09:18 01 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe the GHG sources within the project boundary in accordance with the selected methodology(ies) in the PDD as per PS version 1 paragraphs 39 and 40.
The DOE has not provided a validation opinion on why the project boiler was not included in the project boundary as shown in figure 4 of the PDD (page 15/57), given that the biogas recovered from the project activity will be destructed using both the boiler and open flare.
2: 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 has not provided a validation opinion on the baseline emissions calculation in line with para 28 (2) (a & b) of AMS III H version 16, given that the project activity is a greenfield project activity and to calculate the baseline emissions the PP has taken data from a registered PDD (i.e. PA#3702) which is allowed only if the PP can fulfill the requirement given in a clarification provided in SSC_415.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the barrier analysis as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 125-127.
a). The DOE has not provided validation opinion on 1) how the barrier analysis is in accordance with paragraph 132 (a & b) of VVS version 7.0, in particular, whether the barriers claimed in the PDD, namely, investment barriers (i.e. substantial capital investment), technological barrier (i.e. performance risk and need for more manpower) and other barrier (i.e. significant investments are required to implement project technology) have a direct impact on the financial returns of the project activity and therefore, should be assessed by investment analysis or not; and 2) how the barriers are validated to be real as per para 133 (a & b) of VVS version 7.0.
b). The DOE has not provided a validation opinion on the prevailing practice barrier as explained in the PDD (page 27/57)
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe the GHG sources within the project boundary in accordance with the selected methodology(ies) in the PDD as per PS version 1 paragraphs 39 and 40.
The DOE has not provided a validation opinion on why the project boiler was not included in the project boundary as shown in figure 4 of the PDD (page 15/57), given that the biogas recovered from the project activity will be destructed using both the boiler and open flare.
2: 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 has not provided a validation opinion on the baseline emissions calculation in line with para 28 (2) (a & b) of AMS III H version 16, given that the project activity is a greenfield project activity and to calculate the baseline emissions the PP has taken data from a registered PDD (i.e. PA#3702) which is allowed only if the PP can fulfill the requirement given in a clarification provided in SSC_415.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the barrier analysis as per VVS version 2 paragraphs 125-127.
a). The DOE has not provided validation opinion on 1) how the barrier analysis is in accordance with paragraph 132 (a & b) of VVS version 7.0, in particular, whether the barriers claimed in the PDD, namely, investment barriers (i.e. substantial capital investment), technological barrier (i.e. performance risk and need for more manpower) and other barrier (i.e. significant investments are required to implement project technology) have a direct impact on the financial returns of the project activity and therefore, should be assessed by investment analysis or not; and 2) how the barriers are validated to be real as per para 133 (a & b) of VVS version 7.0.
b). The DOE has not provided a validation opinion on the prevailing practice barrier as explained in the PDD (page 27/57)
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: