Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 64-68 and 69 (a) (b).
As per the PDD page 2, flaring system is considered before storage tank. However as per the PDD page 5 (figure A-3) and page 15 (figure B-1), the flaring occurs after the storage tank. Please clarify.

2: The DOE is requested to indicate if the baseline methodology is correctly applied to identify baseline scenario and alternative baseline scenarios as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 89 and 90.
The DOE shall provide more information on how it validated:
(a) That all provisions of the “General guidelines for SSC CDM methodologies (Version 21)” are complied with respect to the selection of baseline scenario for Type III measure in the greenfield project activity;
(b) The elimination of scenario (d) for Type I measure, considering that project does not export energy to other consumers.

3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the application of the equations and parameters for the calculation of emission reductions as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 97 and 99 (d) (e).
The DOE shall provide information regarding the reasons for exclusion of PEpower,y from equation 6 of the PDD for estimation of PECH4-recovery,y.

4: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 98, 99 (a) (b) (c) and 100.
The DOE shall explain the inconsistency in the value of total electricity generation in the grid. The worksheet "OM-1392" mentions 237,399,613 MWh whereas "BM-1392" mentions 252,850,000 MWh as the figure for total electricity generation in the grid in the ER calculation spreadsheet.

5: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the project starting date as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 106 and 112 (a).
The DOE shall provide information regarding other real activities viz. EPC signing, prior to the chosen start date of 01/07/2013 to justify the choice of start date by the PP.

6: The DOE is requested to confirm the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (c).
As the project is implemented in a Greenfield facility, the DOE shall provide information to justify the input values used in the IRR calculations, in particular the reasons for not including only incremental investment and O&M costs for the heat generating unit.

7: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology(ies) as per VVS version 2 paragraph 132 (a).
The DOE shall provide information how it validated the compliance of monitoring plan with the applied methodology and tools, in particular on which option is chosen to determine the parameter FCH4,RG,m in accordance with the “Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream” version 2.0.0.