Registration Request for Review Form


CDM project activity/programme of activities
registration request review form (F-CDM-RR)
(Version 02.1)

Reference number of the proposed CDM project activity/programme of activities (PoA) submitted for registration2760
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration100 MW Malana II, Hydro Electric Power Project (Malana II HEP) at Kullu district of Himachal Pradesh State, India, by M/s Everest Power Private Limited
Please indicate, in accordance with paragraphs 37 and 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures, which validation requirement(s) may require review. A list of requirements is provided below. Please provide reasons in support of the request for review. Including any supporting documentation.
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 37 of the CDM modalities and procedures:
The participation requirements as set out in paragraph 28 to 30 of the CDM modalities and procedures are satisfied;

Comments by local stakeholders have been invited, a summary of the comments received has been provided, and a report to the designated operational entity (DOE) on how due account was taken of any comments has been received;

Project Participants have submitted to the DOE documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity, including transboundary impacts and, if those impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, have undertaken an environmental impact assessment in accordance with procedures as required by the host Party;

The project activity is expected to result in a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, in accordance with paragraphs 43 to 52 of the CDM modalities and procedures;

The baseline and monitoring methodologies comply with requirements pertaining to methodologies previously approved by the Executive Board;

Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting are in accordance with decision 17/CP.7, the CDM modalities and procedures and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP;

The project activity conforms to all other requirements for CDM project activities in decision 17/CP.7, the CDM modalities and procedures and relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the Executive Board.
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures:
The DOE shall, prior to the submission of the validation report to the Executive Board, have received from the project participants written approval of voluntary participation from the designated national authority of each Party involved, including confirmation by the host Party that the project activity assists it in achieving sustainable development;

In accordance with provisions on confidentiality contained in paragraph 27(h) of the CDM modalities and procedures, the DOE shall make publicly available the project design document;

The DOE shall receive, within 30 days, comments on the validation requirements from Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited non-governmental organizations and make them publicly available;

After the deadline for receipt of comments, the DOE shall make a determination as to whether, on the basis of the information provided and taking into account the comments received, the project activity should be validated;

The DOE shall inform project participants of its determination on the validation of the project activity. Notification to the project participants will include confirmation of validation and the date of submission of the validation report to the Executive Board;

The DOE shall submit to the Executive Board, if it determines the proposed project activity to be valid, a request for registration in the form of a validation report including of the project design document, the written approval of the host Party and an explanation of how it has taken due account of comments received.
There are only minor issues which should be addressed by the DOE/project participants prior to the registration of the project.
Additional information
1. The DOE should further validate that the project start date is in line with the CDM "Glossary of Terms".
2. The PP/DOE should explain the difference between the IRR indicated in the PDD and spreadsheet submitted for registration. If a new spreadsheet is provided, the PP/DOE should clearly explain all the differences between the new spreadsheet and the one submitted for registration. The spreadsheet submitted contains circular references.
3. The DOE should further validate: (a) that the input values sourced from the DPR were applicable at the time of investment decision; (b) the change in the auxiliary consumption form 0.3% to 0.7% referred in CAR9; (c) the O&M cost's 4% annual escalation and; (d) the primary generation/total energy generated, transformation and transmission losses, in line with the VVM para. 109.
4. The DOE should further validate: (a) why 10% variations in the total investment and electricity generation are unlikely to occur and; (b) the appropriateness of excluding the tariff in the sensitivity analysis, in line with EB 51, Annex 58, paragraphs 17 and 18.
5. The PP and DOE should further explain how the net electricity and the total electricity produced by the project activity (TEGy) will be calculated/measured.
6. PDD's Sections E.2 and E.3 make reference to attached documents which have not been uploaded.
7. The DOE should clarify how it has closed the Stakeholder comment part 03, 25/01/08, in line with the VVM para. 38 and 41.
Date 05 Feb 10