13:43 31 May 26
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
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).
The DOE is required to provide information about:
1. How the total investment, land lease cost and the insurance cost were cross checked against third-party or publicly available sources as it is required by VVM para. 111 (b). In particular, please clarify:
(i) the source used to state that: commonly only the turbines investment costs are around 1.5– 2.0 million USD/MW (as per, VR pg. 162 ) and doing so, please include a description of the source appropriateness;
(ii) how it has validated that the land agreement with IAD signed on 2008/03/19 is appropriate to estimate the Land Lease. Please clarify how has validated that this document refers on particular to the proposed project activity, and how justify that the CDM investment decision date (2010/05/18, more than two years after the land agreement was signed) is appropriate to estimate the Land Lease;
(iii) how the insurance cost was cross checked against third-party or publicly available sources.
2. The sources used to cross check the percentage of contingencies used by PP. It is since it is not clear how the DOE has chosen other CDM projects (Project 2667 : Biogas Project, Olmeca III, Tecún Uman and Project 1405 : CEMEX Costa Rica: Use of biomass residues in Colorado cement plant, VR pg. 167) as comparable cases to the proposed project activity, since they appear to belong to different technologies from the proposed project activity. Doing so, please include the values used to cross checking.
3. It is not clear how the DOE justify the appropriateness of the sources of information used for O&M costs. In particular, please provide a further explanation on:
(i) how the DOE has validated the appropriateness of the document: "Cabo Engaño Wind Park Construction and Turbine Supply Agreement", since it belongs to a different project (Engaño Wind Park) and additionally, this agreement was issued on 2004/09/16, more than six years after the CDM investment decision (2010/05/18).
(ii) how the DOE has validated that the information sourced from the "Amended and Restarted Operation and Maintenance Service Agreement" issued on 2010/11/22 was available at the time of the CDM decision (2010/05/18).
(iii) how the DOE has validated that the CDM projects (6 wind projects from latino america and the caribbean) chosen to cross checking are similar to the proposed project activity. It is since, at the validation starting date (2010/11/12) there were 23 wind CDM wind projects registered from latino america and the caribbean.
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).
The DOE is required to provide information about:
1. How the total investment, land lease cost and the insurance cost were cross checked against third-party or publicly available sources as it is required by VVM para. 111 (b). In particular, please clarify:
(i) the source used to state that: commonly only the turbines investment costs are around 1.5– 2.0 million USD/MW (as per, VR pg. 162 ) and doing so, please include a description of the source appropriateness;
(ii) how it has validated that the land agreement with IAD signed on 2008/03/19 is appropriate to estimate the Land Lease. Please clarify how has validated that this document refers on particular to the proposed project activity, and how justify that the CDM investment decision date (2010/05/18, more than two years after the land agreement was signed) is appropriate to estimate the Land Lease;
(iii) how the insurance cost was cross checked against third-party or publicly available sources.
2. The sources used to cross check the percentage of contingencies used by PP. It is since it is not clear how the DOE has chosen other CDM projects (Project 2667 : Biogas Project, Olmeca III, Tecún Uman and Project 1405 : CEMEX Costa Rica: Use of biomass residues in Colorado cement plant, VR pg. 167) as comparable cases to the proposed project activity, since they appear to belong to different technologies from the proposed project activity. Doing so, please include the values used to cross checking.
3. It is not clear how the DOE justify the appropriateness of the sources of information used for O&M costs. In particular, please provide a further explanation on:
(i) how the DOE has validated the appropriateness of the document: "Cabo Engaño Wind Park Construction and Turbine Supply Agreement", since it belongs to a different project (Engaño Wind Park) and additionally, this agreement was issued on 2004/09/16, more than six years after the CDM investment decision (2010/05/18).
(ii) how the DOE has validated that the information sourced from the "Amended and Restarted Operation and Maintenance Service Agreement" issued on 2010/11/22 was available at the time of the CDM decision (2010/05/18).
(iii) how the DOE has validated that the CDM projects (6 wind projects from latino america and the caribbean) chosen to cross checking are similar to the proposed project activity. It is since, at the validation starting date (2010/11/12) there were 23 wind CDM wind projects registered from latino america and the caribbean.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: