14:00 14 Dec 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in the PDD how the small scale project activity fulfills the specific requirement of the selected methodology(ies) and/or standardized baseline(s) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 105-110.
2. It was stated that “ICONTEC verified that PEpower,y, will be zero, given that all the energy required for the operation of the project activity will be obtained from the electricity generated from the landfill gas[p16 of the validation report]. However, in the validation report (including page 18), information on how the on-site electricity consumption has been considered by the PP or information concluding that 14,705MWh/year is the net electricity fed to the grid, is not provided.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe the baseline scenario and how it was established in the PDD as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 42-48.
4. It was stated that “Methane emissions that would be captured to comply with national or local safety requirement or legal regulations in the year y (tCH4). ICONTEC from the updated PDD and relevant ERs spreadsheets assessed the option chosen by PP for this parameter. A value of zero was selected, given that in Colombia there are no neither requirements to destroy methane nor obligations for LFG capture systems. Hence the case 1 from ACM0001 is applicable.” [p17 of the validation report]. On the other hand, it was stated that “In the absence of the project, the landfill will only flare some LFG” [p2 of submitted PDD]. Information on how the DOE had assessed this aspect was not provided
3: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in the PDD the procedure taken to demonstrate additionality of the project activity as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 49-52 and 111.
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
4: The PP/DOE are requested to list in the PDD all relevant assumptions used in the investment analysis and the results of the analysis as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 50 (a).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
5: The PP/DOE are requested to list and detail in the PDD all the data and parameters to be monitored as required by the applied methodology(ies) and/or the selected standardized baseline(s), as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 64.
3. AMS-I.D v.13, requires the monitoring of the quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y. Information on how the DOE has assessed the fulfillment of this monitoring requirement was not provided.
6: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the baseline scenario identified and the method applied to crosscheck the information contained in the PDD as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 101-103, 105 and 106.
4. It was stated that “Methane emissions that would be captured to comply with national or local safety requirement or legal regulations in the year y (tCH4). ICONTEC from the updated PDD and relevant ERs spreadsheets assessed the option chosen by PP for this parameter. A value of zero was selected, given that in Colombia there are no neither requirements to destroy methane nor obligations for LFG capture systems. Hence the case 1 from ACM0001 is applicable.” [p17 of the validation report]. On the other hand, it was stated that “In the absence of the project, the landfill will only flare some LFG” [p2 of submitted PDD]. Information on how the DOE had assessed this aspect was not provided.
7: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to crosscheck the information given in the PDD as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 112 and 198.
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
8: The DOE is requested to confirm the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 129 and 132 (c).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
9: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the input values used in the financial calculations as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 129 (a) (b) (c).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
10: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 129 (e).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
11: The DOE is requested to provide validation on the compliance of the use of feasibility study report for the investment analysis with the related requirements as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 131.
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
12: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology(ies) and/or standardized baseline(s) as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 149 (a) (c) and 150 (a), and where applicable SS version 04.1 section 6.
3. AMS-I.D v.13, requires the monitoring of the quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y. Information on how the DOE has assessed the fulfillment of this monitoring requirement was not provided.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in the PDD how the small scale project activity fulfills the specific requirement of the selected methodology(ies) and/or standardized baseline(s) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 105-110.
2. It was stated that “ICONTEC verified that PEpower,y, will be zero, given that all the energy required for the operation of the project activity will be obtained from the electricity generated from the landfill gas[p16 of the validation report]. However, in the validation report (including page 18), information on how the on-site electricity consumption has been considered by the PP or information concluding that 14,705MWh/year is the net electricity fed to the grid, is not provided.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe the baseline scenario and how it was established in the PDD as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 42-48.
4. It was stated that “Methane emissions that would be captured to comply with national or local safety requirement or legal regulations in the year y (tCH4). ICONTEC from the updated PDD and relevant ERs spreadsheets assessed the option chosen by PP for this parameter. A value of zero was selected, given that in Colombia there are no neither requirements to destroy methane nor obligations for LFG capture systems. Hence the case 1 from ACM0001 is applicable.” [p17 of the validation report]. On the other hand, it was stated that “In the absence of the project, the landfill will only flare some LFG” [p2 of submitted PDD]. Information on how the DOE had assessed this aspect was not provided
3: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in the PDD the procedure taken to demonstrate additionality of the project activity as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 49-52 and 111.
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
4: The PP/DOE are requested to list in the PDD all relevant assumptions used in the investment analysis and the results of the analysis as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 50 (a).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
5: The PP/DOE are requested to list and detail in the PDD all the data and parameters to be monitored as required by the applied methodology(ies) and/or the selected standardized baseline(s), as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 64.
3. AMS-I.D v.13, requires the monitoring of the quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y. Information on how the DOE has assessed the fulfillment of this monitoring requirement was not provided.
6: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the baseline scenario identified and the method applied to crosscheck the information contained in the PDD as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 101-103, 105 and 106.
4. It was stated that “Methane emissions that would be captured to comply with national or local safety requirement or legal regulations in the year y (tCH4). ICONTEC from the updated PDD and relevant ERs spreadsheets assessed the option chosen by PP for this parameter. A value of zero was selected, given that in Colombia there are no neither requirements to destroy methane nor obligations for LFG capture systems. Hence the case 1 from ACM0001 is applicable.” [p17 of the validation report]. On the other hand, it was stated that “In the absence of the project, the landfill will only flare some LFG” [p2 of submitted PDD]. Information on how the DOE had assessed this aspect was not provided.
7: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to crosscheck the information given in the PDD as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 112 and 198.
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
8: The DOE is requested to confirm the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 129 and 132 (c).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
9: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the input values used in the financial calculations as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 129 (a) (b) (c).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
10: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 129 (e).
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
11: The DOE is requested to provide validation on the compliance of the use of feasibility study report for the investment analysis with the related requirements as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 131.
1. DOE stated “To demonstrate the additionality of the Proposed CDM Project Activity, the PP has correctly applied the provisions stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the methodology AMS III.G, hence the proposed project activity is automatically additional” [Table D.8.6., p14 of the validation report]. On the other hand, simple cost analysis is provided in the attached excel file to the submission. Information on how the DOE had considered these two approaches was not provided.
12: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology(ies) and/or standardized baseline(s) as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 149 (a) (c) and 150 (a), and where applicable SS version 04.1 section 6.
3. AMS-I.D v.13, requires the monitoring of the quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y. Information on how the DOE has assessed the fulfillment of this monitoring requirement was not provided.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: