23:02 29 Jan 25
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).
The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the accuracy and completeness of the project description, considering the PDD states the total capacity of 4.85 MW (rated capacity of generators) (pages 2 and 4), and the rated capacity of each component is 2.85 MW for Suba power plant and 2.0 MW for Usaquen power plant (page 11). However, in PDD page 7 and 8, it is stated that the rated power generators have capacity of 2850 kVA (Suba) and 2000 kVA (Usaquen).
2: 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 is requested to further explain how the calculation of simple adjusted OM complies with equation 8 of the version 04.0 of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system.
3: 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 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (a).
The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the input values to the investment analysis, in particular: (a) in line with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6, as the source for Energy generated (reference /8/ and /9/), investment cost (reference /11/), O&M cost (reference /8/, /9/ and /22/) were available after the investment decision (i.e. 01/10/2009); (b) Tariff in line with the VVS version 05.0 paragraph 120b, particularly how the DOE concluded that the tariff used (48.64 USD/MWh) is conservative compared to the value that is used to compared (i.e. 81.97 USD/MWh). Furthermore, it is not clear whether the electricity will be sold to both regulated and non-regulated market; (c) As the project activities replace the pressure reducing valves with electric and manual control, why savings in the operation cost of the valves are not considered in the investment analysis (VVS version 05.0 paragraph 120a); (d) as the bundle consists of two project activities why investment analysis is not conducted for each project activity (Project Standard version 05.0 paragraph 85, EB66 Annex 21 paragraph 7).
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 121 and 123 (b).
As internal benchmark is used, the DOE is requested to substantiate the suitability of the benchmark in line with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 14 (i.e. that it should be demonstrated to have been used for similar projects with similar risks, developed by the same company).
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).
The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the accuracy and completeness of the project description, considering the PDD states the total capacity of 4.85 MW (rated capacity of generators) (pages 2 and 4), and the rated capacity of each component is 2.85 MW for Suba power plant and 2.0 MW for Usaquen power plant (page 11). However, in PDD page 7 and 8, it is stated that the rated power generators have capacity of 2850 kVA (Suba) and 2000 kVA (Usaquen).
2: 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 is requested to further explain how the calculation of simple adjusted OM complies with equation 8 of the version 04.0 of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system.
3: 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 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (a).
The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the input values to the investment analysis, in particular: (a) in line with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6, as the source for Energy generated (reference /8/ and /9/), investment cost (reference /11/), O&M cost (reference /8/, /9/ and /22/) were available after the investment decision (i.e. 01/10/2009); (b) Tariff in line with the VVS version 05.0 paragraph 120b, particularly how the DOE concluded that the tariff used (48.64 USD/MWh) is conservative compared to the value that is used to compared (i.e. 81.97 USD/MWh). Furthermore, it is not clear whether the electricity will be sold to both regulated and non-regulated market; (c) As the project activities replace the pressure reducing valves with electric and manual control, why savings in the operation cost of the valves are not considered in the investment analysis (VVS version 05.0 paragraph 120a); (d) as the bundle consists of two project activities why investment analysis is not conducted for each project activity (Project Standard version 05.0 paragraph 85, EB66 Annex 21 paragraph 7).
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 121 and 123 (b).
As internal benchmark is used, the DOE is requested to substantiate the suitability of the benchmark in line with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 14 (i.e. that it should be demonstrated to have been used for similar projects with similar risks, developed by the same company).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: