Clustering. At Transmission Provider's option, Interconnection Requests may be studied serially or in clusters for the purpose of the Interconnection System Impact Study. Clustering shall be implemented on the basis of Queue Position. If Transmission Provider elects to study Interconnection Requests using Clustering, all Interconnection Requests received within a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty (180) Calendar Days, hereinafter referred to as the "Queue Cluster Window" shall be studied together without regard to the nature of the underlying Interconnection Service, whether Energy Resource Interconnection Service or Network Resource Interconnection Service. The deadline for completing all Interconnection System Impact Studies for which an Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement has been executed during a Queue Cluster Window shall be in accordance with Section 7.4, for all Interconnection Requests assigned to the same Queue Cluster Window. Transmission Provider may study an Interconnection Request separately to the extent warranted by Good Utility Practice based upon the electrical remoteness of the proposed Large Generating Facility. Clustering Interconnection System Impact Studies shall be conducted in such a manner to ensure the efficient implementation of the applicable regional transmission expansion plan in light of the Transmission System's capabilities at the time of each study. The Queue Cluster Window shall have a fixed time interval based on fixed annual opening and closing dates. Any changes to the established Queue Cluster Window interval and opening or closing dates shall be announced with a posting on Transmission Provider's OASIS beginning at least one hundred and eighty (180) Calendar Days in advance of the change and continuing thereafter through the end date of the first Queue Cluster Window that is to be modified.
Clustering. At the ISO’s option, Transmission Interconnection Applications may be studied serially or in clusters for the purpose of the System Impact Study or Facilities Study.
Clustering. 29.02.1 A cluster is defined as a school within a school comprised of 160 students and 5 classroom Professional Staff Members. “
Clustering. At Transmission Provider’s option, Interconnection Requests may be studied serially or in clusters for the purpose of the Interconnection System Impact Study. Clustering of Interconnection Requests may be implemented on a regional basis as well as on the basis of Queue Position. If Transmission Provider elects to study new Interconnection Requests using Clustering, Interconnection Requests received within a Request Window shall be studied together. If several Interconnection Customers within a Request Window request to be studied in a cluster, Transmission Provider may at its sole discretion implement such a proposal. The deadline for completing all Interconnection System Impact Studies for which an Interconnection System Impact Study Agreement has been executed during a queue cluster window shall be in accordance with Section 7.4, for all Interconnection Requests assigned to the same queue cluster window. Transmission Provider may study an Interconnection Request separately to the extent warranted by Good Utility Practice based upon the location or size of the proposed Generating Facility.
Clustering. Residential lots shall be clustered , where feasible, to promote integrated site design that considers natural features of the site, creates more area for open space and recreation, avoids cultural resources, minimizes aesthetic impacts, maintains opportunities for commercial grazing, and minimizes loss of important agricultural lands.
Clustering. 1.2. the First Homes shall not be visually distinguishable from the Open Market Units based upon their external appearance
Clustering. There seems to be potential for exchange at some level between MRG and most GC-funded projects. However, we believe that the best opportunity for fruitful scientific interchange is clearly with projects where type systems play a central role, as in MRG (see workpackages 4, 5 and 7). These projects are: XXXX, XXXXXX, MYTHS and PROFUNDIS. Possibilities for cross-fertilization include common workshops and invitation of observers to project work- shops. We would also be interested to have some MRG workshops and project meetings in com- mon with other GC-funded projects to reduce the overhead of organizing meetings. This makes most sense for projects having partners in Edinburgh (DART, DEGAS) or Munich (AGILE) since these are the planned locations of MRG workshops and meetings. For increased visibility, we would like to join the MRG final workshop with other GC- funded project workshops. A single event for all these projects would probably be too large to be practical; one possibility is to organize several workshops, with one involving the projects in the “types” cluster suggested above.
Clustering. The project will be clustered with another parallel 3rd Call project (IST-2000-25136 OPENHERITAGE, OH) in order to leverage the synergies that exist between the two projects and to avoid possible redundancies of work. As detailed in the Attachment an in-depth comparative analysis of the two projects has been carried out. In the light of this check and of the resulting remarks, the areas needing express coverage in the formulation of the TAs of OH and REGNET (RN) have been identified to be the following ones: ➢ Integration of technical tools, e.g. in the collections management area. REGNET will clarify the extent of the cooperation desired in this area; ➢ Legal framework. REGNET will focus on its development and OpenHeritage on its validation and implementation; ➢ TSCs: each project will have to focus on its own peculiarities, with support functionality clearly belonging to OpenHeritage, tourism functionality developed by OpenHeritage, meta-collections access clearly carried out by REGNET, workflow and e-business models and practices clearly belonging to REGNET and e-commerce carried out by both but distinguished in focus and target; ➢ Portals: OpenHeritage will clearly specialise in providing community services and media brokering services for professional operators. Many other minor improvements will also result from the implementation in both TAs of the many remarks made in the analysis of Attachment 6. As a result of the above analysis, a number of main additions have been made to the OpenHeritage Annex 1 in the direction of clustering, as follows. ➢ The specification and development/integration of collections management solutions. In this area there has been a better orientation of activities, with OpenHeritage focusing on the definition and integration of core technologies for collections management at the object and catalogue levels, and REGNET focusing on the ontology (metadata) topics and on data entry/harvesting themes. The use of the OpenMuseum technology for physical museums in the REGNET consortium will be favoured by the OpenHeritage team; ➢ The definition of the legal framework for the establishment of relationships between memory institutions and commercial services/initiatives. This activity has been dropped by OpenHeritage and will be carried out by REGNET only, while manpower effort will be devoted in OpenHeritage to integrating the socio-economic models developed here with the results of the research on the legal framework carried out wi...
Clustering. 3.1 The First Homes shall not be visually distinguishable from the General Market Dwellings based upon their external appearance
Clustering. When it is necessary to Reduce in Force (RIF) or to bring back a teacher from a cluster with the same date of hire, the following criteria will be used to determine who will return: (Numbers in the parenthesis ( ) below represent values for factors used for each criteria.) Xxxxx 0
