Viability. With the introduction of the Project Viability Calculator as a tool to assess the likelihood of projects achieving successful operation come some opportunities for the Energy Division and the IOUs to evaluate its use and possibly implement improvements for the future. • There is an opportunity to refine the scoring guidelines for the Calculator. It became evident that reasonable people scoring offers could arrive at different interpretations of the guidelines, and that there are gray areas that require judgment. For example, one scorer might regard a developer’s prior experience constructing and operating small photovoltaic installations that reside on a customer’s premises beyond the meter as the basis for a high score on Project Development Experience, while 17 For the actual Offer in question, the valuation of the straight PPA with no buyout option exercise was much lower but still above the value cutoff so the concern Xxxxxx expresses is relevant for future solicitations but not for the current situation. another scorer might view these projects as not representing “wholesale generation” and therefore assign a zero score.18 Similarly, one scorer might view a photovoltaic project for which the developer estimates direct net irradiance based on publicly available government-published data for a nearby weather station as deserving a score of 10 for Resource Quality, while another scorer might assign a 5 to the same Offer because it does not cite a third-party resource assessment or measured irradiance at a comparable photovoltaic facility in the region. • Even if the text of the scoring guidelines is not revised, there is an opportunity for the PG&E team to move towards a more uniform interpretation of the guidelines among scorers. This might be as simple as a pre-RFO internal workshop to discuss gray areas in the guidelines and come to some common understanding of how best to deal with ambiguities. Or it might be a chapter in PG&E’s internal protocol for Project Viability that outlines additional guidance to clarify how the team might best deal with ambiguities or gray areas in the Calculator scoring guidelines. In the 2009 RFO, the PG&E team made substantial efforts to achieve consistency in scoring, and some of these ambiguities became evident only after internal review of preliminary scores led the team to revise them to improve the consistency of scoring; it is clearly a challenge for any team of scorers to approach perfect uniformity. • The Calculat...
Viability. To Nano’s knowledge, it has sufficient resources, financial and otherwise, to satisfy each of its obligations hereunder and under the Supply Agreement as each comes due.
Viability. With the introduction of the Project Viability Calculator as a tool to assess the likelihood of projects achieving successful operation come some opportunities for the Energy Division and the IOUs to evaluate its use and possibly implement improvements for the future. • There is an opportunity to refine the scoring guidelines for the Calculator. It became evident that reasonable people scoring offers could arrive at different interpretations of the guidelines, and that there are gray areas that require judgment. For example, one scorer might regard a developer’s prior experience constructing and operating small photovoltaic installations that reside on a customer’s premises beyond the meter as the basis for a high score on Project Development Experience, while another scorer might view these projects as not representing “wholesale generation” and therefore assign a zero score.19 Similarly, one scorer might view a photovoltaic 18 For the actual Offer in question, the valuation of the straight PPA with no buyout option exercise was much lower but still above the value cutoff so the concern Xxxxxx expresses is relevant for future solicitations but not for the current situation.
Viability. HOA and City agree that in order to determine the viability of incorporating the Pole Patch Water System into the City’s culinary water system, certain studies must be performed and reviewed by the Parties. Based on the results of said studies, Parties will then determine whether proceeding with the incorporation is viable for each Party.
Viability. The Company may suspend access to NeoRehab if a Claim is made that:
Viability. An antemortem NJSA presents some of the same challenges as antemortem probate, along with some new challenges. While less adversarial than a court proceeding, an antemortem NJSA could still be perceived as adversarial. Additionally, the settlor would have to disclose the terms of his trust agreement (something that many settlors seek to avoid) in order to achieve a binding agreement. Having relatives weigh in on the settlor’s plans may cause turmoil and resentment within the family. Additionally, an antemortem NJSA would only resolve disputes related to the trust agreement and any amendments in existence at the time of the NJSA. Subsequent changes to the trust agreement would not be addressed by the prior NJSA, unless an amendment to the NJSA is executed as well. Furthermore, obtaining the consents of each interested person could present problems. Unlike an antemortem probate or declaratory judgment proceeding, where parties can be bound through service of process, you cannot force parties to enter into a contract. Consequently, difficult family members who are would-be challengers may simply refuse to sign. Still, for a settlor who is concerned that the terms of his trust agreement could become subject to challenge, an antemortem NJSA could be a powerful tool to use before disputes arise.
Viability. 15 You shall provide to us on request documentation to enable us to consider your financial viability and capacity to deliver qualifications to the number of learners you plan to register on our qualifications.
Viability. With the introduction of the Project Viability Calculator as a tool to assess the likelihood of projects achieving successful operation come some opportunities for the Energy Division and the IOUs to evaluate its use and possibly implement improvements for the future. • There is an opportunity to refine the scoring guidelines for the Calculator. It became evident that reasonable people scoring offers could arrive at different interpretations of the guidelines, and that there are gray areas that require judgment. For example, one scorer might regard a developer’s prior experience constructing and operating small photovoltaic installations that reside on a customer’s premises beyond the meter as the basis for a high score on Project Development Experience, while another scorer might view these projects as not representing “wholesale generation” and therefore assign a zero score.18 Similarly, one scorer might view a photovoltaic project for which the developer estimates direct net irradiance based on publicly available government-published data for a nearby weather station as deserving a score of 10 for Resource Quality, while another scorer might assign a 5 to the same 17 For the actual Offer in question, the valuation of the straight PPA with no buyout option exercise was much lower but still above the value cutoff so the concern Xxxxxx expresses is relevant for future solicitations but not for the current situation.
Viability. If any provision of this Agreement for any reason is deemed to be non-enforceable, it will be adjusted rather than declared invalid, if possible, to achieve the intention of the parties. All other provisions of this Agreement will be deemed valid and as possible. 7.10
Viability. In determining the viability of the District Energy System the energy, environmental, economic, and terms of use viability will be considered as will the level of OHSU’s commitment to the development of and participation in such a system for its Schnitzer Campus.
