22:48 02 May 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: 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 did not inform how it has validated the information provided in PDD Annex 5 regarding availability of biomass.
2: 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 does not contain an assessment on how the DOE has validated the baseline scenario, in particular: a) in the absence of the proposed project activity, the existing fuel oil fired boiler would continue to operate; and b) the impact caused by another risk husk boiler (17 MT/h risk husk boiler) installed at one of the project sites and used for the same purposes (page 20 and 21 of PDD)
3: 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 information related to validation of baseline emissions, projects emissions and leakage is incomplete. Also, the validation of the emission reductions spreadsheets is not reported.
4: The DOE is requested to state whether the data and parameters are conservative and appropriate if they are fixed ex-ante (not need to monitor) during the project activity crediting period as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
The PDD indicates that a default emission factor (1.3 tCO2/MWh) will be used to estimate the emissions related to electricity consumption. Nevertheless, page 13 of the validation report indicates that "The grid emission factor is calculated as the combined margin (CM), consisting in the combination of operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM)". Please clarify.
5: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to cross-check the given information in the PDD and to determine the authenticity of the documentation to demonstrate additionality as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 97.
The validation report does not contain an independent assessment of the additionality. Please notice that the information given in the PDD pages 27, 28 and 29 appears to be repeated in the validation report pages 20 and 21 without further validation.
6: The DOE is requested to describe the steps undertaken to assess if the monitoring arrangements are feasible to be implemented within the project design as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 124(b).
The validation report does not contain an description on how the DOE has validated: a) The appropriateness of the monitoring plan; and b) the impact in the monitoring plan of the installation of another risk husk boiler at one of the two project sites.
1: 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 did not inform how it has validated the information provided in PDD Annex 5 regarding availability of biomass.
2: 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 does not contain an assessment on how the DOE has validated the baseline scenario, in particular: a) in the absence of the proposed project activity, the existing fuel oil fired boiler would continue to operate; and b) the impact caused by another risk husk boiler (17 MT/h risk husk boiler) installed at one of the project sites and used for the same purposes (page 20 and 21 of PDD)
3: 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 information related to validation of baseline emissions, projects emissions and leakage is incomplete. Also, the validation of the emission reductions spreadsheets is not reported.
4: The DOE is requested to state whether the data and parameters are conservative and appropriate if they are fixed ex-ante (not need to monitor) during the project activity crediting period as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
The PDD indicates that a default emission factor (1.3 tCO2/MWh) will be used to estimate the emissions related to electricity consumption. Nevertheless, page 13 of the validation report indicates that "The grid emission factor is calculated as the combined margin (CM), consisting in the combination of operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM)". Please clarify.
5: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to cross-check the given information in the PDD and to determine the authenticity of the documentation to demonstrate additionality as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 97.
The validation report does not contain an independent assessment of the additionality. Please notice that the information given in the PDD pages 27, 28 and 29 appears to be repeated in the validation report pages 20 and 21 without further validation.
6: The DOE is requested to describe the steps undertaken to assess if the monitoring arrangements are feasible to be implemented within the project design as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 124(b).
The validation report does not contain an description on how the DOE has validated: a) The appropriateness of the monitoring plan; and b) the impact in the monitoring plan of the installation of another risk husk boiler at one of the two project sites.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: