15:16 26 Apr 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all the data and parameters to be monitored in line with applied methodology as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The monitoring parameter "TDLy" is not included in the monitoring plan.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to include the details of each monitoring parameter listed as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
Regarding the parameters monitored using a gas analyzer (e.g. fvi,h & tO2,h & fvCH4,FG,h), the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane requires zero checks to be conducted for gas analyzers while this is not included in the monitoring plan.
Additionally, page 54 of PDD states that one flow meter is installed for each flare but does not state if the other parameters used to calculate flare efficiency will also be monitored separated.
3: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail the monitoring plan as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
It is not clear whether a separated flow meter will be used to monitor the landfill gas recovered since the project has flares and engines involved. The diagram in Figure B.7.2.2 "Monitoring plan for phase 2" shows that LFGflare is installed before the landfill gas is separated for gensets and flares while page 57 of the PDD states that LFGtotal is the flow meter installed at the flares measuring LFGflare,y and flow meter installed at the gensets measuring LFGelectricity,y.
4: 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 validation report does not describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity.
5: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the equations applied to calculate the baseline/ project emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per the chosen methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92.
The validation report states that "it is SQS’s opinion that the methodology has correctly been applied to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions and emission reductions." however does not provide an assessment if the selections were appropriate and the steps taken to assess the equations applied.
6: The DOE is requested to describe how the data/parameters used in the equations were verified as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 93.
The validation report does not indicate how the amount of landfill waste (historical and projected), waste composition (including its data source), default values such as TDL,y (20%) and other sources indicated in the emission reduction spreadsheet (such as efficiency of genset, operating hours, Working Efficiency and electricity consumption of of blowers) used in estimated emission reductions have been validated.
7: 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).
The validation report states that "The used input parameters for investments and O&M costs [6,7,and 8] were verified; expert judgment was used, and both, CAPEX and OPEX were found realistic and reasonable in the national and international context." and does not validate all inputs values used in financial calculations.
8: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The validation report does not assess the sensitivity analysis to determine under what conditions variations in the result would occur and the likelihood of these conditions.
9: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The validation report states that "The longer term commercial lending rate in Colombia at the time of the starting date of the project was 13.25%." and the DOE does not provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark.
10: The DOE is requested to address the changes made to the project deign since the global stakeholder consultation was conducted as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 173(c).
Validation reported states that "Main changes between the PDD (Version 01, dated 01/12/2010) published for the 30 days stakeholder commenting period and the final version (version 04, dated 27/07/2011), submitted for registration, are issues related to the six CARs and six CLs identified during validation (for details see appendix F: Summary of requests)." However emission reductions and the start date of project activity have changed between the PDD v.1 and PDD v.4, while from the CARs and CLs listed in validation report is not clear which has affected the emission reductions and the start date of the project, and how this has been solved and validated by the DOE.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list all the data and parameters to be monitored in line with applied methodology as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The monitoring parameter "TDLy" is not included in the monitoring plan.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to include the details of each monitoring parameter listed as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
Regarding the parameters monitored using a gas analyzer (e.g. fvi,h & tO2,h & fvCH4,FG,h), the Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane requires zero checks to be conducted for gas analyzers while this is not included in the monitoring plan.
Additionally, page 54 of PDD states that one flow meter is installed for each flare but does not state if the other parameters used to calculate flare efficiency will also be monitored separated.
3: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail the monitoring plan as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
It is not clear whether a separated flow meter will be used to monitor the landfill gas recovered since the project has flares and engines involved. The diagram in Figure B.7.2.2 "Monitoring plan for phase 2" shows that LFGflare is installed before the landfill gas is separated for gensets and flares while page 57 of the PDD states that LFGtotal is the flow meter installed at the flares measuring LFGflare,y and flow meter installed at the gensets measuring LFGelectricity,y.
4: 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 validation report does not describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity.
5: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the equations applied to calculate the baseline/ project emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per the chosen methodology as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92.
The validation report states that "it is SQS’s opinion that the methodology has correctly been applied to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions and emission reductions." however does not provide an assessment if the selections were appropriate and the steps taken to assess the equations applied.
6: The DOE is requested to describe how the data/parameters used in the equations were verified as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 93.
The validation report does not indicate how the amount of landfill waste (historical and projected), waste composition (including its data source), default values such as TDL,y (20%) and other sources indicated in the emission reduction spreadsheet (such as efficiency of genset, operating hours, Working Efficiency and electricity consumption of of blowers) used in estimated emission reductions have been validated.
7: 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).
The validation report states that "The used input parameters for investments and O&M costs [6,7,and 8] were verified; expert judgment was used, and both, CAPEX and OPEX were found realistic and reasonable in the national and international context." and does not validate all inputs values used in financial calculations.
8: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The validation report does not assess the sensitivity analysis to determine under what conditions variations in the result would occur and the likelihood of these conditions.
9: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The validation report states that "The longer term commercial lending rate in Colombia at the time of the starting date of the project was 13.25%." and the DOE does not provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark.
10: The DOE is requested to address the changes made to the project deign since the global stakeholder consultation was conducted as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 173(c).
Validation reported states that "Main changes between the PDD (Version 01, dated 01/12/2010) published for the 30 days stakeholder commenting period and the final version (version 04, dated 27/07/2011), submitted for registration, are issues related to the six CARs and six CLs identified during validation (for details see appendix F: Summary of requests)." However emission reductions and the start date of project activity have changed between the PDD v.1 and PDD v.4, while from the CARs and CLs listed in validation report is not clear which has affected the emission reductions and the start date of the project, and how this has been solved and validated by the DOE.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: