01:36 01 Sep 24
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 | 6818 |
---|---|
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration | Daegu Metro 3th Urban Railroad |
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 reuqested further substantiate the following input values: a) the discount rate of 5.57 %, considering that two other metro projects (Incheon Line 2, Busan Line 1 extension) with similar financing structure (60% federal and 40% municipal budget) validated by the same DOE have applied 0% discount rate; b) the total investment: how it has considered the range of 35-89 million USD for metro lines world wide (Bus-systems for the future, IEA, 2002) comparable, considering that: i) the project activity is a mono-rail; and ii) there are several metro projects in the host country and neighboring countries; c) the operational cost: how it has validated: i) the Operational Cost per Passenger for the project activity, the validation report does not include this information, ii) the selected domestic metro line and overseas metro lines for comparison, and iii) the suitability of the number of employees, salary, electricity cost, electricity consumption and maintenance cost; d) the revenue: how it has validated i) the passenger projection, ii) the average fare, in particular, whether the population share of each fare group is likely to represent the passenger share, and iii) whether the non-fare box revenue is included in the revenue, and if so, whether it is subject to the risk rate. e) the risk rates of 30%, whether all lines in the host country were considered; and f) the cost of the trial run of 15,600 million KRW, accounted as cash outflow in 2014. Please refer to VVM version 1.2 paragraph 111.. 2) The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has validated the common practice analysis as: a) the set of cities used for comparison includes cities with population less than 1 million while the methodology (page 6) states "If the larger urban zone (LUZ) of the city of the project activity contains more than one million inhabitants, then the set of cities for comparison includes all cities (including the city of the project activity) in the host country with a LUZ that contains more than 1 million inhabitants"; and b) excluding the cities with less than 1 million at the time of the investment decision, there would be 7 cities for comparison out of which 5 cities already have MRTS in place while the methodology states "The proposed project activity is regarded as common practice if MRTS have already been implemented in 50% of the cities in the set of cities for comparison". Please refer to VVM version 1.2 paragraph 120.. 3) The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has validated the identification of the baseline scenario as the DOE has validated only the baseline scenario as per "Step 2: Investment analysis" of the applied methodology while the methodology (page 5) requires to "conduct an investment comparison analysis for all alternatives that are remaining after Step 1" i.e. "realistic and credible alternative scenario(s) to the project activity that are in compliance with mandatory legislation and regulations. Please refer to VVM version 1.2 paragraphs 83-86, Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality version 05.2. Step 1 and 2.. 4) The DOE is requested to clarify the value used for the Occupancy Rate of the passenger cars, sourced from Korea Transport Institute, 2010, as it appears that two other similar projects validated by the same DOE have used the same reference but different values of 1.31 and 1.25. Please refer to VVM version 1.2 paragraph 91.. |
|
Date | 12 Oct 12 |
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: