is at odds with that of the CAISO and the analysis performed in the development of the Screening Report, both of which were based on SDG&E’s data and models. Given the above, we find SDG&E’s 2014 forecast excessive and inaccurate. Additionally, in light of questions raised about the accuracy of SDG&E’s 2014 and 2015 forecasts, and its submission of the 2015 forecast in a time and manner that does not allow a full and thorough analysis by the opposing parties, we decline to adopt SDG&E’s 2015 need forecast at this time. Instead, we will rely on the lower need forecast developed by the Commission’s CEQA team using the same data and modeling software as SDG&E. Compliance with NERC Standards The Bulk Electrical System (BES) Exception SDGE claims the SOCRE Project is needed to provide reliable service to its South Orange County customers. According to SDG&E, the transmission system
COM/MP6/jt2 ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #15185 Alternate to Agenda ID #15184 Ratesetting 12/15/2016 Decision ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER PICKER (Mailed 9/26/2016) BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF In The Matter of the Application of SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 902 E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the South Orange County Reliability Enhancement Project. Application 1205020 (Filed May 18, 2012) ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
PAC/204 2017 Forecast Compliance Obligation and GHG Allowance Costs (Redacted Version and Confidential Version) PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Griswold PAC/205 2015 Recorded GHG Allowance Revenue (Redacted Version and Confidential Version) PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Griswold PAC/206 2016 Recorded/Forecast GHG Allowance Revenue (Redacted Version and Confidential Version) PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Griswold PAC/207 Summary of the GHG Allowance Revenue Balancing Account (Redacted Version and Confidential Version) PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Griswold PAC/208 2017 Forecast GHG Allowance Revenue (Redacted Version and Confidential Version) PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Griswold PAC/209 Commission Template of Revenues, Costs, and Emissions Intensity (Redacted Version and Confidential Version) PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Griswold PAC/300 Direct Testimony of Barbara Modey PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Modey PAC/301 2013  2016 Recorded/Forecast Customer Outreach Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. PAC/302 2017 Customer Outreach Activities and Estimated Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Modey PAC/303 2017 Forecast Customer Outreach Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. PAC/304 Commission Template of Outreach Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 B. Modey PAC/400 Direct Testimony of Anthony B. Worthington PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 A. Worthington PAC/401 2013  2016 Recorded/Forecast Administrative Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 A. Worthington PAC/402 2017 Forecast Administrative Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 A. Worthington PAC/403 Commission Template of Administrative Costs PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 A. Worthington PAC/500 Direct Testimony of Judith M. Ridenour PacifiCorp 8/1/2016 J. Ridenour
GCSE MATHEMATICS LINKED PAIR PILOT – JUNE 2016 GCSE Mathematics Linked Pilot Grade Boundaries – June 2016 GCSE Applications of Mathematics A* A B C D E F G 5AM1F 70 56 43 30 17 5AM2F 74 60 46 32 18 5AM1H 89 78 58 38 19 5AM2H 87 75 58 41 24 GCSE Methods in Mathematics A* A B C D E F G 73 59 46 33 20 5MM2F 72 59 46 33 20 5MM1H 87 74 53 33 16 87 74 54 34 17 GCSE Linked Pair Pilot – June 2016: Marks-UMS mapping Methods in Mathematics 5MM1 (Unit 1) UMS Foundation Unit 1 5MM1F Higher Unit 1 5MM1H UMS Foundation Unit 1 5MM1F Higher Unit 1 200 100 156 70 199 155 69 198 99 154 68 197 98 153 67
ALJ/AES/ek4 Date of Issuance 10/28/2016 Decision 16-10-025 October 27, 2016 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Implementation and Administration, and Consider Further Development, of California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Rulemaking 15-02-020 February 26, 2015) DECISION IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF GOVERNOR’S PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY RELATED TO TREE MORTALITY AND SENATE BILL 840 RELATED TO THE BIOENERGY FEEDIN TARIFF IN THE RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROGRAM
2016 by BAC, CBD, ORA, PG&E, Placer APCD, and Shell Energy North America (US) (for DA/CCA parties). All comments and comments have been carefully considered. Changes have been made to the requirements for reporting and publication of information on HHZ fuel use; the implementation process for reapplying for an interconnection study; and the deadline for the IOUs to file their Tier 2 advice letters. Minor editorial changes to improve clarity and consistency and correct small errors have also been made. Assignment of Proceeding Carla J. Peterman is the assigned Commissioner and Anne E. Simon is the assigned ALJ for this portion of this proceeding. Findings of Fact Governor issued the Emergency Proclamation on October 30, 2015. The Emergency Proclamation directs CALFIRE and other state agencies to identify HHZ for wildfire and falling trees. The Emergency Proclamation directs state agencies, utilities and local governments to undertake efforts to remove dead or dying trees in HHZ that threaten certain types of infrastructure and existing structures. The Emergency Proclamation directs the Commission to consider adjustments to the BioMAT program. SB 840 became effective on September 13, 2016, the day it was signed by the Governor. It is reasonable to include fuel from HHZ in the BioMAT category of “bioenergy from byproducts of sustainable forest management.”
16 ‘BMY Ltd.’ invited applications for issuing 1,00,000 equity shares of < 10 each at a premium of < 10 per share. The amount was payable as follows : On application – < 10 per share (including < 5 premium) On allotment – The balance The issue was fully subscribed. A shareholder holding 300 shares paid the full share money with application. Another shareholder holding 200 shares failed to pay the 8
other customer service channels. After this was highlighted, SoCalGas conducted a survey of customers at the offices proposed for closure. experience to be incorporated into any future application to close additional offices (see item 12, below). CforAT opposed SoCalGas’s argument in support of closing local offices because it would avoid the cost of ADA upgrades. Prepared Testimony of Dmitri Belser (Belser Testimony, was accepted into the record as Ex. CforAT-02) at §III (noting, among other reasons to reject the utility’s argument, that SoCalGas has previously received authorization to pay for ADA barrier removal at all branch offices) and Belser Reply Testimony at pp. 2-4. The Commission agreed. Final Decision at p. 54, FOF 4. Verified. CforAT worked to ensure that third-party payment locations that might serve customers who use local offices proposed for closure are accessible to customers with disabilities. Prepared Testimony of Dmitri Belser (Belser Reply Testimony, accepted into the record as Ex. CfoAT-01) at pp. 5- 7. The Commission affirmed the importance of this requirement. Final Decision at pp. (requiring ADA audits for APLs supporting any branch office being closed, to be conducted in addition to comparable surveys conducted in accordance with agreements made in conjunction with the utility’s GRC). Verified. CforAT and other intervenors worked to ensure that customers of local offices that the utility proposes to close receive timely and effective notice. CforAT argued any form of notice must be provided in a format that is accessible and effective for customers with disabilities. Belser Testimony at §II. SoCalGas modified and improved its notice proposal while the proceeding was pending. CforAT and TURN described the evolution of the notice process in our opening brief, specifically including CforAT’s proposals to improve the accessibility of any notices. CforAT/TURN Opening Brief at pp. 38-40. Verified.
APPENDIX Compensation Decision Summary Information Compensation Decision: D1610037 Modifies Decision? No Contribution Decision(s): D1606046 Proceeding(s): A1309010 Author: ALJ Colbert Payer(s): Southern California Gas Company Intervenor Information Intervenor Claim Date Amount Requested Amount Awarded Multiplier? Reason Change/Disallowance Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT) August 26, 2016 $54,196.75 $54,196.75 N/A N/A Advocate Information First Name Last Name Type Intervenor Hourly Fee Requested Year Hourly Fee Requested Hourly Fee Adopted Melissa Kasnitz Attorney CforAT $440 2013 $440 Melissa Kasnitz Attorney CforAT $450 2014 $450 Melissa Kasnitz Attorney CforAT $450 2015 $450 Melissa Kasnitz Attorney CforAT $455 2016 $455 Dmitri Belser Expert CforAT $235 2014 $235
System Description Design and Performance Requirements: Product Air Tested to psf Water Tested to psf Structural Tested to psf Certification Rating Design Pressure (DP) Max Overall Width (in) Max Overall Height (in) Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Casement (Full and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 75 CW-PG50-C 50 36" 71-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Casement (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 52.5 CW-PG35-C 35 36" 96-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Casement (Full and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 52.5 CW-PG35-C 35 40" 91-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Casement Picture (Full Frame) 1.57 7.5 75 50 72" 71-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Casement Picture (Full Frame) 1.57 7.5 75 50 88" 96-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Casement Picture (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 75 50 64" 96-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Awning (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 75 LC-PG50-AP 50 32" 35-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Awning (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 52.5 LC-PG35-AP 35 40" 47-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Awning (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 45 LC-PG30-AP 30 48" 47-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Awning (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 75 LC-PG50-AP 50 72" 35-1/8" Aluminum Clad Ultimate Push Out Awning (Full Frame and Replacement) 1.57 7.5 52.5 LC-PG35-AP 35 72" 47-1/8"
E283: Standard Test method for Rate of Air Leakage through Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Doors E330: Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Door by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference E547: Standard Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Doors by Cyclic Static Air Pressure Differential E2190: Specification for Sealed Insulated Glass Units Standard Specification for Flat Glass F2090-17: Standard Specifications for Windows Fall Prevention Devices with Emergency Escape (egress) Release Mechanisms American Architectural Manufacturer’s Association/Window and Door Manufacturer’s Association (AAMA/WDMA/CSA): AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-05, Standard/Specification for window, and unit skylights AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08, North American Fenestration, Standard/Specification for window, doors and skylights AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-11,NAFS 2011 – North American Fenestration, Standard/Specification for windows, doors and skylights WDMA I.S.4: Industry Standard for Water Repellant Preservative Treatment for Millwork Window and Door Manufacturer’s Association (WDMA): 101/I.S.2 WDMA Hallmark Certification Program Sealed Insulating Glass Manufacturer’s Association/Insulating Glass Certification Council (SIGMA/IGCC) American Architectural Manufacturer’s Association (AAMA): 2605: Voluntary Specification for High Performance Organic Coatings on Architectural Extrusions and Panels National Fenestration rating Council (NFRC): 101: Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product thermal Properties 200: Procedure for Determining Solar Heat Grain Coefficients at Normal Incidence
Part 1 General Section Includes Wood Ultimate Casement Push Out French Casement window complete with hardware, glazing, weather strip, insect screen, removable screen, grilles-between-the-glass, simulated divided lite, jamb extension, and standard or specified anchors, trim and attachments Related Sections Section 01 33 23 – Submittal Procedures; Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples Section 01 62 00 – Product Options Section 01 65 00 – Product Delivery Section 01 66 00 – Storage and Handling Requirements Section 01 71 00 – Examination and Preparation Section 01 73 00 - Execution Section 01 74 00 – Cleaning and Waste Management Section 01 76 00 – Protecting Installed Construction Section 06 22 00 – Millwork: Wood trim than furnished by window manufacturer Section 07 92 00 – Joint Sealant: Sill sealant and perimeter caulking Section 09 90 00 – Painting and Coasting: Paint and stain other than factory-applied finish References American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM): E283: Standard Test method for Rate of Air Leakage through Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Doors E330: Standard Test Method for Structural Performance of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Door by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference E547: Standard Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Doors by Cyclic Static Air Pressure Differential E2190: Specification for Sealed Insulated Glass Units C1036: Standard Specification for Flat Glass E2112: Standard Practice for Installation of Exterior Windows, Doors and Skylights
Technology Incentive Program. “The customer would need to engage SDG&E in an application and testing process to ensure that they are eligible for the technology. If a customer chooses not to install the required technological interface, SDG&E could work with the customer on a communication plan that would include telephone and email notifications. SDG&E notes that this alternative interface would not be optimal.” In contrast, NLine argues that email, phone and text notifications are sufficient for customers to participate in a dynamic hourly rate. We find that for purposes of the pilot, enrollment should be restricted to those customers that already have or are willing to procure in time the customer control system required for full pilot participation. To participate in the pilot, SDG&E customers may not substitute email, telephone or other forms of communication for the technological interface currently required by SDG&E. The IOUs and most other parties generally agree that study of 100 200 participants is appropriate given the constraints and goals of the pilots. NLine proposes a different approach, using number of billed service agreements instead of number of customers. We agree that billed service agreements are an appropriate metric. For purposes of this pilot, the enrollment goals (and the study parameters) are best set based on the number of billed service agreements. SCE recommends that the pilot be conducted with whatever numbers of participants choose to join, regardless of whether that number is below 100 or above 200. SCE says it does not plan to turn away participants if more than 200 express interest. If fewer than 100 participants enroll, SCE would re-engage