Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to present common practice analysis as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
Please use the lasted Tool and guidelines related to the common practice analysis to conduct the common practice analysis for the re-submission.

2: The DOE is requested to include description of the process taken to validate the accuracy and completeness of the project description in VR as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 64(a).
(a) The description of No. 1 and 2 coke ovens is not consistent among the validation report and PDD. Please explain whether the No. 1 and 2 coke ovens are existing facilities or new facilities.
(b) Please explain whether the No 3 and 4 coke ovens are retrofitted to a new CDQ coke oven or replaced by a new CDQ coke oven.

3: The DOE is requested to describe how each applicability condition of the methodology/ies is fulfilled by the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 76.
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the remaining lifetime of the waste energy generation equipments (No 1, 2, 3 and 4 coke ovens) as required by ACM0012 version 4 (page 4).
(b) The DOE shall explain how the waste energy released from No. 3 and 4 coke ovens are conservatively estimated as per Annex 2 of ACM0012 version 4. In doing so, please provide the energy balance of the waste energy generation facility in the baseline scenario (applying CWQ for coke quenching), including the process parameters.
(d) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the extent of use of waste energy in coke ovens 1 and 2 in baseline scenario (applying CWQ for coke quenching) given that the CDQ coke ovens 1 and 2 start operation at the same time with the project activity and the parameters of the CDQ coke ovens may not represents the characteristic of the CWQ coke ovens in the baseline scenario. The DOE/PP may refers to Annex 1 of ACM0012 version 4.

4: The DOE is requested to describe the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 87.
The DOE shall explain how it has validated the baseline scenario of CDQ coke ovens No. 1 and 2.

5: The DOE is requested to state if the methodology provides different options for equations and parameters and if the selection is appropriate as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 90.
The DOE shall explain how it has validated that the method applied to determine the fcap, in particular, why method 2 is not applicable considering the hierarchy requirement of the three options specified in page 29 of ACM0012 version 4.

6: The DOE is requested to state whether the data and parameters are conservative and appropriate if they are fixed ex-ante (not need to monitor) during the project activity crediting period as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
(a) The DOE shall explain how it has validated the appropriateness of the QOE,BL calculation, given that fact that this value is calculated based on the process parameters of CDQ coke ovens in the project scenario other than the process parameters of CWQ coke ovens in the baseline scenario.
(b) The DOE shall explain how it has validated that it is conservative to determine QOE,BL using the design capacity of coke oven 3 and 4, given that the the annul actual red coke output of No.3 and 4 coke oven is less than the design capacity of 1,100,000t (page 33 of the PDD). Please refer to page 32 of ACM0012 version 4.

7: 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 shall explain how it has validated the suitability of:
(a) the number of employees;
(b) the cost of management fee;
(c) cost of overhaul;
(d) other producing fees, in particular, whether the sub-components of other producing fees are directly related and applicable to the project activity;
(e) material costs, in particular, whether some part of the material costs have been double counted given that there are two O&M cost components related to material costs ("cost of material" and "Material and fuel power cost") in the investment spreadsheet.
In addition, the DOE shall explain how it has validated that this project is 100% financed with equity by the project owner.