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	4562
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration	Line 5 & 6 - PFC emission reduction at DUBAL
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 participation requirements as set out in paragraph 28 to 30 of the CDM modalities and procedures are satisfied; Comments by local stakeholders have been invited, a summary of the comments received has been provided, and a report to the designated operational entity (DOE) on how due account was taken of any comments has been received; Project Participants have submitted to the DOE documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity, including transboundary impacts and, if those impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, have undertaken an environmental impact assessment in accordance with procedures as required by the host Party; The project activity is expected to result in a reduction in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, in accordance with paragraphs 43 to 52 of the CDM modalities and procedures; The baseline and monitoring methodologies comply with requirements pertaining to methodologies previously approved by the Executive Board; Provisions for monitoring, verification and reporting are in accordance with decision 17/CP.7, the CDM modalities and procedures and relevant decisions of the COP/MOP; The project activity conforms to all other requirements for CDM project activities in decision 17/CP.7, the CDM modalities and procedures and relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the Executive Board.
The following are requirements derived from paragraph 40 of the CDM modalities and procedures:
The DOE shall, prior to the submission of the validation report to the Executive Board, have received from the project participants written approval of voluntary participation from the designated national authority of each Party involved, including confirmation by the host Party that the project activity assists it in achieving sustainable development; In accordance with provisions on confidentiality contained in paragraph 27(h) of the CDM modalities and procedures, the DOE shall make publicly available the project design document; The DOE shall receive, within 30 days, comments on the validation requirements from Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited non-governmental organizations and make them publicly available; After the deadline for receipt of comments, the DOE shall make a determination as to whether, on the basis of the information provided and taking into account the comments received, the project activity should be validated; The DOE shall inform project participants of its determination on the validation of the project activity. Notification to the project participants will include confirmation of validation and the date of submission of the validation report to the Executive Board; The DOE shall submit to the Executive Board, if it determines the proposed project activity to be valid, a request for registration in the form of a validation report including of the project design document, the written approval of the host Party and an explanation of how it has taken due account of comments received.
There are only minor issues which should be addressed by the DOE/project participants prior to the registration of the project.
Additional information
1. The DOE shall further substantiate (a) the suitability of input values of the investment comparison, in particular the assumed aluminium sales price and electricity price rate in line with paragraph 111 (a) & (b) of VVM v1.2; (b) how it has validated the sensitivity analysis in line with paragraph 111 (e) of VVM v1.2 given that the investment cost related parameter “algorithm development costs” and the electricity price rate have not been considered into the sensitivity analysis; (c) the input values are valid at the time of investment decision in line with paragraph 6 of the "GUIDELINES ON THE ASSESSMENT OF INVESTMENT ANALYSIS" version 3.1, in particular parameter “discount rate”, “annual electricity savings”, “algorithm development costs” and “O&M costs”. 2. The DOE shall further explain how it has validated the common practice analysis in line with paragraph 120 (a) & (b) of VVM v1.2 , in particular, why the common practice is limited to the aluminium plants operation before 2000 and how the technology applied by the project is differentiated from the technology applied by ALBA plant. 3. The DOE shall further substantiate (a) why the alternative 6 has a lower baseline emission than alternative 5 as per AM0030 v3 (page 3); (b) why alternative 6 (continuation of the existing practice maintaining aluminium production at pre-project levels, which is the identified baseline) has not been considered into the investment comparison for the baseline identification; (c) how it has validatedthe relevant national/sectoral policies/circumstances that are considered in the baseline identification as per paragraph 87 (d) of VVM v1.2. 4. The DOE shall further substantiate how it has validated the data used for the determination of baseline emission factor as per the requirement of AM0030 v3 (page 5), in particular whether the selected years of measurement correspond to the most stable and lowest anode effect period. 5. The DOE shall confirm that the PP includes the parameter EFCF4 and EFC2F6 into the monitoring plan as per the requirement of AM0030 v3 (page 14).
Date	20 May 11