Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to complete all the PDD sections for the description of the project activity as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PP/ DOE is requested to further clarify how it validated the technical description of the project in particular the “installed capacity ” of each of the 6 hydro power plants given that the none of the generator capacities have been considered.

2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe that CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PP is requested to incorporate the details on Prior CDM consideration and the details on the Input Values of the parameters used in the Investment Analysis in the PDD

3: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions ( with actual data and equations) as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PP is requested to include the formulas required to calculate Baseline emissions as the same is missing from Section B.6 of the PDD.

4: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the project starting date as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104 (a).
The DOE is requested to substantiate the appropriateness of the “start date” (May 2008) for the project activity when the first committed expenditure for the project was incurred during “acquisition” (April 2007, please refer Pag 47 of the Validation Report).

5: 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).
1.The DOE is requested to further clarify on how it cross checked the values used in the IRR calculation in particular;
i) Value of Operation & Maintenance Cost
ii) Insurance cost
iii) Other Cost
iv) Energy Loss of 3% , considering there is no information provided in the Validation Report.
2. The DOE is requested to clarify the component of the “acquisition values” as described in Page 47 of the Validation Report in particular ; a) the purpose of the same b) from whom the hydro projects are acquired (if applicable) and c) the recipient of the payment.
3. The DOE shall also justify the DI rate applied for the acquisition value to each of the 6 hydro projects.
4.Page 20 of the Validation Report states “The investment decision of the proposed project activity was defined as 08 of June 2007, which corresponds to the date of “Auction CVRD 001/2007”, in which all SHPs included in this project activity had their energy hired. ” The DOE is requested to further clarify whether the tariff used during the auction had considered CDM revenues.



6: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The DOE is requested to provide further information why the “Net energy generation” is not included in the sensitivity analysis.

7: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The DOE is requested to clarify how it validated the suitability of the “interbank deposit certificate as an appropriate benchmark for the project activity.

8: The DOE is requested to report how it has validated common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121.
The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it validated the Common Practice analysis of the project and whether the other similar projects operated by ERSA (as stated in Page 49 of the Validation report) has been included in the common practice analysis.