13:48 18 May 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 | 3486 |
---|---|
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration | Goiandira, Pedra do Garrafão, Pirapetinga and Sítio Grande Small Hydropower Plants Project Activity |
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. The DOE is requested to explain how it has validated the suitability of the “discount factor”/inflation rate applied in the four IRR calculations in order to obtain the “Project IRR R$ Constant” reported in the IRR calculation sheets in line with the requirements of the VVM v.1.01 para. 109 (a), (b) and (d). 2. The DOE is requested to justify how it has validated the values used for the WACC calculations were valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision, as per EB 51 Annex 58 para.6. The DOE should further validate the appropriateness of considering the American inflation rate into the WACC calculations, the “other risks” and the calculations presented in the WACC “sensitivity” spreadsheets. 3. The DOE is requested to substantiate the suitability of the net electricity generation of the projects reported, as the values mentioned in the Validation Report and PDD are not consistent with the ones used in the investment analyses (98,105 MWh/y in the spreadsheet versus 98,938 MWh/y for Pedra do Garrafão, 171,723 MWh/y versus 169,979, 170,445 or 27,976 for Sítio Grande, 149.539 MWh/y versus 147,912, 74,159 or 148,317 for Goiandira and 100,690 Mwh/y versus 99,709 or 99,436 for Pirapetinga). 4. The DOE is requested to further substantiate the common practice analysis, in particular: why only projects which started operation from 2005-2007 and with a capacity until 30MW have been included in the analysis and why only three projects have been discussed in Sub-Step 4-b given the results of the previous analysis (where in the regions five have been identified as not receiving incentives). |
|
Date | 18 Dec 10 |
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: