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	9681
Title of the proposed CDM project activity/PoA submitted for registration	Puelche Project/Cancura Factory Biomass Boiler for Heat Generation
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 is requested to substantiate how it has crosschecked the values of the following input values to the investment analysis against third-party of publicly available source, in line with paragraph 99 (b) of the VVS for PA (version 01.0): (a) Total investment cost and maintenance costs for each coal fired boiler and biomass fired boiler. As stated in the validation report, the values were verified from the FSR and crosschecked with budgetary offers from Coal boiler supplier ICP and biomass boiler supplier RCR. However, these offers were the basis for the figures in the FSR. (b) Electricity cost, particularly the electricity consumption for each coal fired boiler and biomass fired boiler. As stated in the validation report, the electricity costs have been verified from the FSR, and have been crosschecked by local expert. However, there is no detail information how the DOE the crosschecked the electricity consumption for each alternative against third-party or publicly available sources and how the local expert crosschecked the electricity consumption of each alternative; (c) Fuel cost, particularly the fuel consumption of each coal fired boiler and biomass fired boiler. As stated in the validation report, the values from the FSR have been cross checked with budgetary offers from Coal boiler supplier ICP and biomass boiler supplier RCR, and verified by local expert. However, these offers were the basis for the figures in the FSR, and furthermore, there is no information how the local expert crosschecked the fuel consumption of each alternative. Please refer to paragraph 99 (b) of VVS for PA (version 01.0). 2) The DOE has confirmed that woodchips are considered as renewable biomass in line with paragraphs 1 and 4 of “Definition of Renewable Biomass” (EB 23 Annex 18). The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it validated the biomass being renewable, in particular: (a) How it validated that woodchips are harvested through sustainable forestry practices and the use of renewable biomass for the project activity follows the national regulations of Chile (General Rules on Environment, Ministry of Environment), in line with paragraph 1 of EB 23 Annex 18; and (b) How it validated that woodchips to be consumed by the project activity are biomass residue, in line with paragraph 4 of EB 23 Annex 18. Please refer to paragraph 62 of VVS for PA (version 01.0). 3) The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it has validated the application of the methodologies and any corresponding tools to the emission reductions, in particular the calculation of combined margin emission factor, as the following issues have been observed: (a) The build margin emission factor refers to data of year 2016, however the determination of parameter EFEL,m,2016 to calculate the build margin emission factor (column F of worksheet “BM 2016” in file “EF_nestle.xlsx”) refers to data year 2015, instead of 2016; (b) There is inconsistency in the value of combined margin emission factor (EFgrid,CM,y) in the PDD and in the file “EF_nestle.xlsx”. Please refer to paragraph 63(c) of VVS for PA (version 01.0). 4) The DOE is requested to explain how the monitoring plan has been in accordance with the applicable tools, as parameter NCVi,y for LPG, used to calculate the project emissions, required by the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion” (Version 03.0) (Data / Parameter table 4) is not part of the parameters to be monitored. Please refer to paragraph 117 of VVS for PA (version 01.0).
Date	24 Apr 18