DSW Bagasse RE Project
[]
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) ACM0006 ver. 6
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 27,806
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Mar 09
Length of first crediting period. 7 years
DOE/AE TÜV SÜD South Asia Private Limited
Period for comments 12 Dec 08 - 10 Jan 09
The operational/applicant entity working on this project has decided to make the Project Design Document (PDD) publicly available directly on the UNFCCC CDM website.
PDD PDD (455 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
In the investment analysis shown in the PDD breakups of investment or details or not provided. Therefore i request DOE to check if they have considered Price of Bagasse in the calculation,if yes then it is wrong..because the methodology says that it should be waste bagasse hence investment in waste bagasse should not be considered.....i therefore request DOE to check for the same...and if it is still not clear i request UNFCCC to check the same...because i think this methodology doesnt fit to the project activity
Submitted by: Rahul Khera

In the project common practice is not in least being proved....it is very common in the region with sugar processing complex...and to avoid this PP has not mentioned plants which has installed capacity for its house consumption and has only shown plant which supply electricity to grid(pg-19 PDD)...but in the baseline scenario PP has taken P2 and P4(ie partially replacing existing power plant & grid)...so if this is the case common practice analysis should be done for all the plants including sugar plants going ahead with inhouse consumption....which is difficult because there are many such project activities in the region running without CDM benefits...therefore i request DOE to make PP do common practice analysis for all the plants with such activities, not just the plants which supply electricity to grid...
I request UNFCCC to take strict actions for making PP make new common practice analysis(because PP replace existing power plant and grid both)
and moreover the limit taken for common practice analysis is 7.5MW but the basis for this is not mentioned anywhere in the PDD...common practice analysis should done taking into consideration all the plants not just above 7.5MW(because nowhere in methodology or PDD you can find any justification for this)
therefore common practice analysis is totally baseless...and needs strict review from DOEs...
these are the some small & important reasons on which DOE should look into before registration so that they dont have to face situation like DNV's in the later stage...
Submitted by: Rahul Khera


The comment period is over.
* Emission reductions in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum that are based on the estimates provided by the project participants in unvalidated PDDs