03:54 20 May 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 VVS version 7 paragraphs 78 and 79.
The remaining lifetime of the existing heat generation equipment (i.e. the existing kiln) has not been determined nor reported as per the "Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment", since the indicated remaining lifetime is for the new kiln not the existing kiln. In doing so, the project participant shall specify which option of the tool has been applied to determine the remaining lifetime of the existing equipment. If option (a) of the tool is applied, supporting documentation should be provided to the DOE, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the remaining lifetime of the existing equipment as per the tool, including the technical lifetime of the existing equipment and the operational time of it etc.
2: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 103.
The upper value of the effective CO2 emission factor for combustion has been used to determine the ex-ante parameter EFFF,CO2,y. The DOE shall explain how it has validated that the value of this parameter is chosen in a conservative manner. Please refer to page 21 of the AM0036 version 4.
3: 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 7 paragraphs 125 -127.
Step 2 of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality" have provided three options to carry out the investment analysis, however, the project participant has not explain the exclusion of option 2 (i.e. investment comparison) to carry out the investment analysis. The DOE shall explain how it has validated the appropriateness of the investment analysis as per paragraph 19 of the EB62 Annex 5, considering the baseline scenario indicate an investment.
Further, if benchmark analysis is applied, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the investment costs and operational cost which would have occurred in the baseline scenario.
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the barrier analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 132-134.
It is not clear how the barrier analysis has been carried out and assessed as per EB50, Annex 13, in particular, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the technological barrier as per EB50, Annex 13. Further, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the barrier due to prevailing practice as per step 3 of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality", since the step 3 does not include an option of barrier due to prevailing practice.
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 7 paragraphs 78 and 79.
The remaining lifetime of the existing heat generation equipment (i.e. the existing kiln) has not been determined nor reported as per the "Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment", since the indicated remaining lifetime is for the new kiln not the existing kiln. In doing so, the project participant shall specify which option of the tool has been applied to determine the remaining lifetime of the existing equipment. If option (a) of the tool is applied, supporting documentation should be provided to the DOE, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the remaining lifetime of the existing equipment as per the tool, including the technical lifetime of the existing equipment and the operational time of it etc.
2: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 103.
The upper value of the effective CO2 emission factor for combustion has been used to determine the ex-ante parameter EFFF,CO2,y. The DOE shall explain how it has validated that the value of this parameter is chosen in a conservative manner. Please refer to page 21 of the AM0036 version 4.
3: 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 7 paragraphs 125 -127.
Step 2 of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality" have provided three options to carry out the investment analysis, however, the project participant has not explain the exclusion of option 2 (i.e. investment comparison) to carry out the investment analysis. The DOE shall explain how it has validated the appropriateness of the investment analysis as per paragraph 19 of the EB62 Annex 5, considering the baseline scenario indicate an investment.
Further, if benchmark analysis is applied, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the investment costs and operational cost which would have occurred in the baseline scenario.
4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the barrier analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 132-134.
It is not clear how the barrier analysis has been carried out and assessed as per EB50, Annex 13, in particular, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the technological barrier as per EB50, Annex 13. Further, the DOE shall explain how it has validated the barrier due to prevailing practice as per step 3 of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality", since the step 3 does not include an option of barrier due to prevailing practice.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: