Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in
Indonesia
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
I. Project description:
Project title:
Host Country:
Indonesia
Methodology:
AMS-I.D version 17
Large Scale
Small Scale
Party
Indonesia (Host)
Kingdom of
Sweden
33,847 tCO2e/yr
Party considered a
project participant
Project Participants
Contract
party
No
No
Vietnam
Indonesia
China
1
N/A
1
Trainee TR
Expert to TR
Technical Reviewer
Trainee Auditor
Technicla Expert
Team leader
Local Expert
Role
Appointed for
Sectoral Scopes
(Technical Areas)
Validation Team
Affiliation
TV
Rheinland
Full name
X
X
X
Rejected
Released
Distribution
Page 2
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Page 3
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
TRC concludes that the CDM Project Activity 8MW Cirompang Mini Hydro Power Plants at Bungbulang,
Garut, Indonesia in Indonesia, as described in the PDD (version 2.1, dated 25 May 2012), meets all relevant
requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities including article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the
modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions by the COP/MOP and
CDM Executive Board.
The selected baseline and monitoring methodologies (AMS-I.D., Version 17) are applicable to the project and
correctly applied. The TRC therefore requests the registration of the project as a CDM project activity with
UNFCCC.
Mr Truong Le Tien Dung (Team Leader)
(add signature)
Page 4
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Abbreviations
ACM
AMS
BM
BOD
CAR
CDM
CDM EB
CEF
CER
CH4
CL
CO2
CO2e
DNA
DoE
DOE
DR
EB
EIA
EPC
ER
ERPA
FAR
FSR
GHG
GWP
I
IDR
IETA
IPCC
IRR
kWh
LoA
MCF
MoV
MP
MW
MWh
NEFCO
NeCF
N2O
NGO
ODA
OM
PDD
PLN
PPA
QA/ QC
t
tCO2e
TRC
UNFCCC
Page 5
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
1.1
1.2
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
Introduction
Objective
Scope
Methodology
Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation
Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders
Resolution of Outstanding Issues
Internal Quality Control
Validation Team
Validation Findings
Approval and Participation
Project Design Document
Project Description
Baseline and Monitoring Methodology
Additionality
Monitoring
Sustainable Development
Environmental Impacts
Local Stakeholder Consultation
Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs
7
7
7
8
8
10
12
14
14
14
14
15
15
18
29
50
52
52
53
53
Page 6
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
1. Introduction:
The organization PT Tirta Gemah Ripah has commissioned the DOE TV Rheinland (China) Ltd. to perform
a validation of the CDM Project Activity 8MW Cirompang Mini Hydro Power Plants at Bungbulang, Garut,
Indonesia in Indonesia (hereafter called the project). This report summarises the findings of the validation of
the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the CDM, as well as criteria given to provide for
consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The term UNFCCC criteria refers to Article 12 of the
Kyoto Protocol, the CDM modalities and procedures or the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale
CDM project activities (as applicable) and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board.
1.1.
Objective
The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party assess the project design. In particular, the
project's baseline, monitoring plan, and the projects compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria
are validated in order to confirm that the project design, as documented, is sound and reasonable and meets the
identified criteria. Validation is a requirement for all CDM projects and is seen as necessary to provide
assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission
reductions (CERs).
1.2.
Scope
The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design document (PDD).
The PDD is reviewed against the relevant criteria (see above) and decisions by the CDM Executive Board,
including the approved baseline and monitoring methodology. The validation team has, based on the
recommendations in the Validation and Verification Manual employed (latest version) a risk-based approach,
focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of CERs.
The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the project participants. However, stated requests
for clarifications and/or corrective actions may have provided input for improvement of the project design.
Page 7
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
2. Methodology:
The validation consists of the following three phases:
I
A desk review of the project design documents
II
On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders
III
The resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final validation report and opinion.
The following sections outline each step in more detail.
/4/
/5/
/6/
/7/
/8/
/9/
/10/
/11/
/12/
/13/
/14/
/15/
/16/
/17/
/18/
/19/
/20/
/21/
/22/
/23/
/24/
/25/
/26/
/27/
/28/
No.
/29/
/30/
/31/
/32/
/33/
/34/
Item (related to CDM and its consideration & project starting dates)
PDD [for global stakeholder commenting] version 1.0, dated 25/10/2011
PDD [final version], version 2.1, dated 25/05/2012
Letter of Approval issued by DNA of Indonesia.
LoA from Annex 1 country
Signed Modalities of Communication.
