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	5219
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration	1.6 MW Bundled Rice Husk Based Cogeneration Plant by M/s Milkfood Limited in Patiala (Punjab) & Moradabad (U.P) Districts
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) With regard to the efficiency value of the baseline boiler, it is not clear whether the DOE validated it based on para 26 (b) of the applied methodology, i.e. whether the reported value is the highest of the two values from the boiler manufacturer (Cheema Boiler Ltd.) and the third party engineering certificate (Industrial Boiler Limited). The VR report states that the baseline boiler efficiency has been validated against para 25 of AMS-I.C version 18 (VR page 48), while para 25 is not applicable to the project. Para 25 applies to baseline co-generation plants, while the individuated baseline scenario for the project activity is "the electricity imported from the grid and thermal energy (steam/heat) production using fossil fuel", which is not a co-generation plant. Therefore, the DOE is requested to clarify how it has validated the correctness of the determination of the value of the baseline boiler efficiency. Please refer to ACM-I.C. version 18 paragraph 25 and 26. 2) The parameter "CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of diesel that would have been used in the  project activity,  as source of power back-up in case of  complete blackout (EF, CO2,i,y)" is considered by the PDD as a parameter not to be monitored. However para 48 no. 2 of the applied methodology requires its monitoring in line with the "Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption, i.e. in order of sequence: i) at each fuel delivery, as provided by the fuel supplier of measured by PP; or ii) annually, if regional or national default values are used; or iii) at any future revision of IPCC guidelines, if IPCC default value is used. In this context, the DOE is requested to clarify how it has validated that the monitoring plan complies with the methodology requirement. Please refer to EB41 Annex 11 page 7, AMS-I.C version 19 paragraph 48 no. 2.
Date	19 Jan 12