23:20 19 Jan 26
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to explain the methodological choices for the calculation of the baseline, project emissions and emission reductions as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
Parameters/variables in equation (ix) and (x) in the PDD page 30 and in equations in page 43 are missing.
2: The DOE is requested to state if the baseline methodology is correctly applied to calculate project/baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92(d).
The validation report page 21 mentions that the calculation of emission factor of the DG set has been in accordance with para 16 (ii) of the methodology. However, the values of the specific fuel consumption from the two manufacturers have not been presented.
3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
The DOE has not explained how the capital cost for 40.30 MW capacity from the feasibility report is appropriate, in particular the capital cost of the 3.88 MW gas engine, as the DOE has only referred to the actual capacity of 3.904 MW.
4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The validation report has not explained how the default return on equity of 11.75% sourced from EB62 Annex 5 was applicable at the time of the investment decision in accordance with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6. Furthermore, the validation report has not explained how the calculation is in accordance with the EB 62 Annex 5 paragraph 7 of appendix (i.e. In situations where an investment analysis is carried out in nominal terms, project participants can convert the real term values provided in the table below to nominal values by adding the inflation rate.).
1: The PP/DOE are requested to explain the methodological choices for the calculation of the baseline, project emissions and emission reductions as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
Parameters/variables in equation (ix) and (x) in the PDD page 30 and in equations in page 43 are missing.
2: The DOE is requested to state if the baseline methodology is correctly applied to calculate project/baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 92(d).
The validation report page 21 mentions that the calculation of emission factor of the DG set has been in accordance with para 16 (ii) of the methodology. However, the values of the specific fuel consumption from the two manufacturers have not been presented.
3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
The DOE has not explained how the capital cost for 40.30 MW capacity from the feasibility report is appropriate, in particular the capital cost of the 3.88 MW gas engine, as the DOE has only referred to the actual capacity of 3.904 MW.
4: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The validation report has not explained how the default return on equity of 11.75% sourced from EB62 Annex 5 was applicable at the time of the investment decision in accordance with EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6. Furthermore, the validation report has not explained how the calculation is in accordance with the EB 62 Annex 5 paragraph 7 of appendix (i.e. In situations where an investment analysis is carried out in nominal terms, project participants can convert the real term values provided in the table below to nominal values by adding the inflation rate.).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: