06:06 01 Jul 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list and justify in the PDD the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per PS ver. 9 paragraph 55.
In calculating the baseline biomass-based heat generation (step 3.1), the ER spreadsheet (Tab “calculation” cell B269) has applied a value of 100% (linked to cell F104) as baseline load factor of the heat generator (LFCHG,h). Based on this the PP has demonstrated that the “heat generation in the heat generator is less than the total capacity of the heat generator (i.e. equation 16: 1,070,914 GJ < 7,296,912 GJ). However, it is noted that (i) the applied value refers to “Load factor for Heat Engine 1” (Tab “calculation, cell E104) whereas the methodology (equation 16) specifies that the value should be based on the “heat generator”; and (ii) the determination of the value is not traceable in excel sheet and or provided in the PDD. The PP/DOE are requested to address the inconsistency in the data source for LFCHG,h and provide information on how the LFCHG,h (100%) was determined.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail in the PDD the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions, with the values available for validation and the equations used, as per PS ver. 9 paragraph 53.
The PDD (pg. 44) has explained that the project emissions due to "reduction in electricity generation at the project site as compared to the baseline scenario (PEGR2,y)" are zero and stated that “The present project activity is not classified neither at Case 3.3.2 or Case 4.2.2, therefore there is no reduction in electricity generation at the project site as compared to the baseline”. However in step 4.1 (case 4.1.2) and the ER excel sheet (calculation F395) it has been demonstrated that the project activity meets conditions for “case 4.1.2” (ELbalance,FF,y < ELBL,FF,y _ i.e. the amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline exceeds the amount of electricity generated in the project scenario); and ELPJoffset,y was calculated as 87,018 MWh. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information on how the calculation of project emissions (PEGR2,y) is in line with the applied methodology (pg. 48) considering that ELbalance,FF,y < ELBL,FF,y.
3: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS ver. 09 paragraphs 141, 144 (a) (b) (c) and 145.
The PDD (pg. 42) indicates that the ELbalance,FF,y < ELBL,FF,y (i.e. the amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline exceeds the amount of electricity generated in the project scenario). However, the VR (pg. 15) indicates that the proposed project activity is a net exporter of electricity to the grid. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency and report how it has validated the appropriateness of the energy balances conducted.
1: The PP/DOE are requested to list and justify in the PDD the data and parameters used to calculate the emission reductions as per PS ver. 9 paragraph 55.
In calculating the baseline biomass-based heat generation (step 3.1), the ER spreadsheet (Tab “calculation” cell B269) has applied a value of 100% (linked to cell F104) as baseline load factor of the heat generator (LFCHG,h). Based on this the PP has demonstrated that the “heat generation in the heat generator is less than the total capacity of the heat generator (i.e. equation 16: 1,070,914 GJ < 7,296,912 GJ). However, it is noted that (i) the applied value refers to “Load factor for Heat Engine 1” (Tab “calculation, cell E104) whereas the methodology (equation 16) specifies that the value should be based on the “heat generator”; and (ii) the determination of the value is not traceable in excel sheet and or provided in the PDD. The PP/DOE are requested to address the inconsistency in the data source for LFCHG,h and provide information on how the LFCHG,h (100%) was determined.
2: The PP/DOE are requested to describe in detail in the PDD the calculation of ex-ante emission reductions, with the values available for validation and the equations used, as per PS ver. 9 paragraph 53.
The PDD (pg. 44) has explained that the project emissions due to "reduction in electricity generation at the project site as compared to the baseline scenario (PEGR2,y)" are zero and stated that “The present project activity is not classified neither at Case 3.3.2 or Case 4.2.2, therefore there is no reduction in electricity generation at the project site as compared to the baseline”. However in step 4.1 (case 4.1.2) and the ER excel sheet (calculation F395) it has been demonstrated that the project activity meets conditions for “case 4.1.2” (ELbalance,FF,y < ELBL,FF,y _ i.e. the amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline exceeds the amount of electricity generated in the project scenario); and ELPJoffset,y was calculated as 87,018 MWh. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information on how the calculation of project emissions (PEGR2,y) is in line with the applied methodology (pg. 48) considering that ELbalance,FF,y < ELBL,FF,y.
3: The DOE is requested to verify the justification of the data used for the ex-ante emission reduction calculations as per VVS ver. 09 paragraphs 141, 144 (a) (b) (c) and 145.
The PDD (pg. 42) indicates that the ELbalance,FF,y < ELBL,FF,y (i.e. the amount of electricity generated on-site in the baseline exceeds the amount of electricity generated in the project scenario). However, the VR (pg. 15) indicates that the proposed project activity is a net exporter of electricity to the grid. The DOE is requested to address this inconsistency and report how it has validated the appropriateness of the energy balances conducted.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: