Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the project starting date as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 114 and 120 (a).
Both page 16 (B.5) and 38 (C.1.1) of the PDD state that the project start date (starting of construction of the project activity) is 07/12/2010; however, page 15 of the VR confirms that the starting of construction date is 07/10/2010.

2: 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 09.0 paragraph 129 (a) (b) (c).
Insufficient information has been provided in the validation report to describe how the suitability of the parameters used below has been verified.
(a) It is not clear how the VR page 17 “Validity of input value at the time of investment decision making” of the parameter “Installed capacity 5.2 MW” concludes that the third party consultant report was available at the time of the investment decision, given that the installed capacity 5.2 MW is taken from the third party consultant report dated 27/04/2011 as per page 17 and citation number 31 of the VR and the investment decision took place on 29/10/2010.
(b) Page 17 of the VR shows that the parameter “Total investment” includes the value of “Development and general costs (1,754,787)” which is different with the Development and general costs value (1,731.70) provided by the cell G30 of the uploaded investment analysis spreadsheet “Dep. & Amort.”.
(c) The total investment is 16,226,528 USD as per the item “Parameter” of the VR page 17 which is different with the value (16,226,285 USD) provided in the table under the item “Value applied for the IRR calculation” of the VR page 17.
(d) The DOE has compared the parameter total investment cost with the other two registered CDM projects as per page 18 of the VR and further concluded that the investment is valid due to that all input values are justified although the proposed project activity total investment (16,226,285 USD) is higher than the other two registered CDM projects (PA 4560: 6.1 MW with 10,200,000 USD and PA 7159: 2.77 MW with 7,390,763 USD). However, the VR does not provide sufficient information on how the DOE considers all input values are justified and how the DOE cross checks all input values to determine accuracy and suitability.
(e) The total O&M cost is 541,750 USD as per VR page 18, to which the breakdown does not cover the item Insurance (71,720 USD) that has been included as per the cell C12 of the uploaded investment analysis spreadsheet “O&M”.
(f) The DOE has compared the O&M cost with the other two registered CDM projects as per page 19 of the VR and further concluded that the O&M is valid due to that all input values are justified although the proposed project activity total O&M cost (541,750 USD) is higher than the other two registered CDM projects (PA 4560: 6.1 MW with 518,000 USD and PA 7159: 2.77 MW with 202,878.5 USD). However, the VR does not provide sufficient information on how the DOE considers all input values are justified and how the DOE cross checks all input values to determine accuracy and suitability.