Validation contract in between TUV Rheinland China Ltd. and the project participants
for this project activity.
Board decision to process the clearance for the 8 MW project activity, 23/06/2010
First PPA signed with PLN (2MW), dated 28/06/2010
Investment Approval from the Regent of Garut, dated 23/07/2010
Recommendation letter for land use permit, dated 26/07/2010
Recommendation letter document of Environmental Management Effort &
Environmental Monitoring Effort for Cirompang MHP 8 MW construction, dated
02/09/2010
Feasibility Study Report
Proof that FSR is prepared by qualified 3rd party institution - Third party letter
Engineering Third party Profile (For FSR)
Board resolution to undertake the project activity under CDM, 10/12/2010
CDM Advisory services agreement between PP and consultant, 02/03/2011
Notification to the DNA of Indonesia dated 08/03/2011
Notification to UNFCCC dated 09/03/2011
Acknowledgement of Notification to UNFCCC dated 09/03/2011
Attendance list & minute of stakeholder consultation meeting for the project activity on
15/04/2011
Published advertisement regarding the project activity on daily newspaper Radar
Garut on 4 April 2011
Stakeholder meeting presentation photos, dated 15/04/2011
MoU for EPC contract, dated 08/03/2011
Proof of starting date of CDM project activity. (04/08/2011)
EPC Contract
The Agreement between PT. TGR with GP3A Daerah Irigasi Cirompang (affiliation of
farmers using Cirompang water) regarding the Use of Dams, Irrigation Channels, and
Tunnels for the Cirompang Mini Hydro Power Investment Project, dated 11/08/2011
Approval of power purchase by PLN, dated 06/07/2011
PPA between PT. PLN (Persero) and PT. Tirta Gemah Ripah for Mini Hydro Power
Plant Total Capacity 8MW, dated 21/11/2011
Tech Spec Guarantee Performance Turbine-Generator from Jyoti
Key photo graphs of implementation of proposed project activity
Item (related to CDM financial)
Declaration of no diversion of ODA (e.g. no public funding in the project activity), dated
19/03/2012
Spread sheet (in *.xls format) for calculation of grid emission factor
Spread sheet (in *.xls format) for calculation of emission reductions
Spread sheet (in *.xls format) for financial analysis
Basis for the salvage value assumed
Compensation record for Land Acquisition
Page 8
Validation Report
/35/
No.
/36/
/37/
/38/
/39/
/40/
/41/
/42/
/43/
/44/
/45/
/46/
/47/
/48/
01 997 9105067713
Page 9
Validation Report
/B17/
/B18/
/B19/
/B20/
01 997 9105067713
/I01/
Date
2012-0104
Name
Mr. Ayatullah Mardiansyah
(Business Development)
Organization
Emergent
Ventures Int
PT Tirta Gemah
Ripah
Mr. Yulianto
(Project Director)
Mr, Agung S
(Expert)
Mr. Ir. Imam Rirvanto
(C.E.O.)
/I02/
2012-0105
Emergent
Ventures Int
PT Tirta Gemah
Ripah
Topic
Confirmation of project
activity and project title
Confirmation of project
participants
Board of Directors
approvals
Project Funding
Project agreement
Modalities of
Communications
LoAs
Organisation chart
Technology
Baseline
Additionality
Monitoring Plan
EIA Compliance
Quality Assurance
Project lifespan
Operating procedures
/work instructions
Calibration and Training
Archiving of data
Financial calculations
PDD
Calculation of grid
emission factor and
emission reductions
Plant address
EIA Compliance
Stakeholder meeting
Land use permit
Technology
Baseline
Operating procedures
Page 10
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
/work instructions
Mr. Hendarwan
Mr. Aprian E. R. (Technical
Division)
Mr. Sobar
Mr. Andun D S
Mr. M. Warlud S
Mr. Indra W. Pasaribu
Mr. Asep Zaenal A.
GP3A
Talang Sulaeman
P3A
Adang
RW 16
DSA
Jaka
Tokoh
Masyarakat
(Society Figure)
Solehudin
Umen
A Cang Rahmat
Yamin Maulud
Karyawan
(Employee )
PT Hutama
Karya
Compensated
representative
Aas Ruhyan
Ketua GP 3A
Agus N
Koramil 21
Haris Co. An
Kapolsek
(Police Chief)
Hj. Uum S.
Camat (Head of
Subdistrict)
Staf PPAT
(Public Notary)
Fliri Randewo
Heruza W.
Henhen S
Page 11
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Page 12
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Comment
The section is
used to elaborate
and discuss the
checklist question
and/or the
conformance to
the question. It is
further used to
explain the
conclusions
reached.
Validation Protocol Table 2: List of Requests for Corrective Action (CAR) and Clarification (CL)
Draft report
Ref. to checklist
Summary of project
Validation conclusion
clarifications and
question in table 2
owner response
corrective action
requests
If the conclusions from
Reference to the
The responses given by
This section should
the draft Validation are
checklist question
the project participants
summarise the validation
either a CAR or a CL,
number in Table 2
during the
teams responses and final
these should be listed in
where the CAR or CL
communications with
conclusions. The conclusions
this section.
is explained.
the validation team
should also be included in
should be summarised in Table 2, under Final
this section.
Conclusion.
Table 3:
Page 13
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
1
N/A
1
X
X
Technical Reviewer
Reporting Support
Desk review
X X
X
Vietnam
Indonesia
China
Type of Involvement
Appointed for Sectoral
Scopes (Technical
Areas)
Validation Team
Affiliation
TV Rheinland
Full name
3. Validation Findings:
The findings of the validation are stated in the following sections. The validation criteria (requirements), the
means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria are documented in more detail in the
validation protocol in Appendix A.
The final validation findings relate to the project design as documented and described in the revised and
resubmitted project design documentation.
Page 14
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Project participants
Parties involved
Kingdom of Sweden
(Annex I party)
APPROVAL
LoA received
Yes
No
Date of LoA
6 March 2012
To be determined
B076/KNMPB/03/2012
To be determined
To be determined
Yes.
Confirmation of Letter Head and
signature of Executive Chair of
National Council on Climate
Change as the Chairman of the
National Committee on CDM of the
Republic of Indonesia
To be determined
Yes
To be determined
Yes
Yes
Yes
To be determined
No indication
To be determined
Yes
To be determined
Reference to document
LoA received from
Validation of authenticity
Validity of LoA
PARTICIPATION
Party is party to Kyoto
Protocol
Voluntary participation
Diversion of official
development aid towards host
country
Project contribution to SD
Page 15
Validation Report
Power Plant
Dam
Power house
01 997 9105067713
North Latitude
-7.4505
-7.4762
East Longitude
+107.6093
+107.6122
The project involves construction of a new hydropower plant at an existing dam which mainly consists of a
companion channel at Cirompang River, a diversion tunnel, and a hydropower house /11/. The total installed
capacity of the hydroelectric plant is 8MW.
The project consists of 4 units of water turbines with the unit capacity of 2 MW /11, page 42/, /27/. Thus the
total installed capacity of the hydropower plant is 8 MW. An EPC was signed with PT. Hutama Karya on 4
August 2011 to construct the whole project including engineering, planning, project design, procurement,
constructing, testing, commissioning and interconnection to the grid of PLN /23/. The key equipments of the
project are imported from India with foreign technology transfer (supplier: Jyoti ltd. Vadodara) /27/. In addition,
the validation team also validated the Investment Approval Number: 503/1564/KPM from the Regent of Garut
/8/, approval of UKL-UPL (Environment Analysis) on Cirompang Mini hydro power plant /10/ from
Environment management Division of Garut Regency, PPA between PT. PLN (Persero) and PT. Tirta Gemah
Ripah on 21 November 2011 /26/ to confirm the installed capacity of 8 MW.
The load factor is indicated in FSR as 68.77%. This Plant Load Factor is calculated by the qualified engineering
consultation company PT. Chandripa Tirta Energia /13/ that designed the FSR of the proposed project /11/. The
value of Plant Load Factor of 68.77% is also confirmed by PT. Chandripa Tirta Energia via a separate
confirmation letter /12/, and is considered acceptable as per Guidelines for the Reporting and Validation of
Plant Load Factors /B14/.
The project activity is constructed at an existing reservoir and dam on River Cirompang. The project participant
has signed an agreement with GP3A (Association of farmers) /24/ for using the water from river Cirompang for
power generation. There will be no modification done by the project owner in existing reservoir and dam for use
of water for power generation. Thus the project activity is implemented in an existing reservoir with no change
in the volume of reservoir.
The annual net electricity generation from the project is 47,471 MWh. The electricity generated from the project
activity is expected to substitute the power supply from the Jamali national power grid which is mainly
composed of fossil fuel-fired power generation. The expected GHG emission reductions of the project activity
are 33,847 tCO2e annually during the 10-year fixed crediting period.
According to the project participant, the grid connection was agreed by PLN via the first power purchase
agreement (PPA) signed with PLN (2MW) on 28th June 2010 /7/. According to the PDD, the project will supply
electricity to the national grid via 20 kV transmission line /11, page 40/.
The CER buyer NEFCO has signed the CDM Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement with TGR.
During the on-site visit, the construction of companion channel is in progress. The construction of powerhouse
has not yet started. The management representative of the project participant stated that the project construction
is anticipated to be completed by March 2013. It was also understood that TGR will be responsible for
organizing the necessary training for the operation, maintenance and monitoring procedures of CDM
implementation. He stated that since the project was still in the preliminary stage, the technical training and
CDM trainings were not yet started. The CDM trainings will be carried out by the manufacturer and CDM
consultancy company respectively before the project commissioning. The details about the emergency
procedure and training requirements for monitoring are provided in section B.7.2 of the revised PDD. Moreover,
the project participant stated that the CDM training will be conducted prior to the start of the crediting period.
According to the PDD, a fixed crediting period of 10 years is selected. The starting date of project activity,
which was based on the date of the EPC contract, was on 04th August 2011 /23/.
Page 16
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
It revealed that the project participant has commissioned PT. Chandripa Tirta Energia, a qualified engineering
consultation company, to conduct FSR in November 2010. The project participant confirmed that no real action
was taken to implement the project prior to 04 August 2011 (project starting date as indicated in the web-hosted
PDD). The detailed timeline for the project activity since 2010 till the real action taken as the starting date of
project activity (i.e. 04 August 2011) has been updated in section B.5. of the final PDD. From timeline as well
as supporting documents /6/, /7/, /8/, /9/, /10/, /11/, /14/, /15/, /16/, /17/, /19/, /23, /34/ and /35/, it is substantiated
that the project participant has proceeded for approval from authority for investment into the proposed project
since 2010, and negotiated for compensation for land acquisition since January 2011 till April 2012. It can be
concluded that there was no real action of project activity before 04 August 2011. Thus, the validation team is
able to confirm that 04 August 2011, i.e. the signed date of the EPC contract, is the earliest date among these
real actions of the project.
The starting date of the first crediting period will be expected to be started on 1st March 2013. According to the
PDD section C.1.2., the expected operational lifetime of equipment will be 20 years based on the information of
FSR. With full operational time of 365 days per year and production hour of 24 hour per day, the annual full
operating time is 8,760 hours. This is considered appropriate according to the requirement of Tool to determine
the remaining lifetime of equipment (EB 50 Annex 15), in which the project lifetime for hydro turbines is
150,000 hours, i.e. (150,000/8,760) years ~ 17 years. It is noted that the plant load factor of the project activity
is 68.77%. That means the project activity will not always operate in full capacity due to the fluctuation of
hydro resource. If the plant load factor is taken into account, the project lifetime for hydro turbines will be 24.9
years (150,000 hours/8,760/68.77%). Thus, the value of operational lifetime of equipment of 20 years is in the
range and acceptable.
Starting date of project
04 August 2011
Crediting period
10 years starting on 01 March 2013
Herewith, the Validation Team summarizes major changes between webhosted PDD and final version of PDD
for submission as follows:
Subject
Webhosted PDD
Project technology:
It was described in the PDD that the
project has no reservoir.
Methodologies and
tools applied ( scope
and version
numbers)
CER calculations
(formula applied/
amount of emission
reduction)
N/A
Project Emission:
The webhosted PDD does not explain
clearly whether the project activity
would use diesel generator in the event
of emergency, or shut down for
maintenance.
Project Emission:
Its described in section A.4.2 of the revised
PDD that diesel generators will be used in
case of emergency. The project emission from
diesel generator used in emergency purposes
will be monitored and calculated by the Tool
to calculate project or leakage CO2 emission
from fossil fuel consumption, Version 02, as
per sections B.6.1 and B.7.1 of the final PDD.
Page 17
Validation Report
Additionality:
(benchmark / input
values/analysis
type/project start
date/IRR or NPV
values etc)
Monitoring
(parameters /
frequency )
Crediting period
( type / start date)
01 997 9105067713
Benchmark:
The benchmark (WACC) was calculated
as 21.3%
IRR value:
The IRR value (without CDM) was
calculated as 14.13%
Monitoring Project Emission:
The project emission from diesel
generator used in emergency purposes
was not yet considered and monitored.
N/A
Please refer to Appendix A of this report for details of each change between webhosted PDD and the final PDD
for submission. The Validation Team has carried out the validation process based on the Webhosted PDD and
raised CARs/CLs against the project by issuing the validation protocol.
