Market Valuation Sample Clauses

Market Valuation. General strengths and weaknesses. PG&E’s valuation methodology has several advantages over methods used by other utilities:

Market Valuation. PG&E’s valuation methodology has several advantages over methods used by other utilities: • It is rooted in a comparison to market price forwards rather than to hypothetical model outputs for future price based on inputs such as forecast demand, modeled supply increases, and fuel market price forwards. • It is relatively rapid to turn around valuations of several PPAs at once, in contrast to the burdensome nature of running multiple cases of traditional utility production cost models with dozens of cases for each generating unit assumed built vs. assumed not built to calculate system cost differences between scenarios with each unit in vs. out. • It uses a valuation concept that is generally accepted in the electric power industry. • It provides an intuitive valuation based on the degree to which a generating unit is “in the money” with respect to market price There are some drawbacks with this approach, some of which are common to any valuation methodology for long-term PPAs: • Because western power market forwards are not liquid and transparent beyond a limited time horizon, PPAs that last for 25 or 30 years must rely on extrapolation of market forward curves for valuation rather than on direct observation of traded prices for power two decades hence. • A certain degree of interpolation or projection is required to achieve hourly granularity in price assumptions. • In the absence of functioning, liquid, transparent markets in California for Resource Adequacy or for Greenhouse Gas compliance, the valuation must rely on fundamental forecasts for the value of capacity and of GHG compliance rather than on traded forward curves. • The methodology assigns Resource Adequacy value to all offered facilities interconnecting within the CAISO except where the project explicitly identifies that it plans to interconnect to the CAISO as an energy-only resource. Such energy-only resources are deemed to have Net Qualifying Capacity of zero by the CAISO. The developer benefits by avoiding the cost of network upgrades for deliverability. However, PG&E ratepayers do not benefit from receiving Resource Adequacy value from the project, so it is appropriate to assign zero RA value in the valuation. • ▇▇▇▇▇▇ has a concern about the extent to which projects that propose to interconnect to the CAISO through the SGIP will actually deliver the full calculated amount of Resource Adequacy to PG&E customers, in the absence of a deliverability assessment. The valuation methodology assi...

Market Valuation. The market value of investments made pursuant to this Agreement shall be determined at least monthly and whenever the method of valuation authorized by the Agreement does not accurately reflect the value of Participants’ interests in such investments.

Market Valuation. In a “mark-to-market analysis,” the present value of the bidder’s payment stream is compared with the present value of the product’s market value to determine the benefit (positive or negative) from the procurement of the resource, irrespective of PG&E’s portfolio. This analysis is based on an evaluation of the contract price in the PPA. The transmission adder adjusts offer prices to include the cost, if any, of bringing the power from the generating facility to PG&E’s network. Each bid is associated with a transmission cluster based upon the location of the facility. The costs in the CAISO interconnection study are used for bid evaluation. PG&E’s analysis of the market value and transmission adder is confidential and addressed in Confidential Appendix A.

Market Valuation. General strengths and weaknesses. PG&E’s valuation methodology has several advantages over methods used by other utilities: Price vs. Value. PG&E’s LCBF methodology takes into account both proposed price and estimated net value of each Offer, in the sense that price is a key input to the utility’s valuation model. However, PG&E ranks Offers and Offer variants by calculated net value to make a primary screening for selection purposes, and does not construct or review a separate ranking by contract price. The valuation ranking takes into account the total cost to ratepayers of a PPA by including the contract payments (or purchase price) for a project and the transmission rate impact of required network upgrades and the effect of differing market prices across zones on the attractiveness of a project’s output. When reviewing Offers to make a short list, PG&E does include information on LCBF-based net value and pricing, but the focus is on net value including transmission cost impacts rather than on contract price.

Market Valuation. Building Value New Year Built Effective Year Built Condition Code Remodel Rating Year Remodeled Depreciation % Functional Obsol External Obsol Trend Factor Special Condition Condition % Percent Good RCNLD Dep % Ovr Dep Ovr Comment Misc Imp Ovr Misc Imp Ovr Comment Cost to Cure Ovr Cost to Cure Ovr Comment 0 0 1.000 0 Code Description L/B Units Unit Price Year Cond. Cd Percent Grade Grade Adj. Appr. Value SHED SHED Shed Shed L L 1 1 100.00 400.00 AV AV 11 C C 0.70 0.70 100 400 Code Description Living Area Floor Area Eff Area Unit Cost Undeprec Value Property Location ▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Map ID 46A/ ▇/ / ▇/ ▇▇▇▇ Frontage RTS 11 & 762 PAVED District: 02 Fort Chiswell State Use Comm - Indl - Vac Vision ID 2401 Account # 2659 Bldg # 1 Sec # 1 of 1 Card # 1 of 1 Print Date 2/8/2023 12:28:48 AM GATEWAY ENTERPRISES, LLC E5 PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 806 WYTHEVILLE VA 24382 0 Well Type Description Code MARKET VALUE USE VALUE ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ 0 Septic Building Land 400 400 500 41,500 500 41,500 Tax Map #Area Code Ag Dist Co User Field User Field User Field 046A-001-0000-0001 01:Wythe County 00:None User Field Appeal Ch N Appeal No N:No VISION GIS Id 046A-001-0000-0001 Associated P Total 42,000 42,000 GATEWAY ENTERPRISES, LLC 210002266 07-21-2021 Q V 150,000 12 Year Code Total Assesse Year Code Assessed V Year Code Total Assesse ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 180002736 0 10-09-2018 U V 0 00 2022 ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ 400 500 2020 400 500 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ S & 970003479 0 09-16-1997 U V 0 00 400 41,500 400 41,500 400 41,500 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇ SR 492653 0 09-09-1997 U V 93,750 00 ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ 480098 0 02-13-1997 U V 0 00 Total 42,000 Total 42,000 Total 42,000 This signature acknowledges a visit by a Data Collector or Assessor

Market Valuation. In a “mark-to-market analysis,” the present value of the bidder’s payment stream is compared with the present value of the product’s market value to determine the benefit (positive or negative) from the procurement of the resource, irrespective of PG&E’s portfolio. This analysis includes evaluation of the bid price and indirect costs, such as 8 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(2)(B). 9 D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. transmission and integration costs. PG&E’s analysis of the market value of the PPA is addressed in Confidential Appendix A.

Market Valuation. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇’ study on energy potential of herbaceous biomass of semi-natural grasslands in Estonia presents the area and the energy potential of semi-natural ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ by counties26. The most important conclusion of the study is, that the total energetic potential of renewable herbaceous biomass in Estonia is (3.3 PJ or 934 GW · h) and it could cover about 2% of total primary energy consumption in 2010. The study of Marju Aamisepp and Helle Persitski 27 provide profit calculations for crop and livestock production and gives a detailed overview of the cultivation costs of different cultivated hay varieties. For example, the average yield of field grass is estimated to be around 16 tonnes per hectare per year.

Market Valuation. In a “mark-to-market analysis,” the present value of the bidder’s payment stream is compared with the present value of the product’s market value to determine the benefit 10 Advice Letter 3938-E-A was corrected by substitute sheets submitted on February 15, 2012 11 Pub. Util. Code § 399.14(a)(2)(B). 12 D.▇▇-▇▇-▇▇▇. (positive or negative) from the procurement of the resource, irrespective of PG&E’s portfolio. This analysis is based on an evaluation of the contract prices in the PPAs. PG&E’s analysis of the market value is confidential and addressed in Confidential Appendix A.