12:44 21 Apr 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 version 5 paragraphs 52.
The PDD page 39 has listed the CBDS (Conventional building design specifications) and PBDS (Project building design specifications) as ex ante fixed parameters and it is stated that the values are provided in Annex 4 of the PDD. However, only part of the CBDS and PBDS values are provided. The PP/DOE is requested to provided all the relevant CBDS and PBDS parameters that are considered as the inputs to the simulation software and the DOE is requested to provide the information on how it has witnessed the reproduction of the ex ante final energy consumptions based on those input values, if simulations were performed ex ante. Alternatively, the PP/DOE may publish the validated "source file" that is able to work out the energy consumption under simulation software. Those information shall enable the verifying DOE to confirm the consistency of the software settings to avoid any emission reductions that do not attribute to the proposed technologies/measures.
2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVS version 5 paragraphs 94 (c) and (e).
'The DOE is requested to provide the justification why the proposed Alternative 1 Conventional facility without energy efficiency measures (detailed as listed in Appendix 4 of the PDD) reasonably represent what would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity. i.e. how the DOE ensures that no reasonable alternative scenarios are excluded. Reasonable alternative scenarios may include: wall, glazing, AHU, chiller and cooling tower with different features.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the application of the equations and parameters for the calculation of emission reductions as per VVS version 5 paragraphs 97 and 99 (d) (e), AMS.II.E version 10, paragraph 3.
The DOE is requested to validate how certain provisions of AMS.II.Q version 01 is being adopted in conjunction with AMS.II.E version 10 without compromising on the conservativeness, i.e. why the paragraph 11, 12, 16 and 18 of AMS.II.Q version 01 are not taking into account. In doing so, the PP/DOE is also requested to clear state in the PDD/Validation report how it will ensure the accuracy and reliability of the energy simulations and how it will ensure that the emission reductions to be claimed will only attribute to the measures listed in Appendix 4 of the PDD rather than any other factor. (e.g. any different settings between baseline and project scenario except those listed in Appendix 4 of the PDD, any omission, mistake or inappropriate usage of the software, etc).
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 version 5 paragraphs 52.
The PDD page 39 has listed the CBDS (Conventional building design specifications) and PBDS (Project building design specifications) as ex ante fixed parameters and it is stated that the values are provided in Annex 4 of the PDD. However, only part of the CBDS and PBDS values are provided. The PP/DOE is requested to provided all the relevant CBDS and PBDS parameters that are considered as the inputs to the simulation software and the DOE is requested to provide the information on how it has witnessed the reproduction of the ex ante final energy consumptions based on those input values, if simulations were performed ex ante. Alternatively, the PP/DOE may publish the validated "source file" that is able to work out the energy consumption under simulation software. Those information shall enable the verifying DOE to confirm the consistency of the software settings to avoid any emission reductions that do not attribute to the proposed technologies/measures.
2: The DOE is requested to describe how it has validated the steps taken to assess the identification of the baseline scenario of the project activity as per VVS version 5 paragraphs 94 (c) and (e).
'The DOE is requested to provide the justification why the proposed Alternative 1 Conventional facility without energy efficiency measures (detailed as listed in Appendix 4 of the PDD) reasonably represent what would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity. i.e. how the DOE ensures that no reasonable alternative scenarios are excluded. Reasonable alternative scenarios may include: wall, glazing, AHU, chiller and cooling tower with different features.
3: The DOE is requested to describe how it has assessed the application of the equations and parameters for the calculation of emission reductions as per VVS version 5 paragraphs 97 and 99 (d) (e), AMS.II.E version 10, paragraph 3.
The DOE is requested to validate how certain provisions of AMS.II.Q version 01 is being adopted in conjunction with AMS.II.E version 10 without compromising on the conservativeness, i.e. why the paragraph 11, 12, 16 and 18 of AMS.II.Q version 01 are not taking into account. In doing so, the PP/DOE is also requested to clear state in the PDD/Validation report how it will ensure the accuracy and reliability of the energy simulations and how it will ensure that the emission reductions to be claimed will only attribute to the measures listed in Appendix 4 of the PDD rather than any other factor. (e.g. any different settings between baseline and project scenario except those listed in Appendix 4 of the PDD, any omission, mistake or inappropriate usage of the software, etc).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: