03:27 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 | 3044 |
---|---|
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration | Jianli Kaidi Biomass Power 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 required on how the DOE has validated the suitability of input values in line with the version 1.1 of VVM (paragraphs 109 a, b and 111 c), particularly the: (a) lower operational hours than other similar projects (e.g., project 2230 applies 6,975 hours); (b) net electricity supplied to the grid and auxiliary consumption; (c) heat price; (d) if heat price includes the cost of the pipeline for transportation of steam to offsite location or/and the capital cost of the baseline coal fired boiler; (e) electricity tariff; and (f) higher O&M cost in comparison to the GSP PDD. 2. The DOE is requested to provide further clarifications on how they have validated baseline scenario is appropriate for the project, given that: (i) the DOE has not explained the contradiction that the biomass residues are either dumped or left to decay in absence of the project activity and at the same time carry a purchase price as applied in the investment analysis; (ii) the baseline alternative H6 has not been sufficiently substantiated; (iii) it is not clear that heat, in absence of project activity, would have been generated from coal and not from any other less carbon intensive fossil fuel or renewable sources; (iv) all the users of steam have not been identified and it is not clear whether PP has control over all the users of the steam; and (v) there is an uncertainty that the: (a) heat displaced will not change/vary with the identification of user of the steam; (b) residual life of the boilers displaced in the baseline would be sufficiently large so that they will not be replaced anyway on its own; (c) the project boundary is steady and will not change with the identification of user/ consumer of the steam; and (d) forecasted baseline emissions claimed from heat are conservative. 3. The methodology ACM0006 (version 6) on page 6 and 7 requires the PDD to document the type and capacity of the new/existing boilers and the types and quantities of fuels used/would be used in absence of the project activity. The PDD and the Validation report does not mention how this requirement is complied for both project site as well as end-users of steam in the project boundary. 4. The DOE is requested to further clarify that monitoring of the heat at generation end and not at the user end will result in real, conservative and actual emission reductions. |
|
Date | 11 Feb 10 |
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: