14:04 18 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment that all physical features of the proposed CDM project activity proposed in the registered PDD are in place and/or that the project participant has implemented and operated the proposed CDM project activity as per the registered PDD or the approved revised PDD. (VVM v.1.2 para 196)
Issue: It was observed that: 1) the type of alternative fuels (i.e. Murner, NEG, Paddy husk, wood chips, coco chips and SBE), as well as the type of fossil fuels (i.e. metcoke, ecocoal) are different from the types mentioned in the registered PDD (i.e. PKS and coal petcoke, shale and diesel); and 2) the share of heat input from alternative fuels was 12% during this monitoring period, while it was estimated to be 5% in the registered PDD. The DOE shall clarify these two issues. In doing so, the DOE should also provide a further validation opinion on how paragraph 197 of the VVM has been complied with.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (c) & 221 (h))
Issue:The DOE should provide a validation opinion on why the evidence used to demonstrate the abundant availability of the biomass residues (i.e. Reference on SBE and seminar on Energy from biomass) which was available in 2006 and 2007, is considered appropriate given that the monitoring period is between January-April 2010. In addition, the DOE shall provide details on the "Biomass Assessment Report" (Ref /8/ VR page 8), including a validation opinion on how it was deemed appropriate in the context of the proposed project activity and in line with the VVM requirements.
3: Scope: The verification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified and/or emission factors, default values and other reference values have been correctly applied. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (d) & (e))
Issue:The emission factor for fossil fuel stated in the monitoring report on page 6 is 94.2 tCO2/t, whereas the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet uses a value of 94.5 tCO2/TJ for Kanthan plant and of 94.3 tCO2/TJ for Rawang plant. The DOE shall clarify the inconsistency.
1: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment that all physical features of the proposed CDM project activity proposed in the registered PDD are in place and/or that the project participant has implemented and operated the proposed CDM project activity as per the registered PDD or the approved revised PDD. (VVM v.1.2 para 196)
Issue: It was observed that: 1) the type of alternative fuels (i.e. Murner, NEG, Paddy husk, wood chips, coco chips and SBE), as well as the type of fossil fuels (i.e. metcoke, ecocoal) are different from the types mentioned in the registered PDD (i.e. PKS and coal petcoke, shale and diesel); and 2) the share of heat input from alternative fuels was 12% during this monitoring period, while it was estimated to be 5% in the registered PDD. The DOE shall clarify these two issues. In doing so, the DOE should also provide a further validation opinion on how paragraph 197 of the VVM has been complied with.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (c) & 221 (h))
Issue:The DOE should provide a validation opinion on why the evidence used to demonstrate the abundant availability of the biomass residues (i.e. Reference on SBE and seminar on Energy from biomass) which was available in 2006 and 2007, is considered appropriate given that the monitoring period is between January-April 2010. In addition, the DOE shall provide details on the "Biomass Assessment Report" (Ref /8/ VR page 8), including a validation opinion on how it was deemed appropriate in the context of the proposed project activity and in line with the VVM requirements.
3: Scope: The verification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified and/or emission factors, default values and other reference values have been correctly applied. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (d) & (e))
Issue:The emission factor for fossil fuel stated in the monitoring report on page 6 is 94.2 tCO2/t, whereas the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet uses a value of 94.5 tCO2/TJ for Kanthan plant and of 94.3 tCO2/TJ for Rawang plant. The DOE shall clarify the inconsistency.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: