Testing for an Appreciable Sample Clauses

Testing for an Appreciable. Amount of Redispatch Relief and Determining the Settlement Market Flow: When the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are not in-service, the ability of the Non-Monitoring RTO to provide an appreciable amount of redispatch relief will be determined by comparing the Non-Monitoring RTO’s Market Flow to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Flowgate. When the Non-Monitoring RTO Market Flow (also the Market Flow used for settlement) is greater than the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Flowgate, the Monitoring RTO will assume that an appreciable amount of redispatch relief is available from the Non-Monitoring RTO and will engage the M2M coordination process for the constrained M2M Flowgate. When any of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are in-service, the ability of the Non-Monitoring RTO to provide an appreciable amount of redispatch relief will be determined by comparing either (i) the Non-Monitoring RTO’s unadjusted Market Flow, or (ii) the Non-Monitoring RTO Market Flow adjusted to reflect the expected impact of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border (“LEC Adjusted Market Flow”), to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement for the constrained M2M Flowgate. The rules for determining which Market Flow (unadjusted or adjusted) to compare to the Non-Monitoring RTO M2M Entitlement when any of the PARs at the Michigan-Ontario border are in-service are set forth below.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Testing for an Appreciable. Amount of Redispatch Relief and Determining the

Related to Testing for an Appreciable

  • Selection Criteria for Awarding Task Order The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment using the evaluation criteria. The Government will evaluate proposals against established selection criteria specified in the task order RFP. Generally, the Government's award decision will be based on selection criteria which addresses past performance, technical acceptability, proposal risk and cost. Among other sources, evaluation of past performance may be based on past performance assessments provided by TO Program Managers on individual task orders performed throughout the life of the contract. The order of importance for the factors will be identified in the RFP for the specified task order.

  • System for Award Management (XXX) and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Requirements.

  • METHOD OF AWARD AND PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING A SOW AGREEMENT 5.1. Contractor selection, or the determination to terminate the SOW-RFP without award, shall be done in the best interest of the State.

  • System for Award Management (XXX) XXX.gov)

  • Employee Performance Review When a formal review of an employee’s performance is made, the employee concerned shall be given an opportunity to discuss, sign and make written comments on the review form in question and the employee is to receive a signed copy to indicate that its contents have been read. An employee shall be entitled to a minimum of two (2) work days to review the performance review prior to providing any response to the Employer, verbally or in writing, with respect to the evaluation.

  • System for Award Management (XXX) Requirement Alongside a signed copy of this Agreement, Grantee will provide Florida Housing with a XXX.xxx proof of registration and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number. Grantee will continue to maintain an active XXX registration with current information at all times during which it has an active award under this Agreement.

  • Award Criteria 40.1 The Procuring Entity shall award the Contract to the successful tenderer whose tender has been determined to be the Lowest Evaluated Tender in accordance with procedures in Section 3: Evaluation and Qualification Criteria.

  • Employee Performance Evaluations Any employee performance evaluation shall be prepared by the employee's supervisor who has the responsibility and authority to prepare such reports. Employee performance evaluation reports shall be discussed with the employee prior to finalization of each category of the report. An employee will receive an appointment with his/her department's reviewing officer to discuss the evaluation by signing the evaluation form in the space provided. Each department shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the reviewing officer for this purpose has not been a party to the preparation of the evaluation. In no case shall the reviewing officer sign the evaluation form until a review has occurred. Any regular or special evaluation with a rating of "unsatisfactory" shall include plans for employee development. Except in cases of termination, release from probation, or leave of absence, employees who receive an unsatisfactory performance evaluation must receive a follow-up evaluation. The follow-up evaluation shall cover a period of time no greater than ninety (90) calendar days from the date of the final review of the initial unsatisfactory evaluation. An employee shall have the right to submit written comments regarding any evaluation and to have such comments included in his/her personnel file along with the evaluation.

  • EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Purpose: To provide the policy and procedures for assessing employee performance and communicating the results of assessment to the employee and to others using assessment information in personnel decisions, and further to express the mutual commitment of the parties to the University’s values.

  • Conditions for Award of Contract 7. The Borrower shall not award any Works contract which involves environmental impacts until:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.