00:38 28 Apr 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 VVM v1.2 paragraph 76.
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated that: (i) the power unit Kallpa I has an operational history of more than three years with no retrofit; (ii) each of the power unit have an operational history of more than one year with no retrofit, considering the start date of the project activity (14/09/2009). Please refer to the first applicability criteria , and the definition of operation history and major retrofit in page 1 and 2 of ACM0007 version 6.1. In doing so, please also provide a detailed timeline of the implementation of the project activity.
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated that all the power units of the project activity were designed and commissioned for operation in single cycle mode only given that: (i) the documents checked by the DOE are not related to the original design of the power units of the plant (page 12 of the validation report); (ii) the DOE performed the on-site check more than two years after the start date of the project activity. Please refer to the first applicability criteria in page 2 of ACM0007 version 6.1.
2: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87.
The DOE shall explain why an entire new open cycle gas turbine has been considered as the only option of continuation of the current practice in the investment analysis given that the applied methodology has listed three possible options in page 5 of ACM0007 version 6.1.
3: 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).
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the suitability of input values to the investment analysis of alternative a (project activity). In particular, (i) the running costs, why a component of the running costs related to gas supply and gas transportation has been considered in the investment analysis given that the project activity is to use the exhaust waste heat from the three open cycle gas turbines for electricity generation; (ii) the operation & maintenance cost.
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the suitability of the input values to the investment analysis of alternative b. In particular, (i) the plant efficiency of 39.5%; (ii) the investment costs of 115,525,528 USD.
Please refer to VVM version 1.2, paragraph 111 (a) and (b).
4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the credibility of the barrier analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 118.
The DOE shall explain how it has validated the identified barriers. Please refer to EB50 Annex 13.
1: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 76.
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated that: (i) the power unit Kallpa I has an operational history of more than three years with no retrofit; (ii) each of the power unit have an operational history of more than one year with no retrofit, considering the start date of the project activity (14/09/2009). Please refer to the first applicability criteria , and the definition of operation history and major retrofit in page 1 and 2 of ACM0007 version 6.1. In doing so, please also provide a detailed timeline of the implementation of the project activity.
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated that all the power units of the project activity were designed and commissioned for operation in single cycle mode only given that: (i) the documents checked by the DOE are not related to the original design of the power units of the plant (page 12 of the validation report); (ii) the DOE performed the on-site check more than two years after the start date of the project activity. Please refer to the first applicability criteria in page 2 of ACM0007 version 6.1.
2: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87.
The DOE shall explain why an entire new open cycle gas turbine has been considered as the only option of continuation of the current practice in the investment analysis given that the applied methodology has listed three possible options in page 5 of ACM0007 version 6.1.
3: 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).
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the suitability of input values to the investment analysis of alternative a (project activity). In particular, (i) the running costs, why a component of the running costs related to gas supply and gas transportation has been considered in the investment analysis given that the project activity is to use the exhaust waste heat from the three open cycle gas turbines for electricity generation; (ii) the operation & maintenance cost.
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the suitability of the input values to the investment analysis of alternative b. In particular, (i) the plant efficiency of 39.5%; (ii) the investment costs of 115,525,528 USD.
Please refer to VVM version 1.2, paragraph 111 (a) and (b).
4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the credibility of the barrier analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 118.
The DOE shall explain how it has validated the identified barriers. Please refer to EB50 Annex 13.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: