Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to complete all the PDD sections for the description of the project activity as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
The flow diagram of the project boundary (PDD, page 20) should represent the emission sources and gases included in the project boundary and the monitoring variables as per EB41, Annex12.

2: The DOE is requested to include validation opinion on the accuracy and completeness of the project description in the validation report as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 64(b).
The DOE shall validate the accuracy and consistency of the project description in the PDD and validation report as: (a) the technical area of the project activity was described as "Thermal Energy Generation" (validation report, page 7) whereas the project activity was described as electricity generation in PDD and other sections of the validation report; and (b) the section A.2 of the PDD indicates that steam generated by the waste heat recovery boilers is directly fed into the steam turbine whereas the figure of project boundary (PDD, page 20) shows that the steam generated by the waste heat recovery boilers is fed into a common header and an additional coal based boiler (AFBC) is also involved in the project boundary.

3: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 76.
The DOE shall explain how it has validated the applicability conditions as per ACM0012 v3.2, page 2 to page 5, in particular: (a) whether the project participant (SMC Power Generation Ltd.) is the owner of the industrial facility producing the waste energy; (b) how the DOE has validated that the project activity is implemented in an existing facility as per AM_CLA_0219 (EB 61, Annex 5); and (c) how the DOE has validated the use of waste energy in absence of CDM project activity.
In doing so, please also provide: (a) the energy balance of the relevant sections of the industrial facility; and (b) the commissioning date of the industrial facility.

4: 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).
In doing so, please provide the detailed information on documents (including the title, date, related parties of the document) which have been validated.

5: The DOE shall explain how it has validated that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status in parallel with its implementation as per EB62, Annex 13, paragraph 6(b) & 7.
In doing so, please also: (a) explain whether the consent on 29/01/2004 and Environmental Clearance is solely used to secure the CDM status; (b) explain in details how each evidence has been cross-checked (e.g. first consultant contract, the internal development of PDD etc.; and (c) provide detailed information on each document checked (including the title, date and related parties of the document).

6: 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, how the DOE has validated that the benefits of the CDM were a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the project. In doing so, please also specify the basis (e.g. a specific financial indicator) of the investment decision for the project activity, please refer to EB62, Annex 13, paragraph 6 (a).

7: The DOE shall explain how it has validated the accuracy of the financial calculation as per VVM version 1.2, paragraph 111, considering that the IRR of the project activity in this submission (6.94%, "Appendix 2 - 5517 Unit Cost Power Comparison") is not consistent with the IRR of the previous submission (10.20%, https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/SGS-UKL1204728759.39/view) which was rejected in EB 43.
In doing so, please also explain how the DOE has validated the availability and validity of each input value used in the financial analysis at the time of investment decision.

8: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed each barrier presented as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 118 (a) and (b).
The DOE shall explain how it has validate the barrier (technological barrier) as per EB 50, Annex 13, paragraph 4,5,6,7 & 8

9: Please re-submit the project activity using the methodology of the latest version.