Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies and/or the standardized baseline(s) is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 85 and 86.
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated that the residues from the anaerobic digester are dehydrated, limed and stored before final disposal in a controlled landfill, considering the project has not been commissioned, and furthermore, how to ensure this will be complied with during the crediting period.

2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the input values used in the financial calculations as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 129 (a) (b) (c).
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the following input values to the investment analysis in line with VVS version 09.0 paragraph 129 (a) and (b):
(a) Engineering, procurement and construction cost (C2) and Expenditure due to consumption of electricity (C6) of each alternative, in particular how the reference /20/ (Capital costs for various water treatment system literature) used to crosscheck is applicable for the each type of the technology of the alternatives and for alternatives implemented in Ethiopia;
(b) Labour cost (C3), Operation and Maintenance cost (C4) and Administration cost (C5), in particular how these costs have been crosscheck and what the purpose of presenting the percentage of these costs against the capital cost as they are not compared to anything;
(c) Revenue of sale of electricity, in particular: (i) how the revenue is derived; (ii) what the assumed annual generation used in the investment analysis and how the DOE has crosschecked this.

3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the application of the equations and parameters for the calculation of emission reductions have been correctly applied as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 141 and 144 (d) (e).
The DOE is requested to explain how the requirements from the tools have been complied with, as per the VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 140 and 141, in regard to the following:
(a) The type of flare used in the project activity, and if enclosed flare is chosen, which option for flare efficiency is selected, as required by the Methodological tool Project emissions from flaring, version 02.0.0, pages 2 and 3;
(b) Option to determined Fi,t (The mass flow of a greenhouse gas i in a gaseous stream) as required by the Methodological tool: Tool to determine the mass flow of a greenhouse gas in a gaseous stream, version 03.0, paragraphs 14 and 15;
(c) The calculation of average OM using ex-ante option. As per the Methodological tool: Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 05.0), paragraph 39, for ex-ante option, 3-year generation-weighted average EF is to be used. Also notes that when calculating EFOM, y refers to the relevant year. However, the EF average OM is calculated by averaging the electricity generation for each plant instead of averaging the EF for each relevant year.

4: The DOE is requested to verify the justification and appropriateness of the fixed data and parameters used for the emission reduction calculations as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 142 (a), 144 (a) (b) (c) and 145.
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the data used to calculate the operating margin and build margin.

5: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology(ies) and/or standardized baseline(s) as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 149 (a) (c) and 150 (a), and where applicable SS version 04.1 section 6.
The Validation Report has not described how the DOE has validated the compliance of the monitoring plan, in particular each monitored parameter, with the applied methodology and tools. In addition to this:
(a) As the PDD has not documented which type of flare to be used, and which option to determine the Fi,t, the DOE is requested to explain how the monitoring plan is in compliance with the applied tools;
(b) The methodological tool “Project emissions from flaring” (Version 02.0.0) requires the information on the maintenance schedule for parameter SPECflare, and monitoring of Maintenance, if enclosed flare is used, which is not available in the monitoring plan;
(c) For parameter TDLk,y, clarify which source of data as per the Baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption and monitoring of electricity generation (Version 02.0) will be used. The following requirement for the monitoring frequency is also missing: "In the absence of data from the relevant year, most recent figures should be used, but not older than 5 years";
(d) The PDD section B.7.2 mentions the possibility of using sampling approach applying the latest sampling standards under the CDM, however there is no sampling plan provided in the PDD. As per the Standard: Sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities (Version 05.0) paragraph 7, the PDD shall include a sampling plan.

6: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 149 (b) and 150 (b) (c).
The DOE has not provided: (i) Its opinion on the compliance of the described monitoring plan with the requirements of the applied methodology including applicable tools; (ii) Its opinion on the PP's ability to implement the monitoring plan; as per the VVS version 09.0 paragraph 150.