Economic Considerations Sample Clauses

Economic Considerations. The Subscriber is not relying on the Company, or its affiliates or agents with respect to economic considerations involved in this investment. The Subscriber has relied solely on his or her own advisors.

Economic Considerations. The undersigned is not relying on the Company, or its affiliates or agents with respect to economic considerations involved in this investment. The undersigned has relied solely on its own advisors.

Economic Considerations. (1) At a minimum, the ranking process should include the following cost considerations: (i) Estimated easement or 30-year contract cost per acre, if appropriate. (ii) Estimated restoration costs. (iii) Partnership contributions that reduce NRCS costs will be reflected positively in the ranking process. The State Conservationist must ensure NRCS has financial control for the full amount of funding. When a landowner or other entity is offering to contribute funds for a part of the projected restoration or easement costs, the part being pledged to the program as a means of receiving favorable ranking, must be under NRCS financial control. (iv) A cost-benefit comparison. Applications that have a lower cost per environmental benefit ratio will receive higher rankings. (v) Potential near- and long-term management, repair, replacement, or operation and maintenance costs. (2) During the ranking process, cost factors may be estimated using comparable market value, geographic area rate caps, landowner offers, established restoration costs, and pledged partner contributions.

Economic Considerations. Each Purchaser is not relying on the Company, or its affiliates or agents with respect to economic considerations involved in this investment. Each Purchaser has relied solely on his, her or its own advisors.

Economic Considerations. The undersigned is not relying on the Company, or its affiliates or agents with respect to economic considerations involved in this investment. The undersigned has relied solely on its own advisors. The undersigned is not acting in concert with any of the other shareholders of the Company in connection with its decision to purchase the Shares and will not act in concert with any other person affiliated with the Company or any other shareholder of the Company in determining when or under what circumstances to sell or otherwise dispose of all or any portion of the Shares.

Economic Considerations. Such Shareholder is not relying on the Corporation, or its affiliates or agents with respect to economic considerations involved in this investment. Such Shareholder has relied solely on his, her or its own advisors. 经济因素。股东不能依赖于公司或其关联或代理关于此投资中包括的经济因素。股东仅依赖于其顾问。

Economic Considerations. The Authority has identified that it perceives the following problems exist with the way that UoSAs are currently developed, negotiated, and agreed: • A distributor may offer retailers in similar circumstances different terms, meaning that retailers with less favourable terms may be at a competitive disadvantage; • A distributor can impose inefficient terms on all retailers on its network, which can prevent retailers from innovating and providing new services in the face of evolving technologies, and restrict innovation and competition in related markets; • Distributors and retailers face higher than necessary transaction costs from negotiating and administering many different UoSAs, which raises costs to consumers, and undermines retail competition by making it less likely that entrant retailers will expand to trade on new networks. The problem is broader than that identified by the Authority. From an economic perspective the concern is always to obtain a regulatory, contracting, and industry structure that provides the incentives to achieve the most efficient outcome possible. This concern is broadly encapsulated in the Authority’s objective, set out in section 15 of the Electricity Industry Act 2010: This section discusses some of the issues involved in achieving this objective. The dynamic efficiency costs associated with inefficient terms in UoSAs includes seemingly mundane items such as data exchange and file formats, which are not mentioned in the consultation but (a) are determined by the terms of a UoSA, and (b) can result in significant ongoing costs. Similarly dispute resolution and operational breaches are not considered.

Economic Considerations. The Gestational Carrier agrees and acknowledges that insurance coverage may not be available for some or all of the expenses incurred during the gestational carrier program. These expenses may include, but are not limited to, preliminary screening fees, hospital and anesthesia charges, laboratory charges, physicians’ professional fees, and IVF program fees. The Gestational Carrier agrees that she has contracted with the Parents to determine each participating party’s respective financial responsibility for participation in the program, including financial arrangements in the event that either the Gestational Carrier or Parents decide to discontinue participation in the program before a pregnancy results.

Economic Considerations. The existing literature argues that hydrogen produced by electrolysis is still more expensive than hydrogen produced by using fossil fuel inputs. Jia et al. (2016), citing the US Department of Energy figures, put the price for conventional (fossil fuel based) hydrogen at $2-$4/gallon of gasoline equivalent, while estimating the price for electrolysis based hydrogen at $3.26 – $6.62/gallon of gasoline equivalent (Jia et al. 2016). In the same vein, other studies have found that generating hydrogen from wind energy is almost seven times more expensive ($6.64/kg) than from coal ($0.96/kg), while conversion efficiency would not be higher than 50% (Hosseini and ▇▇▇▇▇ 2016). Other studies, while acknowledging the difference between conventional and sustainable hydrogen production, argue that with the right tax incentives and with lower electricity prices (expected to come about due to higher renewable energy penetration which usually drives down prices), hydrogen from electrolysis could become competitive. They argue that the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for electrolysis based hydrogen could come down to €107-143/MWh by 2020, which would be almost comparable to the retail price of diesel fuel which for example retailed for €105/MWh in Ireland in 2017 (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2018). Similarly, ICCT estimates that the whole battery costs for hydrogen-powered cars range from €770 – €780 kWh while power trains for battery powered electric vehicles are estimated at €280 – 300 kWh (Wolfram and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2016) which is still more expensive per kWh than the price for a conventional combustion engine car. The ICCT also estimates that efficiency gains and economies of scale might push hydrogen prices to €4/kg of hydrogen after 2025 at which point it would become competitive with even gasoline cars on a € cent/km basis (Isenstadt and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2017).