Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe the procedure taken to demonstrate additionality of the project activity as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The PP/DOE is required to provide further clarification on the ratio debt-equity of the project activity as the PDD states a ratio debt-equity 80-20 while the calculation of the WACC in the spreadsheet is done using 70-30.

2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions ( with actual data and equations) as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The DOE (p 50) states that "The net electricity exported from 2019 onwards is estimated as 1184.65GWh/year." However, the PDD (p29) indicates that the emission reduction has been calculated based on 118,465.8MWh. Further clarification is required.

3: The DOE is requested to justify why the site visit was not conducted as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 60-62.
The DOE (p14) states that "The validation team has carried out a site visit in order to assess the information included in the project documentation and to gain additional information regarding the compliance of the project with the relevant criteria applicable for CDM. Or Due to the fact that it is a Greenfield project a site visit was not carried out. All relevant project documentation has been provided in the PP´s offices. " Further clarifcation is required as it is not clear whether the site visit was conducted or not.

4: 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).
1) The escalation in merchant power tariff, as it is not clear why a growth of 5 year period is used; and
2) The refurbishment cost, in accordance with the EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6 as the source of the input value was available after the investment decision. The validation report states that these costs are determined as 10% of civil and electromechanical cost every 10 years. However, the value included in the spreadsheet accounts for 10% of total investment (not only civil and electromechanical cost). Furthermore, the DOE has not validated the increase of the refurbishment cost every 10 years, and has not crosschecked the refurbishment cost and the escalation.

5: 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 DOE is required to further clarify how it has validated the sensitivity analysis given that:
1) There is an inconsistency found. The result of the +10% variation in the generation reported is 11.16% while the spreadsheet provides a value of 11.99%. Please clarify; and
2) The variation in the project cost was done only to the total hard costs, instead of the total project cost.

6: 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 DOE is required to clarify how it has validated the benchmark of 13.01% based on WACC model with debt-equity ratio 80-20 as the calculation of the WACC in the submitted spreadsheet was based on the debt-equity ratio 70-30.

7: The DOE is requested to resolve all CARs and CLs raised as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 37.
The DOE (p 35) states that "the PLF is accepted and the CL is converted into FAR on the following lines:
“In case in any year, the generation exceeds 1199 GWh, the additionality of the project will be reviewed”. However, no FAR is included in section 4 Validation Findings, where table 4-1 reports 17 CARs, 5 CLs and 0 FARs.