23:32 18 May 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the project starting date as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104 (a).
Please clarify if the chosen starting date (04/04/2008) corresponds to the signature of the purchase order or the construction and delivery of the turbine and generator. It is since the description of this date is not complety clear in two different sections:
(i) VR pg 19: In the purchase order No. 2259-00-EL-PO-001-01-6 signed between the technology supplier VATECH and the technical advisor HMV Ingenieros Ltda, has been established as a starting date for the construction and delivery of the turbine and generator April 04, 2008. The project developer decides to use this date as a starting date for the project activity, since this was the moment in which the project participants have acquired contractual obligations to develop the project (point of no return for the project developer).
(ii) VR pg 28, Table CDM Actions prior to the project start date: The construction of the project started after the technology supplier VATECH responded positively to the purchase order.
2: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the evidence provided for prior consideration of CDM as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104(b).
In particular, please clarify the date on which the decision to undertake the project as a CDM project activity was made. In doing so, please provide further information about how the DOE verified the appropriateness of the date chosen.
3: The DOE is requested to include a clear validation opinion on the compliance of the project activity with the requirements made in EB 62 Annex 13 as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 104(c).
4: The DOE is requested to confirm the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (c).
5: 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).
In particular, (i) please clarify what is the source of investment analysis input values used by PP. In doing so, please clarify how the DOE has verified that this source was valid at the time of CDM decision as per the last Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis (para. 6). (ii) how the DOE has confirmed that PLF is valid and applicable by comparing against third party or publicy available information (please provide detail information on cross checking); (iii) how the DOE has confirmed the validity of the electricity tariff used as input value as per the para. 6 of the last Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis.
6: The DOE is requested to provide information on the PPs' ability to implement the monitoring plan as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 124(c).
7: The DOE is requested to include a clear validation opinion on the adequacy of the local stakeholder consultation as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 130(b).
1: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the project starting date as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104 (a).
Please clarify if the chosen starting date (04/04/2008) corresponds to the signature of the purchase order or the construction and delivery of the turbine and generator. It is since the description of this date is not complety clear in two different sections:
(i) VR pg 19: In the purchase order No. 2259-00-EL-PO-001-01-6 signed between the technology supplier VATECH and the technical advisor HMV Ingenieros Ltda, has been established as a starting date for the construction and delivery of the turbine and generator April 04, 2008. The project developer decides to use this date as a starting date for the project activity, since this was the moment in which the project participants have acquired contractual obligations to develop the project (point of no return for the project developer).
(ii) VR pg 28, Table CDM Actions prior to the project start date: The construction of the project started after the technology supplier VATECH responded positively to the purchase order.
2: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the evidence provided for prior consideration of CDM as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 104(b).
In particular, please clarify the date on which the decision to undertake the project as a CDM project activity was made. In doing so, please provide further information about how the DOE verified the appropriateness of the date chosen.
3: The DOE is requested to include a clear validation opinion on the compliance of the project activity with the requirements made in EB 62 Annex 13 as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 104(c).
4: The DOE is requested to confirm the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (c).
5: 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).
In particular, (i) please clarify what is the source of investment analysis input values used by PP. In doing so, please clarify how the DOE has verified that this source was valid at the time of CDM decision as per the last Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis (para. 6). (ii) how the DOE has confirmed that PLF is valid and applicable by comparing against third party or publicy available information (please provide detail information on cross checking); (iii) how the DOE has confirmed the validity of the electricity tariff used as input value as per the para. 6 of the last Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis.
6: The DOE is requested to provide information on the PPs' ability to implement the monitoring plan as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 124(c).
7: The DOE is requested to include a clear validation opinion on the adequacy of the local stakeholder consultation as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 130(b).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: