17:46 29 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to state whether the data and parameters are conservative and appropriate if they are fixed ex-ante (not need to monitor) during the project activity crediting period as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
The DOE should provide a further validation opinion on the calculation of the grid emission factor in accordance with the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system" version 2.2. According to the tool, if IPCC default values are used for the CO2 emission factor of fossil fuels, the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval, should be applied (page 23). However, in the spreadsheet submitted for the grid emission factor calculation, it is observed that default values are being used instead of the values at 95% confidence interval. Please clarify.
2: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the project starting date as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104 (a).
The DOE is requested to clarify the inconsistency in the start date of the project activity given that page 12 of the PDD states 13/10/2010 where as page 39 of the PDD and page 17 of validation report states 10/12/2009 as start date.
3: 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).
a) The DOE is requested to clarify how it has validated the effect of revised input parameters on the IRR and benchmark calculation as per the revised investment cost approved by the management board dated 21/12/2009 which is after the start date of the project activity (i.e. 10/12/2009).
b) The DOE is requested to clarify how it has cross validated the investment cost used in the financial calculation in line with para 111 (b) of VVM version 1.2. In doing so, the DOE shall validate the breakup of total investment cost and implementation schedule as mentioned in the IRR spreadsheet.
c) The DOE is requested to further validate the interest rate used in the financial calculations in accordance with para 11 of EB 62 annex 5.
d) Please validate D/E ratio, plant auxiliary power requirement and the construction cost phasing as mentioned in the IRR spreadsheet submitted by the DOE.
4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the existence of the similar projects for common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (b).
1. The DOE is requested to clarify the suitability of the upper limit of installed capacity (i.e.100 MW) selected to identify similar projects in Vietnam in line with para 47 of "tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality", version 6.0, EB 65 Annex 21.
2. The DOE is requested to further explain how the three similar activities identified were able to achieve lower unit investment costs than the proposed project activity.
1: The DOE is requested to state whether the data and parameters are conservative and appropriate if they are fixed ex-ante (not need to monitor) during the project activity crediting period as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
The DOE should provide a further validation opinion on the calculation of the grid emission factor in accordance with the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system" version 2.2. According to the tool, if IPCC default values are used for the CO2 emission factor of fossil fuels, the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval, should be applied (page 23). However, in the spreadsheet submitted for the grid emission factor calculation, it is observed that default values are being used instead of the values at 95% confidence interval. Please clarify.
2: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the project starting date as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104 (a).
The DOE is requested to clarify the inconsistency in the start date of the project activity given that page 12 of the PDD states 13/10/2010 where as page 39 of the PDD and page 17 of validation report states 10/12/2009 as start date.
3: 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).
a) The DOE is requested to clarify how it has validated the effect of revised input parameters on the IRR and benchmark calculation as per the revised investment cost approved by the management board dated 21/12/2009 which is after the start date of the project activity (i.e. 10/12/2009).
b) The DOE is requested to clarify how it has cross validated the investment cost used in the financial calculation in line with para 111 (b) of VVM version 1.2. In doing so, the DOE shall validate the breakup of total investment cost and implementation schedule as mentioned in the IRR spreadsheet.
c) The DOE is requested to further validate the interest rate used in the financial calculations in accordance with para 11 of EB 62 annex 5.
d) Please validate D/E ratio, plant auxiliary power requirement and the construction cost phasing as mentioned in the IRR spreadsheet submitted by the DOE.
4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the existence of the similar projects for common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (b).
1. The DOE is requested to clarify the suitability of the upper limit of installed capacity (i.e.100 MW) selected to identify similar projects in Vietnam in line with para 47 of "tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality", version 6.0, EB 65 Annex 21.
2. The DOE is requested to further explain how the three similar activities identified were able to achieve lower unit investment costs than the proposed project activity.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: