11:38 24 Nov 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe whether the assumptions and data used for the baseline identification are justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87 (c).
For the input values used, the Validation Report has not explained:
(a) why the O&M cost of the project (7%) is higher than the value the DOE checked (4%);
(b) how the range used as means of comparison for O&M cost (4.92-47.36 USD/kW) is appropriate, considering the very wide of range;
(c) how the gas price can be determined based on PPA;
(d) how the use of the O&M cost based on the highest bidder is appropriate/conservative.
2: 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 Validation Report has not explained:
(a) whether the set of power plants used to calculate the build margin falls as 5 units/power plants most recently built, or power plants that comprise 20% of the total generation in the grid, as required by the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system;
(b) how the DOE validated the efficiency of 37.4% (for diesel engine) used un the BM calculation is appropriate and conservative in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 91;
(c) how the DOE validated the efficiency used to calculate emission factor of option 3 (36%) being conservative in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 91, as the DOE acknowledges a higher value (40%);
(d) how the calculation of the EFOM/EFBM in line with the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, as the data required by the Tool on page 20 are not provided in the PDD.
3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The Validation Report has not explained why the O&M cost (contributing more than 20% to the total costs), was also not considered in the sensitivity analysis.
1: The DOE is requested to describe whether the assumptions and data used for the baseline identification are justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87 (c).
For the input values used, the Validation Report has not explained:
(a) why the O&M cost of the project (7%) is higher than the value the DOE checked (4%);
(b) how the range used as means of comparison for O&M cost (4.92-47.36 USD/kW) is appropriate, considering the very wide of range;
(c) how the gas price can be determined based on PPA;
(d) how the use of the O&M cost based on the highest bidder is appropriate/conservative.
2: 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 Validation Report has not explained:
(a) whether the set of power plants used to calculate the build margin falls as 5 units/power plants most recently built, or power plants that comprise 20% of the total generation in the grid, as required by the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system;
(b) how the DOE validated the efficiency of 37.4% (for diesel engine) used un the BM calculation is appropriate and conservative in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 91;
(c) how the DOE validated the efficiency used to calculate emission factor of option 3 (36%) being conservative in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 91, as the DOE acknowledges a higher value (40%);
(d) how the calculation of the EFOM/EFBM in line with the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, as the data required by the Tool on page 20 are not provided in the PDD.
3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The Validation Report has not explained why the O&M cost (contributing more than 20% to the total costs), was also not considered in the sensitivity analysis.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: