04:22 01 Sep 24
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).
1. Further information is required on how the DOE validated the (a) Total Project Investment and b) O&M cost. In doing so the DOE is requested to provide details on each componnet of the total cost and how the DOE verified the same in accordance with paragraph 111 (b) (c) of the VVM.
2. The DOE is requested to provide further details on how it validated the basis of the 10% annual escalation of the O&M costs.
3. The DOE is requested to clarify how it validated the fuel costs (NG,HFO) as no information is provided in the VR.
4. The values in the PDD/VR is inconsistent with the values in the IRR spreadsheet. The DOE is requested to submit the correct worksheet for the IRR calculation .
5. Page 31 of the VR states that the FSR of the project was done internally by the PP. The DOE is requested to clarify how it verified all input values to be credible in accordance with paragraph 111 (a) and 113 of VVM (ver 1.2)
2: The PP/DOE are requested to list the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
1. Further information is required how the DOE validated the baseline emissions from the electricity displaced by the project activity based on historical generation in accordance with III-Q ver 4 which states:"The proportion of electricity that would have been sourced from the ith source to the jth recipient plant should be estimated based on historical data of the proportion received...". In doing so, the DOE shall transparently detail the documented evidence in the Validation Report.
2. The DOE is requested to provide further details on how it validated the efficiency calculation in accordance with option (i) of AMS III-Q. In doing so the DOE shall transparently document the sources from which the values have been taken and how it ensured that such values are accordance with Opition (i) of the methodology.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated that the selected baseline methodology(ies )applies(y) correctly to the project boundary, baseline identification and algorithms and formulae used to determine emission reductions as per VVM v1.2, paragraphs 67.
The DOE shall clarify how it validated the project to be applicable under III-Q version 4 which states that "category is for project activities that utilize waste gas and/or waste heat at existing facilities".The DOE may refer to footnote 1 for the definition of "existing facility " and note that Kiln G started operation in January 2009 whereas the start date of the project is May 2008.
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).
1. Further information is required on how the DOE validated the (a) Total Project Investment and b) O&M cost. In doing so the DOE is requested to provide details on each componnet of the total cost and how the DOE verified the same in accordance with paragraph 111 (b) (c) of the VVM.
2. The DOE is requested to provide further details on how it validated the basis of the 10% annual escalation of the O&M costs.
3. The DOE is requested to clarify how it validated the fuel costs (NG,HFO) as no information is provided in the VR.
4. The values in the PDD/VR is inconsistent with the values in the IRR spreadsheet. The DOE is requested to submit the correct worksheet for the IRR calculation .
5. Page 31 of the VR states that the FSR of the project was done internally by the PP. The DOE is requested to clarify how it verified all input values to be credible in accordance with paragraph 111 (a) and 113 of VVM (ver 1.2)
2: The PP/DOE are requested to list the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
1. Further information is required how the DOE validated the baseline emissions from the electricity displaced by the project activity based on historical generation in accordance with III-Q ver 4 which states:"The proportion of electricity that would have been sourced from the ith source to the jth recipient plant should be estimated based on historical data of the proportion received...". In doing so, the DOE shall transparently detail the documented evidence in the Validation Report.
2. The DOE is requested to provide further details on how it validated the efficiency calculation in accordance with option (i) of AMS III-Q. In doing so the DOE shall transparently document the sources from which the values have been taken and how it ensured that such values are accordance with Opition (i) of the methodology.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated that the selected baseline methodology(ies )applies(y) correctly to the project boundary, baseline identification and algorithms and formulae used to determine emission reductions as per VVM v1.2, paragraphs 67.
The DOE shall clarify how it validated the project to be applicable under III-Q version 4 which states that "category is for project activities that utilize waste gas and/or waste heat at existing facilities".The DOE may refer to footnote 1 for the definition of "existing facility " and note that Kiln G started operation in January 2009 whereas the start date of the project is May 2008.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: