Measurement of own current performance Clause Samples

Measurement of own current performance. The measurement of the own current performance could, in contrast to most CDM methodolo- gy requirements, rely on an ex-ante agreed performance standard that is reached with the implementation of standardised low income houses under the credited programme. This means that instead of ex-post monitoring of the actual performance (or emission levels), the performance or emission levels of example houses are calculated or measured, and agreed as a reference case which is compared to the baseline case to calculate emission reductions per house. Ex-post MRV then only consists of a count of the number of implemented houses com- plying with the standards as agreed in the reference case. The emission level of baseline hous- ing units minus the emission level of implemented housing units complying with the agreed more ambitious standards are multiplied with the number of housing units. While only the latter variable is unknown ex-post. This constitutes a pragmatic approach that has uncertainties but reduces transactions cost and barriers for implementation mainly stemming from greenhouse gas quantification and MRV aspects. This proposal basically follows the method chosen by the Kuyasa CDM project but applies to whole building units rather than specific measures in the buildings. While the Kuyasa CDM project seems to be a good showcase also for efficient approaches embedded in the CDM it might be questioned if this approach would be accepted on the basis of the most recent methodology versions and newly accepted methodologies. The alternative approach is to monitor, report and verify every single housing unit which re- sults in transition costs that are soon beyond the level of revenues that could be generated from such a credited mechanism. Also, the most accurate greenhouse gas quantification would not solve the overlapping effects of the change in user behaviour (signal to noise). This is not taken into account in the simplified approach but it can be assumed that this effect is levelled out when the number of homes is large and the reference consumption is close to the average.
View Source
Measurement of own current performance. The measurement of the own current performance in existing power plants or new generation sites that participate in the potential bilateral crediting mechanisms requires the same data as for step 4 but from the own installation or generation site. While the electricity output de- termination is rather easy, the determination of the greenhouse gas emissions requires a com- bination of measurements and calculations. It is methodologically required to follow the same 21 See: ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇/estadisticas/energia/electricidad approach as chosen for the previous step but also seems most efficient to follow the general approaches as presented for the CDM and EU ETS in step 4. The determination of activity data is required for each fuel used but normally available due to internal control procedures. The required accuracy level needs to be determined by the mech- anism administrator and determines to a large extent the choice of means. Actual require- ments could represent a trade-off between accuracy and cost-efficiency and could result in a wide range of options, for example on the one side the use of supplier data (e.g. invoices) and on the other side the requirement to use calibrated high precision measurement equipment. A tiered approach according to the size of installations (respectively the amount of annual emis- sions) and considering the different capabilities available in installations as in the EU ETS might be more appropriate than applying the same accuracy levels to all participants as in the CDM. The mechanism administrator might furthermore decide that reported data on installations’ current own performance is verified by independent third party verifiers. Comparable verifica- tion steps are foreseen in the CDM and the EU ETS. The required default values, such as emission factors and net calorific values, could as well be determined with different certainty levels. The CDM and the EU ETS define broadly similar priority orders for accepted sources of default values. IPCC values should only be used when country or project/plant specific data are not available. The EU ETS requires only from the largest installation operators using non-commercial fuels to analyse these parameters by de- fault. The determination of the performance of new renewable electricity generation sites that par- ticipate in the potential bilateral crediting mechanisms might be rather easy and could be de- fined by default. As long as no auxiliary fuels are used and no further em...
View Source

Related to Measurement of own current performance

  • EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 7.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out: 7.1.1 the standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s perfor- ▇▇▇▇▇; and 7.1.2 the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 7.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force. 7.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames. 7.4 The Employee’s performance will measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s IDP. 7.5 The annual performance appraisal will involve: 7.5.1. Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the perfor- ▇▇▇▇▇ plan: (a) Each KPA should be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance indicators have been met and with due regard to ad hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPA. (b) An indicative rating on the five-point scale should be provided for each KPA. (c) The applicable assessment rating calculator (refer to paragraph 7.5.3. below) must then be used to add the scores and calculate a final KPA score.

  • Past Performance The Government will evaluate the contractor's performance on the NETCENTS-2 Orders provided in Exhibit B, CDRL B001. The PCO will determine the quality of the work performed based on an integrated assessment of data obtained in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) and information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with customers, program managers and/or contracting officers for NETCENTS-2 task orders. Based on the contractor performance records above, the PCO will determine if there is an expectation that the contractor will successfully perform the required efforts under the unrestricted NetOps and Infrastructure Solutions contract.

  • Product Performance Contractor hereby warrants and represents that the Products acquired by the Authorized User under the terms and conditions of this Contract conform to the specifications, performance standards and documentation in the Authorized User Agreement., and the documentation fully describes the proper procedure for using the Products. Contractor further warrants and represents that if the Products acquired by the Authorized User pursuant to an Authorized User Agreement under this Contract include software application development, software application customization, software programming, software integration or similar items (“Software Deliverables”) then such Software Deliverables shall be free from defects in material and workmanship and conform with all requirements of the Contract and Authorized User Agreement for the warranty period of one (1) year from the date of acceptance of the completed project (“Project warranty period”). Contractor also warrants that the Products, in the form provided to the Authorized User, do not infringe any copyright, trademark, trade secret or other right of any third party.

  • Monitoring of Contract Performance The Contractor shall comply with the monitoring arrangements set out in the Monitoring Requirements Schedule including, but not limited to, providing such data and information as the Contractor may be required to produce under the Contract.

  • OUTCOME IF GRANTEE CANNOT COMPLETE REQUIRED PERFORMANCE Unless otherwise specified in this Statement of Work, if Grantee cannot complete or otherwise comply with a requirement included in this Statement of Work, HHSC, at its sole discretion, may impose remedies or sanctions outlined under Contract Attachment D, Local Mental Health Authority Special Conditions, Section 7.09 (Remedies and Sanctions). CONTRACT NO. HHS001324500038