EVALUATION OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS Sample Clauses

EVALUATION OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS. PG&E’s evaluation approach for net value and project viability are essentially technology-blind. The project-specific inputs to the valuation model are contract price, timing, location, generation profile, and, if relevant, buyout price. These inputs do not specifically reflect the technology of the project. That being said, the cost of a project clearly affects the pricing offered by the developer, so higher-cost technologies tend to lose the competition, all else being equal. The Project Viability Calculator was designed to be technology-blind as well; the scoring criteria do not provide for higher scores for specific technologies. However, the Calculator will return a lower score for a project that relies on a technology that is not well- commercialized, or that the developer (or affiliated members of its team) lacks prior experience developing, owning, operating, or financing, all else being equal. So in a sense the methodology will tend to discount projects based on newer technologies or on those that have not been implemented broadly at utility scale, and will tend to promote projects that rely on technologies that have found widespread market acceptance and have dozens of examples of 100+ MW installations. This means that, using the Calculator, IOU renewable solicitations will not be likely to be the venue for adopting new technologies unless they have some striking advantage in price (which tends not to be the case for hardware that has not yet achieved manufacturing economies of scale). PG&E has attempted to facilitate short-term renewable power contracts (term less than ten years) by such initiatives as modifying its standard Form Agreement to accommodate such contracts, and crafting substitute language for the Form Agreement that more closely resembles industry standard agreements for short-term power transactions. One of the counterintuitive features of PG&E’s valuation methodology, given its specific inputs, is that short-term contracts that are priced at what appears to be today’s competitive market price for Western renewable power sales of one to three-year duration tend to appear worse in discounted net value than long-term contracts of 25 or 30 years duration whose contract prices start higher and escalate. Xxxxxx has concluded that it is generally inappropriate to compare a two-year contract to a thirty-year contract using PG&E’s net value metric, and that it would be more appropriate to compare short-term PPA offers to other short-term ...
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
EVALUATION OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS. PG&E’s evaluation approach for net value and project viability are essentially technology-blind. The project-specific inputs to the valuation model are contract price, timing, location, generation profile, and, if relevant, buyout price. These inputs do not specifically reflect the technology of the project. That being said, the cost of a project clearly affects the pricing offered by the developer, so higher-cost technologies tend to lose the competition, all else being equal. Similarly, wind generation often has a negative correlation with period of higher hourly or seasonal power market price, while solar generation tends to correlate with hours or seasons of higher price, so a wind project may on average lose to a solar project at the same contract price. These are features of the technology that are recognized by the valuation only through the economics of the proposed PPA, not through any particular bias for or against a technology. In the case of buyout option or PSA offers, PG&E’s protocol tends to avert ownership of technologies for which the utility lacks particular core competencies, so there probably is a bias against purchasing projects that the company is less well-suited to own and operate. This seems reasonable and appropriate, since it is not in ratepayers’ interest for the utility to own generating facilities that require specific skills PG&E lacks (and the developer or another owner can provide) even if there might be some hypothetical advantage to utility ownership than independent power ownership through lower cost of capital. One might view this as a bias against buyout options or PSAs. The Project Viability Calculator was designed to be technology-blind as well; the scoring criteria do not make provide for higher scores for specific technologies. However, the Calculator will return a lower score for a project that relies on a technology that is not well- commercialized, or that the developer (or affiliated members of its team) lacks prior experience developing, owning, operating, or financing, all else being equal. So in a sense the methodology will tend to discount projects based on newer technologies or on those that have not been implemented broadly at utility scale, and will tend to promote projects that rely on technologies that have found widespread market acceptance and have dozens of examples of 100+ MW installations. This means that, using the Calculator, IOU renewable solicitations will not be likely to be the venue for ado...
Sample 1

Related to EVALUATION OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS

  • Research, Science and Technology Cooperation 1. The aims of cooperation in research, science and technology, carried out in the mutual interest of the Parties and in compliance with their policies, will be: (a) to build on existing agreements already in place for cooperation on research, science and technology; (b) to encourage, where appropriate, government agencies, research institutions, universities, private companies and other research organizations in the Parties to conclude direct arrangements in support of cooperative activities, programs or projects within the framework of this Agreement, specially related to trade and commerce; and (c) to focus cooperative activities towards sectors where mutual and complementary interests exist, with special emphasis on information and communication technologies and software development to facilitate trade between the Parties. 2. The Parties will encourage and facilitate, as appropriate, the following activities including, but not limited to:

  • Technology Discoveries, innovations, Know-How and inventions, whether patentable or not, including computer software, recognized under U.S. law as intellectual creations to which rights of ownership accrue, including, but not limited to, patents, trade secrets, maskworks and copyrights developed under this Agreement.

  • Research Use The Requester agrees that if access is approved, (1) the PI named in the DAR and (2) those named in the “Senior/Key Person Profile” section of the DAR, including the Information Technology Director and any trainee, employee, or contractor1 working on the proposed research project under the direct oversight of these individuals, shall become Approved Users of the requested dataset(s). Research use will occur solely in connection with the approved research project described in the DAR, which includes a 1-2 paragraph description of the proposed research (i.e., a Research Use Statement). Investigators interested in using Cloud Computing for data storage and analysis must request permission to use Cloud Computing in the DAR and identify the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) or providers and/or Private Cloud System (PCS) that they propose to use. They must also submit a Cloud Computing Use Statement as part of the DAR that describes the type of service and how it will be used to carry out the proposed research as described in the Research Use Statement. If the Approved Users plan to collaborate with investigators outside the Requester, the investigators at each external site must submit an independent DAR using the same project title and Research Use Statement, and if using the cloud, Cloud Computing Use Statement. New uses of these data outside those described in the DAR will require submission of a new DAR; modifications to the research project will require submission of an amendment to this application (e.g., adding or deleting Requester Collaborators from the Requester, adding datasets to an approved project). Access to the requested dataset(s) is granted for a period of one (1) year, with the option to renew access or close-out a project at the end of that year. Submitting Investigator(s), or their collaborators, who provided the data or samples used to generate controlled-access datasets subject to the NIH GDS Policy and who have Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and who meet any other study specific terms of access, are exempt from the limitation on the scope of the research use as defined in the DAR.

  • New Technology When new or updated technology is introduced into a workplace, it will be the responsibility of the employer to provide appropriate and, if necessary, ongoing training to the employees directly affected. Such training will include any health and safety implications or information that will enable employees to operate the equipment without discomfort and will help maintain their general well-being.

  • Science and Technology 1. Member States shall:

  • Technical Information The Employer agrees to provide to the Union such information that is available relating to employees in the bargaining unit, as may be required by the Union for collective bargaining purposes.

  • Information and Technical Advice At the request of a Party, or upon its own initiative, the arbitration panel may obtain information from any source, including the Parties involved in the dispute, which it deems appropriate for the arbitration procedure. The arbitration panel also has the right to seek the opinion of experts as it deems appropriate. Any information obtained in this manner must be disclosed to each of the Parties and submitted for their comments. Interested parties are authorised to submit amicus curiae briefs to the arbitration panel in accordance with the rules of procedure.

  • USE OF WORK PRODUCTS 2.13.1 The City may use all Documents that Contractor prepares or obtains under this Agreement. In addition, Contractor shall provide the Director with supporting schedules, flow charts or other analysis necessary to understand the reported findings and recommendations. Generally, this information is attached as exhibits to the final report; however, if requested by the Director, Contractor shall provide this information from its work paper files.

  • FOREIGN ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY This Article shall remain in effect during the term of the Agreement and for (INSERT NUMBER OF YEARS) ( ) years thereafter.

  • CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY, AND TRADE SECRET INFORMATION AND MATERIALS a. Buyer and Seller shall each keep confidential and protect from unauthorized use and disclosure all (i) confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret information of a Party or third party disclosed by a Party; (ii) software provided under this Contract in source code form or identified as subject to this Article; and (iii) tooling identified as subject to this Article: in each case that is obtained, directly or indirectly, from the other in connection with this Contract or Buyer’s contract with its customer, if any, (collectively referred to as "Proprietary Information and Materials"). Proprietary Information and Materials excludes information that is, as evidenced by competent records provided by the receiving Party, known to the receiving party or lawfully in the public domain, in the same form as disclosed hereunder, disclosed to the receiving Party without restriction by a third party having the right to disclose it, or developed by the receiving Party independently without use of or reference to the disclosing Party’s Proprietary Information and Materials.

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