Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to state if the methodology provides different options for equations and parameters and if the selection is appropriate as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 90.
In particular, the selected method (method 3, case 1) to determine the fcap given that the waste energy of the project activity is recovered from WECM through an intermediate system using an intermediate source (water/steam). Further, the DOE shall explain how it have validated the QOE,BL (maximum recoverable energy) as per ACM0012 version 4 (page 32)

2: The DOE shall explain how it has validated the baseline emission, in particular, the proportion of electricity that would have been source from different sources given that there are three types of captive power generators using difference fuel in the pre-project scenario. Please refer to page 5 of AMS III.Q version 4.


3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
(i) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the suitability of the auxiliary electricity consumption given that the installed capacity is 7MW whereas the net output of the project activity is only 5.35 MW, in doing so, please also explain how it has validated the annual power generated;
(ii) It is not clear why an additional overhaul cost has been considered given that an Operational & Maintenance Cost has already been included in the financial analysis. Please also provide a breakdown of the assumed O&M cost and the actual annual O&M cost for year 2011 as per the audit report prepared by ERNSYT & Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder Charted Accountant.