10:41 16 Jun 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe on identification of baseline scenario(s) in the PDD as per PS ver. 07 paragraphs 47-52
The PDD (pg. 30) identified alternative scenario 2 as “the continuation of the current practice” i.e. continuation of power and heat generation in existing power plants at the project site. The VR (pg. 25) reports that the identified alternative scenario 2 corresponds to “scenario S3 according to terminology in the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality” and therefore the NPV was put equal to zero. However, the continuation of the current practice involves expenses for operation and maintenance for the continued use of the existing boilers and costs due to purchase of the imported electricity (which has not been clearly defined) whereas the identified “scenario S3” does not involve any expenses to maintain the current situation as it involves activities such as venting of methane from a landfill or continued release of N2O from adipic production. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail in the PDD the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions, with the values available for validation and the equations used, as per PS ver. 07 paragraph 58.
The PDD (step 1.3 and step 3.1) have reported baseline load factors of heat engine (LFCEG,CG,i) cogeneration mode of 48% and heat generators (LFCHG,h) of 0.879 respectively. The VR (pg. 30) reports that the values were confirmed during the onsite visit and calculations. However, the submitted CERs spread sheet (BL step 1.3_ cell C26 and BL 3.1 _ cell C12) does not contain information on how these values were calculated.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description as per VVS ver. 07 paragraph 65.
The PDD (pg. 42) indicates that during the project implementation " two new heat generators will be used (b6 and b7); and an existing heat generator (b5) will be kept as back-up ". The DOE has validated (VR pg. 18) that "the old cogeneration system will be retained as backup". The PP/DOE are requested to correct this inconsistency. In doing so please identify clearly which baseline heat generators and steam turbines will be retained as back-ups.
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 127 and 130 (a).
The DOE is requested to provide information on how the "electricity forecast" was validated. In doing so please include information on the validation of the "Load Factor of CG" (refer to the "Cash flow excel sheet_Forecast electricity_Cell B6).
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe on identification of baseline scenario(s) in the PDD as per PS ver. 07 paragraphs 47-52
The PDD (pg. 30) identified alternative scenario 2 as “the continuation of the current practice” i.e. continuation of power and heat generation in existing power plants at the project site. The VR (pg. 25) reports that the identified alternative scenario 2 corresponds to “scenario S3 according to terminology in the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality” and therefore the NPV was put equal to zero. However, the continuation of the current practice involves expenses for operation and maintenance for the continued use of the existing boilers and costs due to purchase of the imported electricity (which has not been clearly defined) whereas the identified “scenario S3” does not involve any expenses to maintain the current situation as it involves activities such as venting of methane from a landfill or continued release of N2O from adipic production. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail in the PDD the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions, with the values available for validation and the equations used, as per PS ver. 07 paragraph 58.
The PDD (step 1.3 and step 3.1) have reported baseline load factors of heat engine (LFCEG,CG,i) cogeneration mode of 48% and heat generators (LFCHG,h) of 0.879 respectively. The VR (pg. 30) reports that the values were confirmed during the onsite visit and calculations. However, the submitted CERs spread sheet (BL step 1.3_ cell C26 and BL 3.1 _ cell C12) does not contain information on how these values were calculated.
3: The DOE is requested to describe the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description as per VVS ver. 07 paragraph 65.
The PDD (pg. 42) indicates that during the project implementation " two new heat generators will be used (b6 and b7); and an existing heat generator (b5) will be kept as back-up ". The DOE has validated (VR pg. 18) that "the old cogeneration system will be retained as backup". The PP/DOE are requested to correct this inconsistency. In doing so please identify clearly which baseline heat generators and steam turbines will be retained as back-ups.
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 127 and 130 (a).
The DOE is requested to provide information on how the "electricity forecast" was validated. In doing so please include information on the validation of the "Load Factor of CG" (refer to the "Cash flow excel sheet_Forecast electricity_Cell B6).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: