INDEPENDENT OFFER ANALYSES Sample Clauses

INDEPENDENT OFFER ANALYSES. Xxxxxx conducted its own rather simplified valuation process. The two sets of valuations generally correlated well, with a fair amount of noise in the comparison, as shown in Figure 3 that compares the two sets of valuations. LCBF valuation, $/MWh Xxxxxx did not use its simplified model to construct a separate short list. Instead, the simplified model was useful in quality control to identify errors in PG&E’s or the IE’s inputs, parameters, or assumptions for specific Offers. Also, the comparison helped identify what specific factors caused specific Offers to be ranked high or low in PG&E’s short-listing process, such as the impact of the discount rate assumption, the on-line date, the choice of which transmission cluster to assign to an Offer, and the size of TRCR or transmission wheeling adders. Xxxxxx also scored each Offer for viability independently of PG&E’s analysis, using the original Energy Division version of the Project Viability Calculator. This was useful to get an estimate of what the standard error of the Calculator is, and a sense of whether differences in score reflect significant differences in the viability of projects or are within the noise of the method for assessing viability. Xxxxxx emerged from the comparison (shown in Figure 4) with a view that differences of a dozen or fewer points in viability score may not reflect true differences in the likelihood that one project is significantly likelier than another to achieve successful completion, given the roughness of the tool and the subjectivity of its use. PG&E viability score The correlation of the IE and PG&E team’s scores using the Project Viability Calculator is poorer than that between valuation models. Xxxxxx ascribes this to the gray areas in the scoring guidelines, to differences in the subjective judgments of individual scorers, and to PG&E’s use of an additional evaluation criterion in its modified Calculator. The comparison between the sets of scores helped reveal specific errors that Xxxxxx acknowledged in its draft scores and corrected, but no doubt there are other errors in Xxxxxx’x viability scoring that have not yet been identified.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (7)
INDEPENDENT OFFER ANALYSES. Xxxxxx conducted its own rather simplified valuation analysis. PG&E’s and Xxxxxx’x valuations generally correlated well for many Offers, but with a fair amount of noise in the comparison, as shown in Figure 3 that compares the two sets of valuations. Some of the differences between valuations include: • Less value assigned to Resource Adequacy in the independent assessment, which tends to lower the value ranking of projects with the most estimated Net Qualifying Capacity such as solar generation; • Less value assigned to projects interconnecting in non-CAISO balancing authority areas; • Less of a premium assigned to projects with later CODs or longer delivery terms. This comparison was useful in quality control to identify errors in PG&E’s or the IE’s input parameters. Also, the comparison helped identify what factors caused specific Offers to be ranked high or low in PG&E’s short-listing process, such as the impact of the discount rate assumption, the on-line date, and the size of transmission adder. Xxxxxx also scored each Offer for viability independently of PG&E’s analysis. This was useful to get an estimate of what the standard error of the Calculator is, and a sense of whether differences in score reflect significant differences in viability or are within the noise of the method. Xxxxxx emerged from the comparison (shown in Figure 4) with a view that differences of a dozen or fewer points in viability score may not reflect significant differences in the likelihood that project will succeed in attaining commercial operation on schedule, given the modest precision of the tool and the subjectivity of its use. PG&E valuations, $/MWh • Lower IE scores for projects proposing very large solar photovoltaic facilities; • Lower IE scores for projects from developers with experience only in distributed generation (e.g. beyond the meter) projects rather than wholesale generation; • Lower IE scores for projects for which specific network upgrades are as yet poorly characterized.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (6)
INDEPENDENT OFFER ANALYSES. Xxxxxx conducted its own rather simplified valuation analysis. Xxxxxx’x valuations generally correlated well with PG&E’s Net Market Value analysis for many Offers, but with a fair amount of noise in the comparison, as shown in Figure 9 that compares the two sets of valuations. The mediocre quality of the correlation is less interesting than the outliers and the underlying reasons for some of the divergences:
Sample 1Sample 2

Related to INDEPENDENT OFFER ANALYSES

  • Independent Analyses of each Holder Each Holder acknowledges that, except for the representations made in Section 7, it has, independently and without reliance upon any other Holders and based on such documents and information as such Holder has deemed appropriate, made its own credit analysis and decision to purchase its respective Note. Each Holder hereby acknowledges that the other Holders shall have no responsibility for (i) the collectability of the Mortgage Loan, (ii) the validity, enforceability or legal effect of any of the Mortgage Loan Documents or the title insurance policy or policies or any survey furnished or to be furnished in connection with the origination of the Mortgage Loan, (iii) the validity, sufficiency or effectiveness of the lien created or to be created by the Mortgage Loan Documents, or (iv) the financial condition of the Borrower. Each Holder assumes all risk of loss in connection with its respective Note for reasons other than gross negligence, willful misconduct or breach of this Agreement by any other Holder or gross negligence, willful misconduct or bad faith by any Servicer.

  • Independent Analysis Each Party hereby confirms that its decision to execute this Agreement has been based upon its independent assessment of documents and information available to it, as it has deemed appropriate.

  • Independent Development Receiving Party may currently or in the future be developing information internally, or receiving information internally, or receiving information from other parties that may be similar to the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information. Accordingly, nothing in this Agreement will be construed as a representation or inference that Receiving Party will not develop or have developed products or services, that, without violation of this Agreement, might compete with the products or systems contemplated by the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information.

  • Response/Compliance with Audit or Inspection Findings A. Grantee must act to ensure its and its Subcontractors’ compliance with all corrections necessary to address any finding of noncompliance with any law, regulation, audit requirement, or generally accepted accounting principle, or any other deficiency identified in any audit, review, inspection or investigation of the Grant Agreement and the services and Deliverables provided. Any such correction will be at Grantee’s or its Subcontractor's sole expense. Whether Xxxxxxx's action corrects the noncompliance shall be solely the decision of the System Agency. B. As part of the services, Grantee must provide to HHS upon request a copy of those portions of Grantee's and its Subcontractors' internal audit reports relating to the services and Deliverables provided to the State under the Grant Agreement. C. Grantee shall include the requirement to provide to System Agency (and any of its duly authorized federal, state, or local authorities) internal audit reports related to this Grant Agreement in any Subcontract it awards. Upon request by System Agency, Grantee shall enforce this requirement against its Subcontractor. Further, Grantee shall include in any Subcontract it awards a requirement that all Subcontractor Subcontracts must also include these provisions.

  • Offer, Sale and Resale Procedures Each of the Initial Purchasers, on the one hand, and the Company and each of the Guarantors, on the other hand, hereby agree to observe the following procedures in connection with the offer and sale of the Securities: (a) Offers and sales of the Securities will be made only by the Initial Purchasers or Affiliates thereof qualified to do so in the jurisdictions in which such offers or sales are made. Each such offer or sale shall only be made to persons whom the offeror or seller reasonably believes to be Qualified Institutional Buyers or non-U.S. persons outside the United States to whom the offeror or seller reasonably believes offers and sales of the Securities may be made in reliance upon Regulation S upon the terms and conditions set forth in Annex I hereto, which Annex I is hereby expressly made a part hereof. (b) No general solicitation or general advertising (within the meaning of Rule 502 under the Securities Act) will be used in the United States in connection with the offering of the Securities. (c) Upon original issuance by the Company, and until such time as the same is no longer required under the applicable requirements of the Securities Act, the Notes (and all securities issued in exchange therefor or in substitution thereof, other than the Exchange Notes) shall bear the following legend: “THE SECURITY (OR ITS PREDECESSOR) EVIDENCED HEREBY WAS ORIGINALLY ISSUED IN A TRANSACTION EXEMPT FROM REGISTRATION UNDER XXXXXXX 0 XX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), AND THE SECURITY EVIDENCED HEREBY MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH REGISTRATION OR AN APPLICABLE EXEMPTION THEREFROM. EACH PURCHASER OF THE SECURITY EVIDENCED HEREBY IS HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SELLER MAY BE RELYING ON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED BY RULE 144A THEREUNDER. THE HOLDER OF THE SECURITY EVIDENCED HEREBY AGREES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY THAT (A) SUCH SECURITY MAY BE RESOLD, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED, ONLY (1)(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TO A PERSON WHO THE SELLER REASONABLY BELIEVES IS A QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER (AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT) PURCHASING FOR ITS OWN ACCOUNT OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER IN A TRANSACTION MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, (b) OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES TO A FOREIGN PERSON IN A TRANSACTION MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 903 OR RULE 904 OF REGULATION S UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, (c) PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED BY RULE 144 THEREUNDER (IF APPLICABLE) OR (d) IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANOTHER EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT (AND BASED UPON AN OPINION OF COUNSEL ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY IF THE COMPANY SO REQUESTS), (2) TO THE COMPANY OR (3) PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND, IN EACH CASE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE JURISDICTION AND (B) THE HOLDER WILL, AND EACH SUBSEQUENT HOLDER IS REQUIRED TO, NOTIFY ANY PURCHASER OF THE SECURITY EVIDENCED HEREBY OF THE RESALE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN CLAUSE (A) ABOVE. NO REPRESENTATION CAN BE MADE AS TO THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY RULE 144 FOR RESALE OF THE SECURITY EVIDENCED HEREBY.” Following the sale of the Securities by the Initial Purchasers to Subsequent Purchasers pursuant to the terms hereof, the Initial Purchasers shall not be liable or responsible to the Company for any losses, damages or liabilities suffered or incurred by the Company, including any losses, damages or liabilities under the Securities Act, arising from or relating to any resale or transfer of any Security.

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK

  • Solicitation Exceptions/Deviations Explanation If the bidder intends to deviate from the General Conditions Standard Terms and Conditions or Item Specifications listed in this proposal invitation, all such deviations must be listed on this attribute, with complete and detailed conditions and information included or attached. TIPS will consider any deviations in its proposal award decisions, and TIPS reserves the right to accept or reject any bid based upon any deviations indicated below or in any attachments or inclusions. In the absence of any deviation entry on this attribute, the proposer assures TIPS of their full compliance with the Standard Terms and Conditions, Item Specifications, and all other information contained in this Solicitation.

  • Solicitation Deviation/Compliance Does the vendor agree with the General Conditions Standard Terms and Conditions or Item Specifications listed in this proposal invitation? Yes

  • ANALYSIS AND MONITORING The Custodian shall (a) provide the Fund (or its duly-authorized investment manager or investment adviser) with an analysis of the custody risks associated with maintaining assets with the Eligible Securities Depositories set forth on Schedule B hereto in accordance with section (a)(1)(i)(A) of Rule 17f-7, and (b) monitor such risks on a continuing basis, and promptly notify the Fund (or its duly-authorized investment manager or investment adviser) of any material change in such risks, in accordance with section (a)(1)(i)(B) of Rule 17f-7.

  • Investment Analysis and Implementation In carrying out its obligations under Section 1 hereof, the Advisor shall: (a) supervise all aspects of the operations of the Funds; (b) obtain and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise, whether affecting the economy generally or the Funds, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the assets of the Funds or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Advisor considers desirable for inclusion in the Funds' assets; (c) determine which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Funds' investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; (d) formulate and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; and (e) take, on behalf of the Trust and the Funds, all actions which appear to the Trust and the Funds necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Funds.