17:38 22 Jul 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to confirm the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (c).
The DOE is requested to explain how the requirement of the paragraph 6 of the EB62 Annex 5 is complied with. It is not clear how each input value used in all investment analysis is valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision. In doing so, the DOE shall also explain the source of each input value used, and how the sources were applicable at the time of the investment decision. It is to be noted that the PDD states that the financial performance is calculated based on the PP’s internal economic model at the time of the investment decision. However the spreadsheet shows that the CAPEX was sourced from the EPC contract.
2: 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).
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the following input values in line with the VVS version 06.0 paragraph 120 (a) and (b):
(a) OPEX and O&M costs. Both are considered in the calculation. However, it is not clear what cost components are considered under each, and how the O&M cost has been crosschecked.
(b) Tariff rate. The Validation Report page 25 states: “Since the project activity is not yet implemented the negotiation with the authority are not yet started, thus the electricity tariff used in the investment analysis is an estimation by the PPs and: (i) it reflects the higher costs of the CCGT that will be recognized by the regulator, (ii) it uses the AGFA tax regime, (iii) it set at the upper end of the IRR range that the PPs consider feasible”. Please explain how the estimated tariff (as shown in the spreadsheet) reflects the higher cost of the CCGT and sets at the upper end of the IRR range, considering the Validation Report page 24 also indicates the tariff being increased to a higher tariff in February 2002;
(c) The fuel gas consumption. It is not clear how the DOE crosschecked this input value.
(d) The appropriateness of inflation rate of 2.5% for cost and 1% escalation for revenue.
1: The DOE is requested to confirm the appropriateness of the underlying assumptions and the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (c).
The DOE is requested to explain how the requirement of the paragraph 6 of the EB62 Annex 5 is complied with. It is not clear how each input value used in all investment analysis is valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision. In doing so, the DOE shall also explain the source of each input value used, and how the sources were applicable at the time of the investment decision. It is to be noted that the PDD states that the financial performance is calculated based on the PP’s internal economic model at the time of the investment decision. However the spreadsheet shows that the CAPEX was sourced from the EPC contract.
2: 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).
The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the following input values in line with the VVS version 06.0 paragraph 120 (a) and (b):
(a) OPEX and O&M costs. Both are considered in the calculation. However, it is not clear what cost components are considered under each, and how the O&M cost has been crosschecked.
(b) Tariff rate. The Validation Report page 25 states: “Since the project activity is not yet implemented the negotiation with the authority are not yet started, thus the electricity tariff used in the investment analysis is an estimation by the PPs and: (i) it reflects the higher costs of the CCGT that will be recognized by the regulator, (ii) it uses the AGFA tax regime, (iii) it set at the upper end of the IRR range that the PPs consider feasible”. Please explain how the estimated tariff (as shown in the spreadsheet) reflects the higher cost of the CCGT and sets at the upper end of the IRR range, considering the Validation Report page 24 also indicates the tariff being increased to a higher tariff in February 2002;
(c) The fuel gas consumption. It is not clear how the DOE crosschecked this input value.
(d) The appropriateness of inflation rate of 2.5% for cost and 1% escalation for revenue.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: