Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to indicate if the baseline methodology is correctly applied to identify baseline scenario and alternative baseline scenarios as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 92 and 93.
(a) The “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality” (version 05.0.0) that is used by the project activity requires that the latest approved version of the “Guidelines for objective demonstration and assessment of barriers” shall be taken into account (paragraph 21). The DOE is requested to explain whether and how this requirement has been taken into account;
(b) The DOE is requested to explain how the alternative P5 (electricity supplied by a c-generation plan with a different fossil fuel than the project activity) has been appropriately eliminated based on information on the power generation plant, instead of co-generation plant.

2: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 103, 104 (a) (b) (c) and 105.
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the grid emission factor, in particular:
(a) the EF OM. The same figures of emission factors (EFEL,m,y) for import electricity from Azerbaijan and Armenia are used for year 1388 (21 March 2009-20 March 2010), 1389 (21 March 2010-20 March 2011) and 1390 (21 March 2011-20 March 2012). Note that index y refers to the relevant year as per the data vintage chosen;
(b) The inconsistency in the value of total electricity generation in the grid. The worksheet "OM-1390" mentions 222,137,780 MWh whereas "BM-1390" mentions 231,041,000 MWh as the figure for total electricity generation in the grid in the ER calculation spreadsheet.

3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the option/ approach taken by the project participant to demonstrate additionality as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 108.
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the project being the first-of-its-kind, in particular the capacity of the other cogeneration facilities compared to the capacity of the project activity. The PDD and Validation Report have presented the electrical capacity of the units and assumed thermal capacity of those units (based their electrical capacity), however they have not provided the total capacity of units (the installed electrical and thermal capacities) to confirm that none of the other units are of large scale.

4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology(ies) as per VVS version 7 paragraph 139 (a).
The DOE is requested to explain how it confirmed that the monitoring plan is in line with the applied methodology and applicable tools for the following parameters:
(a) EGGrid,y. The methodology requires that the consistency of metered electricity generation should be cross-checked with receipts from electricity sales. However this requirement is not included in the monitoring plan;
(b) FCi,j,y. The Validation Report page 51 describes that natural gas consumption of the project will be measured continuously using Orifice Type flow meter with accuracy level of ±0.5% which will be installed inlet of natural gas turbine. However this information is not available in the PDD.