ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Sample Clauses

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. Reference: ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT Exhibit B-1, p. 6; Order G-278-19, Appendix 1, p. 15 NPV Calculations and Scenario Analysis
Sample 1Sample 2
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. We follow the standard valuation procedure adopted in ExternE (1999), New-Ext (2004), Cafe (2005a, b), which consists in monetary values derived from stated preferences surveys, hence relying on preference-derived values rather than market-derived values. We agree with Cafe (2005b) that the use of a Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) to value acute mortality is certainly not relevant, considering “that a better estimate of the average loss of life expectancy amongst those affected by acute effects of air pollution is around 1 year” (Cafe, 2005b, p. 46). Consequently, a Value Of a Life Year (VOLY) is preferred to value the short-term effects of PM reduction on mortality (with the assumption that the gain in life expectancy associated with each related premature death is 1 year), and a VSL for long-term effects of air pollutants on mortality. Note that when long-term mortality effects are expressed in terms of number of years of life saved, a VOLY will be used for their assessment. We choose to rely on European studies when selecting the monetary values to be used (see Table 1). First, we favour the mortality valuation study undertaken for the EC DG Research- funded New-Ext (2004) project and used in Cafe (2005a, b) for two reasons: it estimates both VSL and VOLY values and it is representative of the European population. We choose the median VSL value (annual change 5:10,000 scenario) as low value and the mean VSL and VOLY (annual change 5:10,000 scenario) as high values. For the VOLY’s low value, we decided to take the recent results from the NEEDS program (Desaigues et al., 2010, based on 3 months’ life expectancy (LE) gain with protesters and outliers deleted) realized on ten European countries. Finally, the respective arithmetic means of high and low values provide the central VSL and VOLY values. Note the low – high range roughly represents a +/- 33% divergence from the resulting central VSL value (€ 1,655 million). Table 1 Monetary values chosen to assess mortality health effects (in € 2005) Chronic mortality Chronic and acute mortality Source VSL VOLY (a) Median value of New-Ext (2004) (b) Mean value of Desaigues et al. (2010) High estimate 2,220,000 133,200 Mean value of New-Ext (2004) Note that the valuation of mortality is based on specific stated preferences studies and will use a common VSL and a common VOLY for all cities. Indeed, accounting for differences in countries’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita would seem ethically unacceptable: ...
Sample 1
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. Based on the ship and voyage models data, ConceptSHIP provides the means to determine some economic measures of merit of the investment. The relations between the freight value and the resulting net present value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR) can be explored, either as input or as target values, and estimates of the cash flow during the operational life of the ship can be also carried out.
Sample 1
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. An economic assessment will be made, based on the proposal by each bidder, according to the following formula: ó ó () = 70 • á ó + 30 Any proposal that falls 10% below the average of the proposals made will be considered disproportionate. In that case, a detailed report will be requested in order to see the justification for the quotation offered. The proposal will be rejected if it is considered to have been submitted without sufficient forethought, potentially jeopardising the quality of the service. Proposals deemed to have been submitted without sufficient forethought will not be considered when an economic score is allocated.
Sample 1
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT review of local/regional economic trends affecting the area residential market. The assessment will focus on factors that have a direct bearing on the rental and ownership housing markets. This will include assessment of trends in labor force and employment as well as expectations regarding future labor force needs as an indicator of housing need.
Sample 1
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. This component of the project was carried out through a contract with Paterson Earth & Water Consulting. Details on how this work was carried out are in the contractor’s final report. Briefly, a literature review was carried out using relevant data and
Sample 1
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. This component of the project was carried out through a contract with Paterson Earth & Water Consulting. Details on how this work was carried out are in Paterson Earth & Water Consulting (2018). Briefly, a literature review was carried out using relevant data and information from Canada and the United States to develop a comprehensive strategic management plan for the control and management of invasive mussels in Alberta’s irrigation infrastructure. The assessment also included a cost estimate for wide-spread control. The development of the management was also facilitated by direct discussion with staff of several irrigation districts. The study addressed five key objectives: 1. Assess the potential for invasive mussels to develop and grow in Alberta’s irrigation water supply reservoirs and irrigation distribution systems. 2. Assess additional prevention techniques to minimize the potential for invasive mussels to establish in Alberta’s irrigation water supply reservoirs. 3. Prepare a strategic pest management plan for the irrigation districts for a coordinated invasive mussel control program. 4. Develop a range of invasive mussel management and treatment approaches for injecting potassium chloride into irrigation district water supply pipelines, and irrigation producer- owned water supply pipelines and on-farm irrigation systems. 5. Prepare estimates of the annual operational costs associated with potassium chloride treatment approaches in the 13 irrigation districts.
Sample 1
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT. The final report included nine key conclusions and eight recommendations, which are listed below. Further details and supporting information for the conclusions and recommendations are in Paterson Earth & Water Consulting (2018).
Sample 1

Related to ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

  • Ergonomic Assessments ‌ At the request of the employee, the Employer will ensure that an ergonomic assessment of the employee’s workstation is completed. Solutions to identified issues will be implemented within available resources.

  • Joint Assessment If the Premises are not separately assessed, Lessee's liability shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be conclusively determined by Lessor from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available.

  • Risk Assessment An assessment of any risks inherent in the work requirements and actions to mitigate these risks.

  • Needs Assessment 1. The Contractor shall conduct a cultural and linguistic group-needs assessment of the eligible client population in the Contractor’s service area to assess the language needs of the population and determine what reasonable steps are necessary to ensure meaningful access to services and activities to eligible individuals. [22 CCR 98310, 98314] The group-needs assessment shall take into account the following four (4) factors: a. Number or proportion of persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) eligible to be served or encountered by the program. b. Frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program. c. Nature and importance of the services provided. d. Local or frequently used resources available to the Contractor. This group-needs assessment will serve as the basis for the Contractor’s determination of “reasonable steps” and provide documentary evidence of compliance with Cal. Gov. Code § 11135 et seq.; 2 CCR 11140, 2 CCR 11200 et seq., and 22 CCR98300 et seq. 2. The Contractor shall prepare and make available a report of the findings of the group-needs assessment that summarizes: a. Methodologies used. b. The linguistic and cultural needs of non-English speaking or LEP groups. c. Services proposed to address the needs identified and a timeline for implementation. [22 CCR 98310] 3. The Contractor shall maintain a record of the group-needs assessment on file at the Contractor’s headquarters at all times during the term of this Agreement. [22 CCR 98310, 98313]

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 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; 6.3 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; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • Loss Assessment We will pay up to $1000 for your share of loss assessment charged during the policy period against you by a corporation or as- sociation of property owners, when the assess- ment is made as a result of:

  • Self-Assessment (a) Subject to clause 4.4(b), for Services that are Self-Assessable: (i) You must self-assess whether those Services are being delivered in compliance with the Quality Standards, using the self-assessment tool available on Our Website and in accordance with the Quality Framework; and (ii) You must promptly and, in any case, immediately upon request, provide a copy of Your self-assessment to Us. (b) Clause 4.4(a) does not apply if You hold any current Certification.

  • Diagnostic Assessment 6.3.1 Boards shall provide a list of pre-approved assessment tools consistent with their Board improvement plan for student achievement and which is compliant with Ministry of Education PPM (PPM 155: Diagnostic Assessment in Support of Student Learning, date of issue January 7, 2013). 6.3.2 Teachers shall use their professional judgment to determine which assessment and/or evaluation tool(s) from the Board list of preapproved assessment tools is applicable, for which student(s), as well as the frequency and timing of the tool. In order to inform their instruction, teachers must utilize diagnostic assessment during the school year.

  • Risk Assessments a. Risk Assessment - DST shall, at least annually, perform risk assessments that are designed to identify material threats (both internal and external) against Fund Data, the likelihood of those threats Schedule 10.2 p.2 occurring and the impact of those threats upon DST organization to evaluate and analyze the appropriate level of information security safeguards (“Risk Assessments”). b. Risk Mitigation - DST shall use commercially reasonable efforts to manage, control and remediate threats identified in the Risk Assessments that it believes are likely to result in material unauthorized access, copying, use, processing, disclosure, alteration, transfer, loss or destruction of Fund Data, consistent with the Objective, and commensurate with the sensitivity of the Fund Data and the complexity and scope of the activities of DST pursuant to the Agreement. c. Security Controls Testing - DST shall, on approximately an annual basis, engage an independent external party to conduct a review (including information security) of DST’s systems that are related to the provision of services. DST shall have a process to review and evaluate high risk findings resulting from this testing.

  • No Joint Assessment Borrower shall not, and shall not permit Mortgage Borrower to, suffer, permit or initiate the joint assessment of any Individual Property (a) with any other real property constituting a tax lot separate from such Individual Property, and (b) which constitutes real property with any portion of such Individual Property which may be deemed to constitute personal property, or any other procedure whereby the lien of any taxes which may be levied against such personal property shall be assessed or levied or charged to such real property portion of the Individual Property, except as required by Legal Requirements.