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 version 2 paragraphs 76 and 77.
The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has validated the applicability conditions 3, in particular how the future natural gas based power capacity additions are not constrained by the use of natural gas in the project activity. In doing so, the DOE/PP is requested to provide information regarding the future capacity planned of natural gas based power plants, as indicated in the PDD page 7.

2: The DOE is requested to indicate if the baseline methodology is correctly applied to identify baseline scenario and alternative baseline scenarios as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 89 and 90.
The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has validated the baseline identification, in particular: (a) whether all plausible alternatives have been considered, particularly Power generation using natural gas, but technologies other than the project activity. As the PDD mentions the share of open cycle power plant being only 3% but the natural gas power generation takes around 80% of the electricity generation in Singapore, the DOE is requested to further substantiate if all technologies using natural gas have been considered (e.g. thermal power plant); (b) the coal power plant alternative being plausible as 5 x 160 MW, considering the PDD page 11 states: "the Government has decided not to use coal for power generation on a large scale, until the demand for LNG stabilises", and how alternative of 5 x 160 MW is not considered as large scale considering to deliver similar service as the project activity 5 plants have to be operated simultaneously. Furthermore, how the alternative of 160 MW coal power plant, substantiated by the existance of Tuas Power plant in the PDD, has comparable output to the project activity, considering: (i) the information in the footnotes 27 and 28 of the PDD shows that Tuas Power plant uses coal and biomass, and it also supplies chilled water and steam for industrial use; (ii) the PDD page 9 has excluded the cogeneration technology for not delivering the similar services comparable to the project activity; (c) electricity import being plausible, considering the reference provided by foot note 29 of PDD (page 12) shows that electricity import project will likely take around 4-5 years to develop and implement, and the importer could start selling electricity to Singapore from 2017/2018, whereas the project activity is expected to be commissioned on 01/01/2014 (PDD page 21).

3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the application of the equations and parameters for the calculation of emission reductions as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 97 and 99 (d) (e).
The PDD page 33 states that the project activity is using imported LNG from new SLNG terminal. The use of LNG, even though it has been re-gasifed when reaching the project activity, means that there has been activity of fuel combustion/electricity consumption associated with the liquefaction, transportation, regasification and compression into a natural gas transmission or distribution system outside the project boundary. The DOE is requested to further substantiate why CO2 emissions from fuel combustion/electricity consumption associated with the liquefaction, transportation, regasification and compression into a natural gas transmission or distribution system is considered as leakage.

4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the input values used in the financial calculations as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (a).
(a) The DOE is requested to further explain how the Gas price from Supply Contract (reference /15/ of the Validation Report) was valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision in line with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6, as the there is no date mentioned; (b) The Validation Report page 35 states: "Based on the EPC contract, the PP decided to proceed with the Project on 14/07/2011 with the consideration of CDM revenues through boards decision /Ref-09/. As the EPC contract is already available, it is unlikely in the context of the underlying project activity that the input values would have materially changed.". As there was a change in the specification on 24/08/2011 (after the investment decision), the DOE is requested to further validate if there was any material change to the input values as result of the change in the specificiaton; (c) The PDD page 13 and the Validation Report show that the levelized cost of electricity imported from other countries being 150 SGD/MWh is an estimate from Power Market Analyst contracted by PP – based on the National Energy Market of Singapore, Monthly Trading Report, Dec. 2010. The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has validated this in line with the VVS version 03.0 paragraph 120 a,b,c,d, in particular how the estimation of cost of electricity import of 150 SGD/MWh was determined, considering the information in the foot note 29 of the PDD shows that the electricity import project will likely take around 4-5 years to develop and implement, and the importer could start selling electricity to Singapore from 2017/2018 only; (d) The DOE is requested to substantiate the suitability of net station heat rate of coal power plant alternative based on India CERC for project activity implemented in Singapore in line with the VVS version 03.0 paragraph 120 a,b,c, in particular whether the alternative fo coal power plant has the same type of coal and the same type of technology as the ones states in the CERC; (e) The DOE is requested to substantiate the suitability of coal price (80 SGD/t) n line with the VVS version 03.0 paragraph 120 b,c considering the link used by the DOE to validate (reference /45/) shows that the coal price at the time of the investment decision was 157.07 SGD/t (for May 2011).