Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Footnote 16 of the submitted PDD (i.e. page 6) indicates the project activity is a bundle of project activities, however the relevant provisions in CDM Project Standard (i.e paragraph 85 and 86 of CDM Project Standard, version 5) and "General principles for bundling" (i.e. EB 21 Annex 21) have not been followed (e.g. no bundling form was submitted). In doing so, the DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the proposed activity is (or is not) a bundle of project activity, in particular:
(a) If the project activity is a bundle of three project activities, the DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the project activity in accordance with the relevant provisions in the CDM Project Standard and "General principles for bundling" (i.e. EB 21 Annex 21).
(b) If the project activity is not a bundle of project activities, the DOE is requested to explain: (i) whether the three hydro power plants in the proposed project activity are independently developed; and (ii) whether the three project participants of the three hydro power plants (i.e. Tambaú Energética S.A, Euclides Maciel Energética S.A, and Rio do Sapo Energia S.A) are independent entities (page 40 and 41 of the PDD), if not, then what are the relationships among those three project participants.


2: With regard to the prior consideration of CDM of SHP Rio do Sapo, the evidences (i.e. board minutes) applied to demonstrate real and continuing actions taken to secure CDM status are not included in the evidences listed in paragraph 108(b) of VVS version 5, and the DOE did not explain how it has validated the prior consideration of CDM of SHP Rio do Sapo in accordance with paragraph 109 of VVS version 5. In doing so, the DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the prior consideration of CDM of SHP Rio do Sapo in accordance with VVS version 5, paragraph 108(b) and 109.