Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to include validation opinion on the accuracy and completeness of the project description in the validation report as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 64(b).
The DOE shall explain how it has validated the accuracy and completeness of the project description. In particular:
(a) whether the project activity involves only the electricity generation or cogeneration of both electricity and heat given that heat generation from the waste gas has been mentioned in the validation report (page 83 & 84);
(b) how it has validated the consistency of information among the submitted documents (validation report, spreadsheet and PDD), including, but not limited to, the currency units (RMB in page 25 of the validation report and R in the spreadsheet), benchmarks (11.9 in page 78 of the validation report, 10.9% and 11.4% in the spreadsheet) and input values used in the investment analysis (e.g. the capital cost in the validation report and spreadsheet);
(c) two monitoring parameters are missing in page 30 of the validation report.

2: 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.
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the appropriateness of QWCM,BL given that the QWCM,BL in page 82 of the validation report (104,598,312 m3/year) is not consistent with the value applied in the spreadsheet (91,688,951 m3/year). In doing so, please also specify the sources of the documents checked.
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the appropriateness of ex ante grid emission factor (1.04 tCO2/MWh) given that it is higher than the value applied in other project activities connected with the nation grid in South Africa (e.g. PA 5692). In doing so, please also provide the spreadsheet which was used to calculate the grid emission factor.

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).
The DOE shall explain why the Holding Company Costs (4,090,811 RMB/year) is appropriate to be included in the financial analysis of the project activity.

4: 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).
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the suitability of the input values instead of only explaining the sources of the values, including the Capital Expenditure, Non-Financing Front End Costs, Fair Value of the equipments, Electricity generation amount, the Maintenance Costs, the inflation rate and the R/€ exchange rate applied in the spreadsheet etc.;
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the validity of the input values, in particular several components of the O&M costs which are sourced from the "Operational expenditure budget for cogeneration plant received from the prana energy, Exxaro Resources Ltd" given that the project activity only involve the electricity generation as per the project description, and the fair value of equipments and oil cost given that those values are based on information sources in 2008 which is more than 3 years prior to the investment decision.
In doing so, please also specify the sources of information which the DOE has used for validation.

5: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The DOE shall explain how it have validated the determination of the benchmark considering the inconsistency of the benchmark menioned in the investment analysis spreadsheet (10.9% and 11.4%) and the validation report (11.9% in page 78 and 11.4% in page 24). In doing so, please also specify which benchmark was used as the financial indictor for investment decision and whether it is in nominal terms or real terms.