21:05 06 Jul 25
Registration Request for Review Form
CDM project activity/programme of activities registration request review form (CDM-REGR-FORM) (Version 03.0) |
---|
Reference number of the proposed CDM project activity/programme of activities (PoA) submitted for registration | 3213 |
---|---|
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration | Gul Ahmed Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Project |
Please indicate, in accordance with paragraphs 37 and 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures, which validation requirement(s) may require review. A list of requirements is provided below. Please provide reasons in support of the request for review. Including any supporting documentation. | |
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 37 of the CDM modalities and procedures: | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures: | |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Additional information | |
1. Further clarification is sought on how the DOE has validated the prevailing practice barrier to the project activity (combined cycle gas turbine) and the sources used to substantiate the barrier. 2. Further clarification is sought on how the DOE has validated the benchmark of the project activity with reference to VVM 1.1 para 111 and EB 51, Annex 58, para 12-14; the DOE should also justify the suitability of the components used to calculate the WACC and clarify the inconsistency in the loan rate (10%) validated and the value used as cost of debt (11.25%). 3. Further clarification is sought how the DOE has validated: (a) the input values to the investment analysis and whether these values were available at the time of investment decision; (b) the cost of the equipment (VR, p16) as per the VVM 1.1 para. 113 (a, c) and (c) the inconsistency in the use of gas consumption (0.41 m3/kWh) assumed in the spreadsheet versus that validated as 0.39 m3/kWh (VR, p17). Further a sensitivity analysis for the investment analysis should also be submitted. 4. Further clarification is sought on how the DOE has validated the remaining lifetime of the project activity as per para 6 (a), (b) of the applied methodology. Further the DOE should provide a timeline of the dates of overhaul of all the baseline equipments. |
|
Date | 30 Jun 10 |
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: