15:11 04 Jun 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all relevant assumptions, data, input values and references used in the investment analysis and the results of the investment analysis as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
(i)The DOE is requested to provide further information on the Total Investment Cost considering that the Validation Report contains details on the total static investment costs only. The DOE shall further elaborate on the other components of the total costs including the "intangible assets".
Note:In providing the revised documentation please correct the typographical error on Page 38 of the VR which states “Compared with the registered wind power projects, the investment per kWh for the proposed project….”
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions ( with actual data and equations) as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The DOE/PP shall provide information on the Combined Margin emission factor considering that Validation report and the PDD are inconsistent. Please refer to Page 49 and 51 of the Validation Report and Page 103 of the PDD.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 76.
The DOE is requested to provide further clarification on how it validated"Demonstration of use of waste energy in absence of CDM project activity" for Type 1 project activities in accordance with Page 4 of ACM00012 ver 3.2
4: 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.
The DOE is requested to further assess the baseline scenario for the 2500 TPD “greenfield facilities” in line with the Clarification provided by EB 61,Annex 5 .The DOE should in order to determine the baseline scenario :
1.Identify alternative design options for the 2500TPD (greenfield facility commissioned in October 2008) clinker facility along with the feasible usage of the waste energy for those designs (with/without waste heat recovery component /with a waste heat recovery component of a different denomination) that was available to the PP.
2.Undertake an investment comparison analysis for the identified alternative designs to the entire greenfield facility (and not only for the power plant) for the determination of the baseline scenario.
With regard to this, the DOE is requested to refer Clarification “AM_CLA_0219” on ACM0012 version 03.2 for better clarity.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all relevant assumptions, data, input values and references used in the investment analysis and the results of the investment analysis as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
(i)The DOE is requested to provide further information on the Total Investment Cost considering that the Validation Report contains details on the total static investment costs only. The DOE shall further elaborate on the other components of the total costs including the "intangible assets".
Note:In providing the revised documentation please correct the typographical error on Page 38 of the VR which states “Compared with the registered wind power projects, the investment per kWh for the proposed project….”
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions ( with actual data and equations) as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The DOE/PP shall provide information on the Combined Margin emission factor considering that Validation report and the PDD are inconsistent. Please refer to Page 49 and 51 of the Validation Report and Page 103 of the PDD.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 76.
The DOE is requested to provide further clarification on how it validated"Demonstration of use of waste energy in absence of CDM project activity" for Type 1 project activities in accordance with Page 4 of ACM00012 ver 3.2
4: 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.
The DOE is requested to further assess the baseline scenario for the 2500 TPD “greenfield facilities” in line with the Clarification provided by EB 61,Annex 5 .The DOE should in order to determine the baseline scenario :
1.Identify alternative design options for the 2500TPD (greenfield facility commissioned in October 2008) clinker facility along with the feasible usage of the waste energy for those designs (with/without waste heat recovery component /with a waste heat recovery component of a different denomination) that was available to the PP.
2.Undertake an investment comparison analysis for the identified alternative designs to the entire greenfield facility (and not only for the power plant) for the determination of the baseline scenario.
With regard to this, the DOE is requested to refer Clarification “AM_CLA_0219” on ACM0012 version 03.2 for better clarity.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: