Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the actions taken to secure the CDM status between the project starting date and the start of validation as per EB 49 Annex 22 paragraph 8 b.
In particular, the DOE should provide a validation opinion on the specific CDM deliverables and actions carried out under the first and second CDM consultancy contracts. Further, the DOE should confirm whether the sequence of events is correct, given that the validation report indicates that the letter of intent to buy the CERs was concluded after the ERPA.

In addition, there are several inconsistencies between the PDD and the Validation Report, namely: date of the board decision to pursue the CDM, date on which the project participant applies to the Guizhou Development and Reform Commission for CDM support, name of the CDM consultant and the reference to the ERPA /17/ . Please clarify.

2: 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).
Further validate the suitability of the debt/equity ratio and loan repayment.
In addition the following inconsistency was observed: reference for the 'economic evaluation code for small hydropower project'/13/ seems incorrect.

3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The DOE is requested to determine under what variation in the input values the IRR would reach the benchmark and the likelihood of these conditions.

4: The DOE is requested to identify if the FSR has been the basis of the investment decision as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 113 (a).
There is no clear statement that the PDR was the basis for the investment decision. It is unclear whether the PDR was available at the time of the investment decision as there is an inconsistency between the PDD and the validation report regarding the draft PDR. In the PDD (page 15) a draft PDR was available in March 2005, whereas the validation report (page 11) only reports on a meeting with the design institute in March 2005. Please clarify.

5: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the existence of the similar projects for common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (b).
There is an inconsistency between the projects presented for analysis between the PDD and the validation report.

6: The DOE is requested to provide information on how the distinctive differences between the project activity and the similar projects identified in the selected scope are justified as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (c).
In particular, the DOE should provide a validation opinion on why the similar activities identified were able to achieve lower unit investment cost and higher operational hours than the proposed project.

7: The DOE is requested to describe the steps undertaken to assess if the monitoring arrangements are feasible to be implemented within the project design as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 124(b).
Inconsistent information is given about where electricity generation will be monitored. Page 9 of the validation report says monitoring will be carried out 'in the power station' (and therefore line losses are 0%). This statement appears to show that meters M1, M2 and M3 will be used. However, page 15 of the same validation report states that EG will be monitored at the meters installed at Yuni and Yezhong substations, hence that M4 and M5 meters will be used.
The PDD, on the other hand, states that electricity generation will be monitored at M1, M2 and M3 meters. Please clarify.