Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe all the assumptions/ data/references listed in the PDD for the baseline identification as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87 (a).
The Validation Report has not explained how the choice of 10 year crediting period is in accordance with the methodology page 5, given that the earliest remaining lifetime is identified to be 9.8 years.

2: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the equations applied to calculate the baseline/ project emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per the chosen methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92.
The VR lacks information how the DOE has validated the following:
(a) the use of the 5 years historical data (2003-2007) for parameters ELX, HMRx, Fi,x, Optimal efficiency of the project activity power plant prior to implementation of the project activity, given that the methodology requires the use of set of data prior to the project implementation (i.e. project start date);
(b) parameter Optimal efficiency of the project activity power plant prior to implementation of the project activity, in accordance with the methodology page 18 (maximum of three options), as the third option is missing;
(c) parameter Energy efficiency of the technology identified as the most likely baseline scenario, which is not available in the PDD/VR in line with the methodology page 19;
(d) the parameter EFBL,plant,y in the spreadsheet which appears to be calculated not in line with the formula 9 of the methodology;
(e) parameter EFBL,non-plant,y in the spreadsheet in line with the methodology page 11-12;
(f) parameter CAPBL, in line with the methodology page 15;
(g) the calculation of the project emission which does not follow the steps provided in the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion;
(h) the ex-ante estimation of ELPJ,y.

3: The DOE is requested to provide information on how the distinctive differences between the project activity and the similar projects identified in the selected scope are justified as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (c).
Please clarify the information in the VR page 22, that concludes that no projects are found in the statistics while it identified the existence of seven thermal plants.