07:36 24 Nov 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to complete all sections of the PDD related to the description of the project activity as per PS version 07 paragraph 36.
i. The PDD (page 2) states “the SCL integrated cement plant also receives power from existing 72 MW thermal captive power plant at the site and surplus electricity at the cement plant is exported to the grid” and “(page 3) states that “in the pre-project scenario the integrated cement plant of SCL was supplied with electricity from 72 MW thermal captive power plant and grid system”. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency;
ii. The PDD (page 2) states that “The electricity generated from the project activity is used for in house electrical energy demand of Ras units”. It is further stated that “SCL is planning to expand its cement manufacturing facility and the project activity would cater to the expected increase in demand”. However, it is not clear if “Ras units” refers to the expansion and/or the existing plant. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information which clearly describes the project activity, the project facility and the recipient facility.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to list and justify in the PDD the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per PS version 07 paragraphs 59 and 60.
The PDD (page 42) has assumed a value of 39% for the parameter ƞplant,j (baseline efficiency of the captive power plant) based on the “Tool to determine the baseline efficiency of thermal or electric energy generation systems”. It is further noted that (PDD page 26) the baseline was established as “the electricity is obtained from a green-field fossil fuel-based power plant and the waste heat is released to the atmosphere”. However, it is not clear whether the assumed baseline efficiency refers to the existing or the greenfield captive power plant. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information which clearly identifies the baseline captive power plant while defining the parameter ɳplant,j. . In doing so, please take into account the approaches specified in the applied methodology (ACM0012 ver. 4 pages 16 and 17) in determining the ƞplant,j for existing and greenfield captive power plants.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description as per VVS version 07 paragraphs 65-69 and 70 (a) (b).
The VR (page 13) has explained that the project activity involves installation of a 25 MW WHRU (15 MW + 10MW). The Environmental Clearance granted (http://www.shreecement.in/pdf/RAS%20EC%20(Unit%20IX%20&%20X).pdf) for the expansion of the cement plant also indicates that there was an existing 30 MW WHR power generation capacity. However, information on the existing WHR operational capacity of 30 MW is not mentioned in the project description.
4: 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 07 paragraphs 90 and 91.
For alternative baseline scenario P6 (On-site or off-site existing fossil fuel based existing identified captive power plant): the PDD states that “at the time of investment decision for the project activity, there was a 72 MW petcoke fired CPP at the Ras site to meet the in house demand. However, to meet the increased power demand, this 72 MW CPP was not sufficient”. Thus this alternative was eliminated. It is noted that the existing 72 MW captive plant is also exporting surplus electricity to the grid in the pre-project scenario. However, no information is provided to explain why this surplus electricity cannot be used or the 72 MW CPP cannot be expanded to meet the increased power demand in the cement plant due to the planned expansion instead of building a new CPP (alternative P8). The PP/DOE are requested to provide information to support the elimination of alternative baseline scenario P6 from the list of the plausible baseline scenarios considering that the surplus electricity export to the grid or an expansion of the existing 72 MW CPP can meet the increased power demand in the cement plant.
5: 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 07 paragraphs 127 and 130 (a).
The project cost for the WHR power plant is based on the FSR (18/07/08). However, no information is provided on how the DOE validated the project cost. The DOE is requested to provide information on the validation of the project cost for the WHR power plant. In doing so, please take into consideration that the O&M costs were validated based on the actual costs incurred in 2011-2012.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to complete all sections of the PDD related to the description of the project activity as per PS version 07 paragraph 36.
i. The PDD (page 2) states “the SCL integrated cement plant also receives power from existing 72 MW thermal captive power plant at the site and surplus electricity at the cement plant is exported to the grid” and “(page 3) states that “in the pre-project scenario the integrated cement plant of SCL was supplied with electricity from 72 MW thermal captive power plant and grid system”. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency;
ii. The PDD (page 2) states that “The electricity generated from the project activity is used for in house electrical energy demand of Ras units”. It is further stated that “SCL is planning to expand its cement manufacturing facility and the project activity would cater to the expected increase in demand”. However, it is not clear if “Ras units” refers to the expansion and/or the existing plant. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information which clearly describes the project activity, the project facility and the recipient facility.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to list and justify in the PDD the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per PS version 07 paragraphs 59 and 60.
The PDD (page 42) has assumed a value of 39% for the parameter ƞplant,j (baseline efficiency of the captive power plant) based on the “Tool to determine the baseline efficiency of thermal or electric energy generation systems”. It is further noted that (PDD page 26) the baseline was established as “the electricity is obtained from a green-field fossil fuel-based power plant and the waste heat is released to the atmosphere”. However, it is not clear whether the assumed baseline efficiency refers to the existing or the greenfield captive power plant. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information which clearly identifies the baseline captive power plant while defining the parameter ɳplant,j. . In doing so, please take into account the approaches specified in the applied methodology (ACM0012 ver. 4 pages 16 and 17) in determining the ƞplant,j for existing and greenfield captive power plants.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description as per VVS version 07 paragraphs 65-69 and 70 (a) (b).
The VR (page 13) has explained that the project activity involves installation of a 25 MW WHRU (15 MW + 10MW). The Environmental Clearance granted (http://www.shreecement.in/pdf/RAS%20EC%20(Unit%20IX%20&%20X).pdf) for the expansion of the cement plant also indicates that there was an existing 30 MW WHR power generation capacity. However, information on the existing WHR operational capacity of 30 MW is not mentioned in the project description.
4: 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 07 paragraphs 90 and 91.
For alternative baseline scenario P6 (On-site or off-site existing fossil fuel based existing identified captive power plant): the PDD states that “at the time of investment decision for the project activity, there was a 72 MW petcoke fired CPP at the Ras site to meet the in house demand. However, to meet the increased power demand, this 72 MW CPP was not sufficient”. Thus this alternative was eliminated. It is noted that the existing 72 MW captive plant is also exporting surplus electricity to the grid in the pre-project scenario. However, no information is provided to explain why this surplus electricity cannot be used or the 72 MW CPP cannot be expanded to meet the increased power demand in the cement plant due to the planned expansion instead of building a new CPP (alternative P8). The PP/DOE are requested to provide information to support the elimination of alternative baseline scenario P6 from the list of the plausible baseline scenarios considering that the surplus electricity export to the grid or an expansion of the existing 72 MW CPP can meet the increased power demand in the cement plant.
5: 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 07 paragraphs 127 and 130 (a).
The project cost for the WHR power plant is based on the FSR (18/07/08). However, no information is provided on how the DOE validated the project cost. The DOE is requested to provide information on the validation of the project cost for the WHR power plant. In doing so, please take into consideration that the O&M costs were validated based on the actual costs incurred in 2011-2012.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: