SOURCES OF DISAGREEMENT Sample Clauses

SOURCES OF DISAGREEMENT. While the PG&E evaluation committee and Xxxxxx Seco Consulting did disagree on some specific decisions in the administration of the evaluation process, nearly all of these issues were resolved in the course of review. Issues underlying disagreements included: • Xxxxxx disagreed with some of the PG&E team’s preliminary assignments of some Offers to local nodal areas or to pricing zones. After review and discussion, these disagreements were resolved, either through changes to the assignments or agreement that the assignments were correct. • Xxxxxx disagreed with initial analyses in which PG&E assigned Resource Adequacy value to a few Offers that proposed to interconnect intermittent generation facilities outside the CAISO grid. Upon review, the PG&E team agreed that these Offers would not likely provide RA value to customers. • Xxxxxx suggested that selection of Imperial Valley Offers with viability scores below PG&E’s viability cutoff would amount to a preference for Imperial Valley projects. Preferential treatment of such Offers was explicitly rejected for the 2009 RPS RFO in the CPUC’s Decision approving the 2009 procurement plans. Based on guidance from PRG members, PG&E chose to drop one such Offer from its draft short list; another failed to stay on the final short list. • PG&E made a preliminary selection of projects from two Developers that were not the Participant’s highest-valued Offers; upon review, and given feedback from PRG members and the IE, PG&E decided to select higher-valued Offers. • Xxxxxx’x Project Viability Calculator scores for many individual Offers varied considerably from the PG&E team’s scores. Upon comparison and discussion, PG&E revised its scores downwards for some Offers that it had included in a preliminary draft short list. This led the utility to decide to reject these Offers from the final short list. Similarly, Xxxxxx was convinced by PG&E’s analysis to revise some of its Calculator scores upwards for Offers that PG&E had placed on the preliminary draft short list and to which Xxxxxx had raised objections. • In the final short list, PG&E selected a few Offers that met its value cutoff but fell below the cutoff for viability. For most of these, Xxxxxx concurred with the decision to short-list based on other considerations. However, Xxxxxx disagreed with PG&E’s decision to select two Offers for the short list. • One Offer, described previously, was short-listed on the basis of achieving greater portfolio diversity by provid...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (14)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
SOURCES OF DISAGREEMENT. Xxxxxx disagreed with one aspect of how PG&E applied its methodology and with a few of the choices made in the selection process. Specific areas of disagreement included:
Sample 1Sample 2
SOURCES OF DISAGREEMENT. To better understand the sources of disagreement, we calculated Kappa for the two following cases:
Sample 1Sample 2
SOURCES OF DISAGREEMENT. To better understand the sources of disagreement, we calculated Kappa for the two following cases: 1 Combining the two middle categories of the adequacy scale (L and P). If there is confusion between these two categories, then it would be expected that agreement would increase when these two categories are combined. This results in a three category scale (F, [L,P], N). 2 Combining the categories at the ends of the scale (F and L, and P and N). If there is confusion between the F and L categories and the P and N categories, then it would be expected that agreement would increase when these categories are combined. This results in a two category scale ([F,L], [P,N]). The results of these combinations are also shown in Figure 8. In both cases, the combination of categories increases the value of Kappa. However, for the data from the first study the two category scale results in a larger increase in agreement than the three category scale. This suggests that there is more confusion in rating practices at the end points of the adequacy scale for that process. Conversely, the difference between the two grouping strategies in study 2 are quite small (0.76 vs. 0.79). This indicates that there is possibly equal confusion of categories at the end points of the scale as at the middle points of the scale (according to the two grouping strategies presented above). Subsequently, we considered the extent of agreement at high capability levels when compared to low capability levels. From overall ratings summaries from the SPICE trials (see [14]), it was clear that there was a paucity of ratings better than "Not Adequate" for the Engineering and Project process categories at higher maturity levels. Since there are few instances rated highly at the higher capability levels, then this means that there is little knowledge about higher level generic practices. Consequently greater disagreement in higher capability ratings would be expected. High capability levels include levels 3 to 5. Low capability levels include levels 1 and 2. As can be seen in Figure 8, for the ENG.3 process there is not much difference in the Kappa values (0.46 vs. 0.44). However, for the PRO.5 process, agreement at the low capability levels is considerably larger than agreement at the high capability levels (0.72 vs. 0.54). This may be because assessors have less understanding of processes for managing quality at higher levels of capability (e.g., quantitative control and improvement of quality manageme...
Sample 1

Related to SOURCES OF DISAGREEMENT

  • Resolution of Disagreements Disputes arising under this Agreement will be resolved informally by discussions between Agency Points of Contact, or other officials designated by each agency.

  • Notice of Dispute The party wishing to commence the dispute resolution process must give written notice (Notice of Dispute) to the other parties of:

  • Dispute Notice If there is a dispute between the parties, then either party may give a notice to the other succinctly setting out the details of the dispute and stating that it is a dispute notice given under this clause 17.1.

  • Disagreement If the Parties reasonably and in good faith disagree as to whether there has been a material breach, the Party that seeks to dispute that there has been a material breach may contest the allegation in accordance with Section 13.1. The cure period for any allegation made in good faith as to a material breach under this Agreement will, subject to Sections 12.3.1 and 13.2, run from the date that written notice was first provided to the Breaching Party by the Non-Breaching Party.

  • Notice of Disputes Notice of the dispute will be submitted on the form provided in Appendix A and sent to the responding party, in order to provide an opportunity to respond. The Crown shall be provided with a copy.

  • Settlement of Dispute Any disputes under the Agreement shall be settled at first through friendly consultation between the parties hereto. In case no settlement can be reached through consultation, each party shall have the right to submit such disputes to China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission in Beijing. The Place of arbitration is Beijing. The arbitration award shall be final and binding on both parties.

  • Non-Application of Dispute Settlement No Party shall have recourse to dispute settlement under Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) for any matter arising under this Chapter.

  • Closing Statement (a) At least five (5) business days prior to the Closing Date, the Company shall submit to Buyer a written statement of estimated Current Assets and Current Liabilities as of the last day of the month immediately preceding the Closing Date (the "Estimated Closing Statement") containing the Company's good faith estimate of the Net Working Capital Amount (the "Estimated Net Working Capital Amount"), which shall reflect the items required to be set forth in, and be prepared in a manner consistent with the preparation of, the Closing Statement, in each case in accordance with Section 4.6(b); provided, however, that for purposes of the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount, the parties hereto agree that 50% of the amount of Fuel Sensor Damages (x) actually expended by Parent or the Company from March 1, 2011 through the last day of the month immediately preceding the Closing Date and (y) accrued as current liabilities on the Estimated Closing Statement, shall be added as a credit to the estimated Net Working Capital Amount set forth on the Estimated Closing Statement. Commencing with the Company's delivery of the Estimated Closing Statement to Buyer, Buyer shall have reasonable access to the books and records and personnel of the Company and the opportunity to consult with the Company for purposes of confirming or disputing the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount. If Buyer shall disagree, in good faith, with any item set forth in the Estimated Closing Statement or used to determine the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount, then Buyer and the Company shall work, in good faith, to reach agreement on such disputed items and the amounts as agreed to by Buyer and the Company shall constitute the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Buyer's agreement with the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount (or any item set forth in the Estimated Closing Statement or used to determine the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount) shall not foreclose, prevent, limit or preclude any rights or remedy of Buyer set forth in this Agreement. If the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount is less than the Target Net Working Capital Amount, the amount of the Closing Payment to be paid by Buyer pursuant to Section 4.1(b)(i) shall be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount and the Target Net Working Capital Amount. If the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount is more than the Target Net Working Capital Amount, the amount of the Closing Payment to be paid by Buyer pursuant to Section 4.1(b)(i) shall be increased by an amount equal to the difference between the Estimated Net Working Capital Amount and the Target Net Working Capital Amount.

  • DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES Any dispute arising under this Section 2.6 shall be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures of Article 7.

  • SELLER NOTICE OF DISCREPANCIES Seller shall promptly notify Buyer in writing when discrepancies in Seller’s process, including any violation of or deviation from Seller’s approved inspection/quality control system, or goods/materials are discovered or suspected which may affect the Services delivered or to be delivered under this Contract.

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