Decision Periods for Class Year Study and Additional Deliverability Study Sample Clauses

Decision Periods for Class Year Study and Additional Deliverability Study. Within 30 calendar days following (1) approval of the final Annual Transmission Reliability Assessment and Class Year Deliverability Study by the Operating Committee (collectively the “Class Year Study Reports”); or (2) approval of the final SDU Study report by the Operating Committee when such approval is prior to completion of the Annual Transmission Baseline Assessment study cases for the following Class Year Study, (each such 30 calendar day period to be referred to as the “Initial Decision Period” for the respective study), or within 7 calendar days following the ISO’s issuance of a revised Class Year Study report or a revised Additional SDU Study report, as applicable, and accompanying Revised Project Cost Allocation and revised Deliverable MW report, as defined in and pursuant to Section 25.8.3 (a “Subsequent Decision Period”), if applicable, each Developer shall provide notice to the ISO, in writing and via electronic mail, stating whether it shall accept (an “Acceptance Notice”) or not accept (a “Non-Acceptance Notice”) the Project Cost Allocation(s) and Deliverable MW, if any, reported to it by the ISO for its Class Year Project. A Developer for a Class Year Project that is a multi-unit facility may not submit separate notices for separate portions of the Class Year Project (e.g. a Class Year Project that is a Co-located Storage Resource may not submit an Acceptance Notice for one of its resources and a Non-Acceptance Notice for the co-located resource). Failure to notify the ISO by the prescribed deadline as to whether a Developer accepts or rejects its Project Cost Allocation and Deliverable MW, if any, will be deemed a Non-Acceptance Notice. Each Developer may respond with either an Acceptance Notice or a Non-Acceptance Notice to each Project Cost Allocation and Deliverable MW reported to it by the ISO. Starting with Class Year 2012, an Acceptance Notice for Projects not yet In-Service must also include a confirmed In-Service Date and Commercial Operation Date, subject to the limitations set forth in Section 30.4.4.5 of Attachment X. A Developer in its first Class Year Study that requests to be evaluated for CRIS may accept both its SDU Project Cost Allocation and its SUF Project Cost Allocation. Alternatively, that Developer, if it accepts its SUF Project Cost Allocation, may provide a Non-Acceptance Notice for its SDU Project Cost Allocation and at the same time accept, or not accept its Deliverable MW. Or, as another alternative, that same ...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Decision Periods for Class Year Study and Additional Deliverability Study

  • 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.

  • Automatic Renewal Limitation for TIPS Sales No TIPS Sale may incorporate an automatic renewal clause that exceeds month to month terms with which the TIPS Member must comply. All renewal terms incorporated into a TIPS Sale Supplemental Agreement shall only be valid and enforceable when Vendor received written confirmation of acceptance of the renewal term from the TIPS Member for the specific renewal term. The purpose of this clause is to avoid a TIPS Member inadvertently renewing an Agreement during a period in which the governing body of the TIPS Member has not properly appropriated and budgeted the funds to satisfy the Agreement renewal. Any TIPS Sale Supplemental Agreement containing an “Automatic Renewal” clause that conflicts with these terms is rendered void and unenforceable.

  • MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL Not later than 16 court days before the calendared Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiff will file in Court, a motion for final approval of the Settlement that includes a request for approval of the PAGA settlement under Labor Code section 2699, subd. (l), a Proposed Final Approval Order and a proposed Judgment (collectively “Motion for Final Approval”). Plaintiff shall provide drafts of these documents to Defense Counsel not later than seven days prior to filing the Motion for Final Approval. Class Counsel and Defense Counsel will expeditiously meet and confer in person or by telephone, and in good faith, to resolve any disagreements concerning the Motion for Final Approval.

  • Rate Redetermination for Environmental Modification In the event of a contract modification under B8.33 or partial termination under B8.34, Contracting Officer shall make an appraisal to determine for each species the difference between the appraised unit value of Included Timber remaining immediately prior to the revision and the appraised unit value of Included Timber to be cut under the modification. The appraisal shall consider the estimated cost of any construction work listed in the Schedule of Items that was performed and abandoned. Tentative Rates and Flat Rates in effect at the time of the revision will be adjusted by said differences to become Current Contract Rates. Accordingly, Base Rates shall be adjusted to correspond to the redetermined rates if redetermined rates are less than the original Base Rates, subject to a new Base Rate limitation of the cost of essential reforestation or 25 cents per hundred cubic feet or equivalent, whichever is larger. However, existing Base Indices shall not be changed under this Subsection. Redetermined rates, or differences for rates subject to B3.2, and Required Deposits shall be considered established under B3.1 for timber Scaled subsequent to the contract revision.

  • 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.

  • Emergency Action on Imports of Particular Products Where any product is being imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause:

  • Additional RO Review Criteria (1) In addition to the requirements in Subparagraph 34A, the RO must:

  • Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.

  • FLORIDA CONVICTED/SUSPENDED/DISCRIMINATORY COMPLAINTS By submission of an offer, the respondent affirms that it is not currently listed in the Florida Department of Management Services Convicted/Suspended/Discriminatory Complaint Vendor List.

  • SUBMISSION OF THE MONTHLY MI REPORT 4.1 The completed MI Report shall be completed electronically and returned to the Authority by uploading the electronic MI Report computer file to MISO in accordance with the instructions provided in MISO.

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