18:35 16 Aug 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVS ver.5 paragraphs 76 and 77.
a) The PDD (p. 7) states that “The project activity, as a new Facility complies with the related and relevant requirements in the “General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies: The project activity uses only renewable biomass, according to paragraph 4 of “Definition of Renewable Biomass” (EB 23 Annex 18)”. However the DOE has not reported how it assessed that the biomass to be consumed in the project activity are considered as renewable biomass in line with paragraph 4 of “Definition of Renewable Biomass” (EB 23 Annex 18),
b) The PDD (p.7) states that “the project activity does not use processed solid biomass fuel” whereas the PDD (p.63) also states that “The remaining 23% of the logs can be consumed by the project as wood chip”. Likewise, the VR (p.15) states that “the project activity does not include solid biomass fuel”. However, information related to how the DOE validated that the biomass for the project activity is not solid biomass fuel has not been provided.
c) The VR (p.16) states that “this project includes type III component of SSC methodology”. The DOE is requested to provide information to support that the proposed project activity includes type III component of SSC methodology.
2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the project boundary and sources of GHG as per VVS ver 5 paragraphs 86 and 87.
The PDD (p.18) states that "Scenario C of the mentioned Tool applies due to the fact that the electricity consumption of the project activity comes from the grid and a fossil fuel fired captive power plant"; and the DOE has validated (VR p.16) that the project boundary consists of “the Plant generating heat fired with biomass and one back up LPG fired boiler, the Industrial facility consuming energy generated by the system and the processes". However, the grid and the fossil fuel plant have not been included in the project boundary. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to crosscheck the information given in the PDD as per VVS ver 5 paragraph 122 (a) and (c) and 123 (a).
The VR (p. 21) mentions that the coal and biomass boiler parameters (the average fuel consumption, the maintenance costs, the labour costs and the electricity tariff) used for the investment comparison analysis were sourced and verified from the Feasibility Study Report. However, the DOE has not reported how it confirmed the validity of the applied values on the basis of its specific local and sectoral expertise and by cross-checking or other appropriate means in line with VVS v.5 paragraph 122 (c).
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVS ver 5 paragraphs 121 and 123 (b).
The VR (p.21) reports that the values used to calculate the CAPM model discount rate of 12.29% were verified from the website of the “the association of Banks and Financial Institutions of Chile” and the “Damodaran link”. However the provided link (http://www.abif.cl/admin/uploads/file_51ae2c62e26cc.pdf) is not accessible.
1: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVS ver.5 paragraphs 76 and 77.
a) The PDD (p. 7) states that “The project activity, as a new Facility complies with the related and relevant requirements in the “General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies: The project activity uses only renewable biomass, according to paragraph 4 of “Definition of Renewable Biomass” (EB 23 Annex 18)”. However the DOE has not reported how it assessed that the biomass to be consumed in the project activity are considered as renewable biomass in line with paragraph 4 of “Definition of Renewable Biomass” (EB 23 Annex 18),
b) The PDD (p.7) states that “the project activity does not use processed solid biomass fuel” whereas the PDD (p.63) also states that “The remaining 23% of the logs can be consumed by the project as wood chip”. Likewise, the VR (p.15) states that “the project activity does not include solid biomass fuel”. However, information related to how the DOE validated that the biomass for the project activity is not solid biomass fuel has not been provided.
c) The VR (p.16) states that “this project includes type III component of SSC methodology”. The DOE is requested to provide information to support that the proposed project activity includes type III component of SSC methodology.
2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the project boundary and sources of GHG as per VVS ver 5 paragraphs 86 and 87.
The PDD (p.18) states that "Scenario C of the mentioned Tool applies due to the fact that the electricity consumption of the project activity comes from the grid and a fossil fuel fired captive power plant"; and the DOE has validated (VR p.16) that the project boundary consists of “the Plant generating heat fired with biomass and one back up LPG fired boiler, the Industrial facility consuming energy generated by the system and the processes". However, the grid and the fossil fuel plant have not been included in the project boundary. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to crosscheck the information given in the PDD as per VVS ver 5 paragraph 122 (a) and (c) and 123 (a).
The VR (p. 21) mentions that the coal and biomass boiler parameters (the average fuel consumption, the maintenance costs, the labour costs and the electricity tariff) used for the investment comparison analysis were sourced and verified from the Feasibility Study Report. However, the DOE has not reported how it confirmed the validity of the applied values on the basis of its specific local and sectoral expertise and by cross-checking or other appropriate means in line with VVS v.5 paragraph 122 (c).
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVS ver 5 paragraphs 121 and 123 (b).
The VR (p.21) reports that the values used to calculate the CAPM model discount rate of 12.29% were verified from the website of the “the association of Banks and Financial Institutions of Chile” and the “Damodaran link”. However the provided link (http://www.abif.cl/admin/uploads/file_51ae2c62e26cc.pdf) is not accessible.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: