Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list and justify in the PDD the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per PS version 5 paragraphs 52.
The PDD page 42 has listed the CBDS (Conventional building design specifications) and PBDS (Project building design specifications) as ex ante fixed parameters and it is stated that the values are provided in Table B.4.1 and Appendix 4 of the PDD. However, (a) the specifications of the baseline building(s) is not provided in the PDD; (b) it is not clear whether the specifications listed in page 8 of the PDD for the project buildings completely reflects the project design;(c) it is not clear how the B settings of baseline buildings (page 20) and project buildings (page 11) correspond to the specifications of baseline buildings and project buildings (page 8) respectively. Noting that such information will be essential for the verifying DOE to confirm the consistency of the software settings as well as to avoid claiming emission reductions unrelated to the proposed technologies/measures listed in page 8-10 of the PDD, the PP/DOE is requested to provide further information of specifications of baseline buildings and project buildings as well as how such specifications are translated into input values to the software (B settings) of baseline building and project buildings.

2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVS version 5 paragraphs 93 and 94.
The PDD page 31 has mentioned that the project was mandated to meet the requirements for roof and wall insulation as prescribed in the energy conservation building code (i.e. U-factor of roof to be 0.261W/m2K and U-factor of wall should be 0.440W/m2K). However, the validation report page 29 confirms that there is no legally mandated building code nor equipment performance standard(s) on energy performance. The PP/DOE is requested to provide further information of the aforementioned "energy conservative building code" and clarify whether such "energy conservation building code" is mandatory or not and how it is applied to baseline emission scenario as per AMS.II.Q version 01 paragraph 11(b)(i), where applicable.

3: 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 5 paragraphs 91 and 94.
The DOE is requested to clarify whether the identified "BKC-62" is the only building similar to the project buildings, given that the AMS.II.Q version 01 paragraph 11(b)(ii) requires that the baseline emissions scenario is based on the average energy consumption in buildings of the same or similar building type, usage or classification as the subject building(s) within the same climate zone. The DOE is requested to justify how the energy consumptions of BKC-62 represent the average energy consumptions in similar buildings to the project buildings within the same climate zone.

4: 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 5 paragraphs 96-99.
The PP/DOE is requested to explain how the provisions specified in AMS.II.Q version 01 paragraph 22 and AMS.II.K have been taken into account when determining that physical leakage of refrigerant would be zero as mentioned in page 39 of the PDD.