15:53 11 Nov 26
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the evidence provided for prior consideration of CDM as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 114-118.
Page 37 of the Validation report states that: "In between from 2003 to 2005 PP tried to make the PDD internally but was not successful”. The DOE shall further validate how the evidences provided by the PP during that period of time have determined as continuing and real actions taken to secure CDM status in accordance with VVS ver. 7 para 114 (b).
2: 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 7 paragraphs 127 and 128.
EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 19 states that "If the proposed baseline scenario leaves the project participant no other choice than to make an investment to supply the same (or substitute) products or services, a benchmark analysis is not appropriate and an investment comparison analysis shall be used. If the alternative to the project activity is the supply of electricity from a grid this is not to be considered an investment and a benchmark approach is considered appropriate". Considering that the baseline scenario of the proposed project activity is grid connected power, the DOE shall clarify how it validated that the investment comparison is appropriate indicator for demonstration of additionality.
3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraph 127 (e).
The DOE has not provided validation of the sensitivity analysis. The shall validated how it was determined that the analysis i) has considered variables that constitute more than 20% of either total project costs or total project revenues should be subjected to reasonable variation ii) the results of this variation should be presented in the PDD and be reproducible in the associated spreadsheets and iii) in which scenarios the project activity would pass the benchmark or become more favorable than the alternative (Please also refer to EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 20) .
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the adequacy of the local stakeholder consultation as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 145 and 147.
The submitted PDD states that the Local Stakeholder Consultation has carried out on 16.03.2007. However, the submitted verification report states that the same has been carried out on 16 December 2005. The DOE is requested to validate the inconsistencies
1: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the evidence provided for prior consideration of CDM as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 114-118.
Page 37 of the Validation report states that: "In between from 2003 to 2005 PP tried to make the PDD internally but was not successful”. The DOE shall further validate how the evidences provided by the PP during that period of time have determined as continuing and real actions taken to secure CDM status in accordance with VVS ver. 7 para 114 (b).
2: 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 7 paragraphs 127 and 128.
EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 19 states that "If the proposed baseline scenario leaves the project participant no other choice than to make an investment to supply the same (or substitute) products or services, a benchmark analysis is not appropriate and an investment comparison analysis shall be used. If the alternative to the project activity is the supply of electricity from a grid this is not to be considered an investment and a benchmark approach is considered appropriate". Considering that the baseline scenario of the proposed project activity is grid connected power, the DOE shall clarify how it validated that the investment comparison is appropriate indicator for demonstration of additionality.
3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraph 127 (e).
The DOE has not provided validation of the sensitivity analysis. The shall validated how it was determined that the analysis i) has considered variables that constitute more than 20% of either total project costs or total project revenues should be subjected to reasonable variation ii) the results of this variation should be presented in the PDD and be reproducible in the associated spreadsheets and iii) in which scenarios the project activity would pass the benchmark or become more favorable than the alternative (Please also refer to EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 20) .
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the adequacy of the local stakeholder consultation as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 145 and 147.
The submitted PDD states that the Local Stakeholder Consultation has carried out on 16.03.2007. However, the submitted verification report states that the same has been carried out on 16 December 2005. The DOE is requested to validate the inconsistencies
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: