Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 65 and 70.
(a) The PDD on page 5 mentions the implementation of 1.4 MW mini hydropower plant. Clarify whether this is part of the project activity or whether the mini hydropower plant would have still been implemented without the project activity. It this plant was only built due to the project activity, explain whether there will be project emissions from this plant (e.g. electricity consumption from the grid);
(b) The DOE is requested to clarify the total capacity of the project activity, whether it is 253 MW or 254.4 MW.

2: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 74, 75 and 78.
To demonstrate the compliance with paragraph 8 of the methodology, the PDD states that the water balance is demonstrated by the document “Profile Sendplades Toach 2010” page 93. However as shown in page 27 of the Validation Report, this document was not reviewed by the DOE. The DOE is requested to explain how it validated the compliance with paragraph 8 of the methodology. In particular the following requirements in the paragraph: "The purpose of water balance is to demonstrate the requirement of specific combination of reservoirs constructed under CDM project activity for the optimization of power output. This demonstration has to be carried out in the specific scenario of water availability in different seasons to optimize the water flow at the inlet of power units. Therefore this water balance will take into account seasonal flows from river, tributaries (if any), and rainfall for minimum five years prior to implementation of CDM project activity."

3: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 98, 99 (a) (b) (c) and 100.
The DOE is requested to explain how the requirement from the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system" version 04.0 to use the most recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation for EF OM and EF BM calculation has been complied with, considering the validation started on 08/09/2011 whereas the EF calculation uses data of year 2011, 2012 and 2013.

4: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the project starting date as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 112.
The DOE is requested to provide explanation why any of the following earlier events is not considered as the project start date as per the Glossary CDM of terms: Signature of Agreement of Engineering, Supplies, Construction, Installation and Commissioning Detail of the TPHP (228 MW) on 19/12/2007, Signature of Electromechanical Works Execution Agreement on 25/10/2010, Signature of the Civil Work Construction Agreement for the TPHP) on 24/12/2010.

5: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the suitability of the input values used in the financial calculations as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 120 and 123 (a).
The DOE is requested to explain how the following input values have been validated in line with paragraph 6 of the Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis, version 05.0, in particular how they were available at the time of the investment decision (12/04/2011, when the Credit Agreement between HIDROTOAPI E.P. and EXIMBANK of Russia was signed):
(a) BIESS and EXIM bank credit (amount, financial rates and crediting periods), considering the of sources were dated after the date of the investment decision (BIESS in May 2011 and EXIM in April 2011);
(b) Energy price, considering it is not clear what the source of price when making the investment decision in April 2011.

6: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraph 127 (e).
The page 21 of the PDD presents the conditions and their likelihood that would make the IRR cross the benchmark. However, the validation report has not provided information on how the DOE has validated this.

7: The DOE is requested to report how it has validated common practice analysis as per VVS version 7 paragraphs 136 and 137.
The DOE is requested to provide explanation on the investment climate during the development of Mazar Hydroelectric Project, and that of the project activity, in order to conclude that the investment climates are different.