Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe whether the assumptions and data used for the baseline identification are justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87 (c).
The DOE is requested to describe how the data/parameters used in the equations were verified, in particular, the suitability of the 6,500 MWh/y boiler's operational hours used to calculate the net heat generation of the project (58,500GJ/yr) and of the TFF parameter which is fixed ex-ante in the PDD. In addition, please note that there are some inconsistencies between the PDD, Validation Report and spreadsheet submitted, in particular: a) the spreadsheet mentions that the average net electricity generation is 7.44 GWh/y whereas the Validation Report indicates on page 14 that “the emission reduction calculation it is expected to generate an estimated average of 6.63 to 7.04 GWh/year with the available methane”; and b) the values of UFBL, UFPE and Bo,ww are inconsistently mentioned in the Validation Report.

2: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the equations applied to calculate the baseline/ project emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per the chosen methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92.
The DOE should explain how paragraph 43 of AMS I.C (version 18) and paragraph 32 of AMS III.H (version 15) have been complied with. Moreover, there are some inconsistencies between the PDD and the Validation Report: a) the Validation Report (page 22) indicates that “PEww,treatment,y = PEww,discharge,y + PEfugitive,y” while the PDD correctly mentions that these parameters are be calculated separately; and b) the paragraphs quoted in the Validation Report related to the calculation of leakage (i.e. para 37 of AMS I.C version 18 and 29 of AMS III.H version 15) are not correct.