Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The DOE should verify the inconsistency between the amount of energy (i.e. 1,094,010 MWh/year) indicated in the PDD Page 38, and the amount indicated in Page 36 (i.e. 156,287 MWh/yr).

2: The DOE is requested to include description of the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description in VR as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 64(a).
The DOE should further clarify why the installed capacity of the plant is stated to be 31.3MW, given that 3 Francis turbines with a nominal capacity of 10.88MW each (PDD, page 6 and VR, page 9) will be installed, and hence the total nominal capacity is 32.64MW . Please note that according to ACM0002 version 12 "The installed power generation capacity of a power unit is the capacity, expressed in Watts or one of its multiples, for which the power unit has been designed to operate at nominal conditions. The installed power generation capacity of a power plant is the sum of the installed power generation capacities of its power units.

3: 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 DOE should further explain how CAR13 has been closed considering an annual generation of 156,000 MWh/y, whereas the VR (page 9,17, mentions that the expected annual generation is 156,287 MWh/year. Further, CAR 12 seems to contradict CAR 13. The DOE should also provide a validation opinion on how the PLF of 57% has been validated in line with the “GUIDELINES FOR THE REPORTING AND VALIDATION OF PLANT LOAD FACTORS”, EB 48 Annex 11.

4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the credibility of the barrier analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 118.
1. The DOE should provide a validation opinion on how the barrier due to project location is in line with guidelines 2 and 4 of the "GUIDELINES FOR OBJECTIVE DEMONSTRATION AND ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS" and paragraph 37 of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality" Version 06.0, given that: a) it is not clear how CDM helped to overcome the barrier claimed, and b) it is also not clear whether the additional expenses incurred by the PP (such as the yearly canon paid to ANAM) could be translated into financial terms and can therefore be assessed with an investment analysis.
2. The DOE should explain why the prevailing practice barrier, which is not in line with the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality" Version 06.0, and therefore not accepted by the DOE, was not removed from the PDD.
3. The DOE should explain why the investment barrier, which is not in line with the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality" Version 06.0 and guidelines 1 and 6 of the "GUIDELINES FOR OBJECTIVE DEMONSTRATION AND ASSESSMENT OF BARRIERS", and therefore not accepted by the DOE, was not removed from the PDD.

5: The PDD must undergo global stakeholder consultation for 30 days or 45 days for large-scale forestation/Reforestation projects as per VVM v1.2, paragraph 40, 174 (c).
The DOE should further explain how each of the negative comments raised by stakeholders during the publication of the PDD has been answered in line with para. 41 of the VVM.