12:19 19 Oct 25
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).
(a) For alternative imported coal with conventional technology, the Validation Report page 213 states that the coal cost (0.68 INR/1000 kcal) is higher than the cost mentioned in the project activity 4629 (0.35 INR/1000 kcal), and that the consideration of 0.35 INR/1000 kcal does not change the selected baseline. However, the validation report has not provided any justification on why the cost is higher. Furthermore, the DOE is requested to further justify that with the application of the lower value the baseline would not change;
(b) For alternative imported coal with conventional technology, the Validation Report page 214 states that the heat rate of the alternative is found higher (2315.31 kcal/kWh) than it is of the project activity 4629 (2226 kcal/kWh), and that the application of the lower value would not change the baseline. However, the validation report has not provided any justification on why the heat rate is higher.
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 page 81 states that parameter EFNG,upstream,CH4 is correctly calculated as per applied methodology and references of CO2 Baseline Database for Indian Power Sector, Report on Gujarat Lignite Resources and Scope for Joint Sector Thermal Power and SSI Project (Annexure IV). However, it is not clear if the absolute emissions shown in the calculation have considered the secondary fuel of each power plant in the sample BM plants considering that the absolute emissions values are given values, rather than calculated values.
3: 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).
While the determination of the tariff has been in accordance with the CERC Tariff Regulations 2009 (taking into account fuel cost, PLF, O&M cost and heat rate), the DOE is required to further substantiate the change of the fuel cost, O&M cost, PLF or heat rate resulting in the tariff change in the actual situation during the project operation. Furthermore, how the sensitivity analysis considering the change of fuel cost, O&M cost, PLF or heat rate is appropriate as the tariff also changes with the change of aforementioned parameters.
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).
(a) For alternative imported coal with conventional technology, the Validation Report page 213 states that the coal cost (0.68 INR/1000 kcal) is higher than the cost mentioned in the project activity 4629 (0.35 INR/1000 kcal), and that the consideration of 0.35 INR/1000 kcal does not change the selected baseline. However, the validation report has not provided any justification on why the cost is higher. Furthermore, the DOE is requested to further justify that with the application of the lower value the baseline would not change;
(b) For alternative imported coal with conventional technology, the Validation Report page 214 states that the heat rate of the alternative is found higher (2315.31 kcal/kWh) than it is of the project activity 4629 (2226 kcal/kWh), and that the application of the lower value would not change the baseline. However, the validation report has not provided any justification on why the heat rate is higher.
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 page 81 states that parameter EFNG,upstream,CH4 is correctly calculated as per applied methodology and references of CO2 Baseline Database for Indian Power Sector, Report on Gujarat Lignite Resources and Scope for Joint Sector Thermal Power and SSI Project (Annexure IV). However, it is not clear if the absolute emissions shown in the calculation have considered the secondary fuel of each power plant in the sample BM plants considering that the absolute emissions values are given values, rather than calculated values.
3: 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).
While the determination of the tariff has been in accordance with the CERC Tariff Regulations 2009 (taking into account fuel cost, PLF, O&M cost and heat rate), the DOE is required to further substantiate the change of the fuel cost, O&M cost, PLF or heat rate resulting in the tariff change in the actual situation during the project operation. Furthermore, how the sensitivity analysis considering the change of fuel cost, O&M cost, PLF or heat rate is appropriate as the tariff also changes with the change of aforementioned parameters.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: