08:54 27 Dec 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all the data and parameters to be monitored in line with applied methodology as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
PDD monitoring parameters (p. 40) does not indicate whether LFGflare,y will be monitored for each one of the proposed flares to be installed in the project activity and does not include parameter LFGtotal,y.
2: The DOE is requested to include description of the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description in VR as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 64(a).
The validation report does not indicate how the DOE confirmed the information provided in PDD (Section A.2 and A.4) and in validation report (Section 3.5) regarding: project location, different areas of the landfill such as "old landfill" area containing 3 separate zones and "new landfill" area, and estimates on cells closure.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87.
More information is required in how the DOE validated scenarios P4 and P6 as being realistic baseline scenarios for the project activity, including assumptions, data and references for each scenario. In particular for captive power plant, more information is required in terms of energy demand for this electricity produced in baseline scenario (e.g related to the nearby industries).
4: The DOE is requested to state if all assumptions/ data/references used in the PDD for emission reduction calculations are in line with the methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92(a).
The validation report does not provide information on how assumptions, data, references and related calculations were validated. This includes information on: OX (appropriateness of value adopted), MCF (appropriateness of values adopted for each landfill zone), Kj (appropriateness of values adopted), waste amount and composition (assumptions, data, sources and calculations of Annex 3 of PDD), ELLFG,y (data used for calculation and its source including efficiency of gas engines, manufacture defined, operating hours/load factor and default values), CEFelec,BL,y (validation of the selection of manufacture Olympian GEP 150 kVA diesel generator set type used and how this has been crosschecked), NCVfuel,BL (appropriateness and source of value adopted), EFfuel,BL (appropriateness and source of value adopted and calculation), efficiency of baseline power generation plant (data used, source, calculation and assessment on appropriateness of option chosen from the ones given by applied methodology p.11), ECPJ,j,y (including power capacity per unit (30 Kw) and operating hours), EFEL,j,y (appropriateness of default value used), TDLj,y (data used, source and calculation).
5: The DOE is requested to state if the methodology provides different options for equations and parameters and if the selection is appropriate as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 90.
The validation report does not provide information on how the DOE validated the steps containing different methodological choices in the applied methodology, and applicable Tools, for calculation of baseline baseline/ project emissions, leakage and emission reductions.
6: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
The validation report does not provide information on whether the input values (electricity tariff, investment and O&M cost, loan interest, conversion rates) used in financial analysis were valid at the time of decision, also considering in particular that for the flaring component, the date of quotations are not provided. In addition, more information is required in how the DOE crosschecked the estimated value of 5% for O&M (energy component) and how it confirmed that the comparison of investment and O&M costs with CDM project from countries other than the project activity was appropriate. Additionally, information on how DOE confirmed the share of revenues from electricity production for project entity with municipality, and value used for loan interest is not provided.
7: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark, considering that there are two alternatives for the project activity (grid exported to the grid and nearby industries).
8: The DOE is requested to report if it has applied standard auditing techniques to refer to relevant information as per VVM v1.2, paragraph 33 (c).
The DOE is requested to indicate in the validation report which references listed have been used as evidences for the statements provided in the validation report. Please note that not all validation statements and assessment of the report indicate which evidence or reference has been used by the DOE.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all the data and parameters to be monitored in line with applied methodology as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
PDD monitoring parameters (p. 40) does not indicate whether LFGflare,y will be monitored for each one of the proposed flares to be installed in the project activity and does not include parameter LFGtotal,y.
2: The DOE is requested to include description of the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description in VR as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 64(a).
The validation report does not indicate how the DOE confirmed the information provided in PDD (Section A.2 and A.4) and in validation report (Section 3.5) regarding: project location, different areas of the landfill such as "old landfill" area containing 3 separate zones and "new landfill" area, and estimates on cells closure.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87.
More information is required in how the DOE validated scenarios P4 and P6 as being realistic baseline scenarios for the project activity, including assumptions, data and references for each scenario. In particular for captive power plant, more information is required in terms of energy demand for this electricity produced in baseline scenario (e.g related to the nearby industries).
4: The DOE is requested to state if all assumptions/ data/references used in the PDD for emission reduction calculations are in line with the methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92(a).
The validation report does not provide information on how assumptions, data, references and related calculations were validated. This includes information on: OX (appropriateness of value adopted), MCF (appropriateness of values adopted for each landfill zone), Kj (appropriateness of values adopted), waste amount and composition (assumptions, data, sources and calculations of Annex 3 of PDD), ELLFG,y (data used for calculation and its source including efficiency of gas engines, manufacture defined, operating hours/load factor and default values), CEFelec,BL,y (validation of the selection of manufacture Olympian GEP 150 kVA diesel generator set type used and how this has been crosschecked), NCVfuel,BL (appropriateness and source of value adopted), EFfuel,BL (appropriateness and source of value adopted and calculation), efficiency of baseline power generation plant (data used, source, calculation and assessment on appropriateness of option chosen from the ones given by applied methodology p.11), ECPJ,j,y (including power capacity per unit (30 Kw) and operating hours), EFEL,j,y (appropriateness of default value used), TDLj,y (data used, source and calculation).
5: The DOE is requested to state if the methodology provides different options for equations and parameters and if the selection is appropriate as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 90.
The validation report does not provide information on how the DOE validated the steps containing different methodological choices in the applied methodology, and applicable Tools, for calculation of baseline baseline/ project emissions, leakage and emission reductions.
6: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
The validation report does not provide information on whether the input values (electricity tariff, investment and O&M cost, loan interest, conversion rates) used in financial analysis were valid at the time of decision, also considering in particular that for the flaring component, the date of quotations are not provided. In addition, more information is required in how the DOE crosschecked the estimated value of 5% for O&M (energy component) and how it confirmed that the comparison of investment and O&M costs with CDM project from countries other than the project activity was appropriate. Additionally, information on how DOE confirmed the share of revenues from electricity production for project entity with municipality, and value used for loan interest is not provided.
7: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark, considering that there are two alternatives for the project activity (grid exported to the grid and nearby industries).
8: The DOE is requested to report if it has applied standard auditing techniques to refer to relevant information as per VVM v1.2, paragraph 33 (c).
The DOE is requested to indicate in the validation report which references listed have been used as evidences for the statements provided in the validation report. Please note that not all validation statements and assessment of the report indicate which evidence or reference has been used by the DOE.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: