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 shall clarify the elimination of the following alternative scenarios:

Scenario 3: whether the alternative was eliminated:
a) due to non-compliance with "Notice on Implementation of CBM/CMM Power Generation Project" mentioned in page 17 of the PDD, and if so, what the exact requirements and the implications by the "notice" is; or
b) because the IRR is lower than the 13% benchmark, and if so, please validate the 13% benchmark to this scenario which assumes 100% export of the electricity generated to the grid.

Scenario 6: whether the alternative is eliminated:
a) due to the noncompliance with “Coalmine Safety Regulation”, and if so, what the exact requirements and the implications by the regulation in relation to this alternative are; or
b) due to the prohibitive barrier(s) of technical nature that prevents concentrating the gas to methane concentration of above 30%; or
c) due to the barrier(s) related to the long distance transport of the gas.

In doing so, please provide assessment of the barriers based on evidence as per the latest version of the Guidelines for Objective Demonstration and Assessment of Barriers.

2: The DOE is requested to state that the estimates in the PDD are reasonable for data and parameters that are monitored during implementation and are available after validation as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
In doing so, please provide information on how it has assessed that the estimates of the parameters monitored ex-post are appropriate and will result in a conservative estimate of the emission reductions. Such parameters include the following: MMELEC, PCCH4, PCNMHC, CEFNMHC, GENy, and CONSELEC,PJ.

3: The DOE is requested to confirm the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (c).
In particular, the DOE shall provide further information on how it has assessed the assumptions made to demonstrate:
a) the impact of delayed implementation of the remaining two back up generators;
b) the impact of not implementing the remaining two back up generators; and
c) how likely and when the remaining generator will be purchased and implemented.

In doing so, please provide information on the evidence used for the assessment.