Criteria for Considering Inclusion of a Project in the Recommended Plan Sample Clauses

Criteria for Considering Inclusion of a Project in the Recommended Plan. In determining whether a Short-term Project or Long-lead Project proposed pursuant to the Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, section 1.5.8(c), individually or in combination with other Short-term Projects or Long-lead Projects, is the more efficient or cost-effective solution and therefore should be included in the recommended plan, the Office of the Interconnection, taking into account sensitivity studies and scenario analyses considered pursuant to the Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, section 1.5.3, shall consider the following criteria, to the extent applicable: (i) the extent to which a Short-term Project or Long-lead Project would address and solve the posted violation, system condition, or economic constraint; (ii) the extent to which the relative benefits of the project meets a Benefit/Cost Ratio Threshold of at least 1.25:1 as calculated pursuant to the Operating Agreement, Schedule 6, section 1.5.7(d); (iii) the extent to which the Short-term Project or Long-lead Project would have secondary benefits, such as addressing additional or other system reliability, operational performance, economic efficiency issues or federal Public Policy Requirements or state Public Policy Requirements identified by the states in the PJM Region; and (iv) the ability to timely complete the project, and project development feasibility; and (v) other factors such as cost-effectiveness, including the quality and effectiveness of any voluntary-submitted binding cost commitment proposal related to Transmission Facilities which caps project construction costs (either in whole or in part), project total return on equity (including incentive adders), or capital structure. In scrutinizing the cost of project proposals, the Office of Interconnection shall determine for each project finalist’s proposal, including any Transmission Owner Upgrades, the comparative risks to be borne by ratepayers as a result of the proposal’s binding cost commitment or the use of non-binding cost estimates. Such comparative analysis shall detail, in a clear and transparent manner, the method by which the Office of Interconnection scrutinized the cost and overall cost-effectiveness of each finalist’s proposal, including any binding cost commitments. Such comparative analysis shall be presented to the TEAC for review and comment. In evaluating any cost, XXX and/or capital structure proposal, PJM is not making a determination that the cost, XXX or capital structure results in just and reasonable rates, w...
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Criteria for Considering Inclusion of a Project in the Recommended Plan. In determining whether a Short-term Project or Long-lead Project proposed pursuant to Section 1.5.8(c), individually or in combination with other Short-term Projects or Long-lead Projects, is Formatted: Highlight EXPANSION PLA - OA Schedule 6 Sec 1.5 Procedure for Development of the Regi the more efficient or cost-effective solution and therefore should be included in the recommended plan, the Office of the Interconnection, taking into account sensitivity studies and scenario analyses considered pursuant to Section 1.5.3 of this Schedule 6, shall consider the following criteria, to the extent applicable: (i) the extent to which a Short-term Project or Long- lead Project would address and solve the posted violation, system condition, or economic constraint; (ii) the extent to which the relative benefits of the project meets a Benefit/Cost Ratio Threshold of at least 1.25:1 as calculated pursuant to Section 1.5.7(d) of this Schedule 6; (iii) the extent to which the Short-term Project or Long-lead Project would have secondary benefits, such as addressing additional or other system reliability, operational performance, economic efficiency issues or federal Public Policy Requirements or state Public Policy Requirements identified by the states in the PJM Region; and (iv) other factors such as cost-effectiveness, the ability to timely complete the project, and project development feasibility.
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to Criteria for Considering Inclusion of a Project in the Recommended Plan

  • Sole Source as Grounds for Rejection of a Change Order If a Change Order is submitted to Contractor for the purposes of adding a Bulletin to this Contract and said Bulletin designates a Sole Source from which Contractor is required to procure goods or services necessary to perform the Work, which Sole Source has not been designated previously, Contractor shall be entitled to reject the proposed Change Order if the designated Sole Source refuses to provide to Contractor the warranties, bonds, terms or schedule required under the Contract Documents, including any warranty or terms or schedule required by Bulletins referenced in the proposed Change Order. In such event, Contractor shall give written notice to the Owner rejecting the proposed Change Order and, if possible, shall accompany said written notice with a proposal from Contractor for changes or modifications to the Bulletin so as to eliminate the Sole Source designation but to achieve goods or services equal in quality or function. The Owner may then require the Design Professional to revise the subject Bulletin so as to eliminate the designation of the Sole Source by incorporation of Contractor's proposal or otherwise. Upon revision of the Bulletin by the Design Professional and approval thereof by the Owner, the Owner shall again submit to the Contractor a proposed Change Order for the purpose of adding the revised Bulletin to this Contract. If the Owner decides to retain the Sole Source in the Change Order and Contractor cannot acquire the full contractually required warranties from the Sole Source, Contractor shall be held only to the warranty terms and schedule obtainable from the Sole Source.

  • Proposing Integration Activities in the Planning Submission No integration activity described in section 6.3 may be proposed in a CAPS unless the LHIN has consented, in writing, to its inclusion pursuant to the process set out in section 6.3(b).

  • Admission of Additional Members One or more additional members of the Company may be admitted to the Company with the written consent of the Member.

  • METHOD OF CALCULATION OF PROPORTIONATE SHARE WHEREVER REFERRED TO IN THE AGREEMENT Wherever in this Agreement it is stipulated that the Allottee has to make any payment, in common with other Allottee(s) in Project, the same shall be the proportion which the carpet area of the [Apartment/Plot] bears to the total carpet area of all the [Apartments/Plots] in the Project.

  • Desirable Selection Criteria 1. Possession of, or significant progression toward the attainment of a post graduate qualification in area of specialty.

  • Additional mechanisms within the Programme 5.1 Pre-defined projects

  • Time Limits for Submission of Claim Failure by Purchaser to submit a Claim within established time limits shall relinquish the United States from any and all obligations whatsoever arising under the contract or portions thereof. Purchaser shall file such Claim within the following time limits:

  • PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION The purpose of the Agreement is to provide the City with the services for one full-time equivalent senior criminalist from the Department to perform DNA testing, analysis, and forensic-related consulting as requested by the City, effective July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2021. The City’s current agreement with the County for this position expires on June 30, 2016. This Agreement will not result in the creation of an additional senior criminalist position, as the position was created during the previous agreement.

  • For Lump Sum Change Order The payment and extension of time (if any) provided by this Change Order constitutes compensation in full to the Contractor and its Subcontractors and Suppliers for all costs and markups directly and indirectly attributable to the Change Order herein, for all delays related thereto and for performance of changes within the time stated.

  • HHS Single Audit Unit will notify Grantee to complete the Single Audit Determination Form If Grantee fails to complete the form within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of notice, Grantee maybe subject to sanctions and remedies for non-compliance.

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