With the updated information and corrections done on final PDD, the PP has addressed all the CARs /CLs that
were raised by the Validation Team.
It is concluded that the Validation Team has reviewed the project in line with the VVM (version 01.2) and all the
evidence, corrections, justifications and updating done on the final PDD with respect to CARs /CLs raised are
accepted and closed by the Validation Team, issuing the positive validation opinion for project registration. FAR
are further issued to the DOE verification team to check the implementation and operational completeness during
the first verification.
TV Rheinland validation team considers the project description of the project contained in the PDD to be
complete and accurate. The PDD complies with the relevant methodology, tools, forms and guidance at the time
of PDD submission for registration.
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
a national/regional grid
2 Project displaces grid
an identified consumer
facility via national/regional
grid (through a contractual
arrangement such as
wheeling)
4 Project supplies electricity to
Yes
No
Yes
No
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
In the case of retrofit or replacement, to qualify as a smallscale project, the total output of the retrofitted or replacement
unit shall not exceed the limit of 15 MW.
Yes
No
Thus the validation team considers that the applicability criteria for the baseline methodology has been correctly
applied for the project activity.
According to Guidelines on assessment of debundling for SSC project activities (Version 03), the validation
team has validated that the project is not deemed to be a debundled component of a large scale project. The
validation criteria are stated below:
According to the information from UNFCCC, there is no registered small-scale CDM project activity or any
application to register another CDM small-scale CDM project activity by the project participants, i.e. TGR
within the previous two years with the same project category and technology within 1 km of the project
boundary of the project activity. As stated by the project developer, the project activity obtains the diverted
water for power generation from the existing reservoir on Cirompang River. This is the only one hydro power
plant on this river. The project participant also reported that this is the first hydropower project invested by
TGR. Therefore, the project activity is not deemed to be a debundled component of a large project activity.
The assessment of the projects compliance with the applicability criteria of the methodology AMS-I.D, Version
17 as documented in the PDD part B and annex 3, which are evaluated in detail under the validation protocol in
Appendix A to this report based from the webhosted PDD.
GHGs involved
CO2
Project emissions
CO2
Description
Major emission source
Minor emission source
Diesel generators will be used in case of
emergency.
According to VVM, if this emission source
contributes more than 1% of the expected average
annual emission reductions, it will be accounted
for as project emissions.
Page 21
Validation Report
Leakage
01 997 9105067713
CH4
(from the
reservoir)
--
In summary, the project boundary was correctly identified in accordance with the methodology AMS-I.D.,
Version 17. All greenhouse gas emissions occurring within the proposed project activity boundary as a result of
the implementation of the proposed CDM project activity have been appropriately addressed in the PDD.
The identified project boundary and selected sources of emissions are justified for the project activity. The
validation of the project activity did not reveal other greenhouse gas emissions occurring within the proposed
CDM project activity boundary as a result of the implementation of the proposed project activity which are
expected to contribute more than 1% of the overall expected average annual emission reduction, with respect to
the methodology applied.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
The approved baseline methodology has been correctly applied to identify a realistic and credible baseline
scenarios, and the identified baseline scenario most reasonably represents what would occur in the absence of
the proposed CDM project activity.
All the assumption and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD and/or supporting documents.
All documentation relevant for establishing the baseline scenario and correctly quoted and interpreted in the
PDD. Assumptions and data used in the identification of the baseline scenario are justified appropriately,
supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable. Relevant national and/or sectoral policies and
circumstances are considered and listed in the PDD.
Total
capacity
Value
installed 8 MW
68.77%
Basis
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
lies well within this range.
Remarks: The validation team has surveyed
IGES CDM Investment Analysis Database &
CDM Pipeline list in http://cd4cdm.org/
website as of 30 May 2012 & only 4 registered
small scale projects within Indonesia.
Ref
1.5%
Feasibility
Report /11/
Quantity of net
electricity supplied
to the grid as a result
of
the
implementation of
the CDM project
activity in year y
(MWh), EGy
CO2 emission factor
of the grid in year y
(t CO2/MWh)
47,471
MWh/year
Feasibility
Report /11/
0.713
tCO2e/MWh
Report
on
Grid
emission factor of
published by DNA
/30/, /45/
Reg. date
Ranteballa
Small-Scale
80.00 10 Dec.
3474
%
2010
Hydroelectric
Power Project
10 MW
Tangka/Manip
50.22 26 Jan.
4021
i Hydro
%
2011
Electric Power
Plant
Parluasan
80.00 12 Feb.
4106
Hydro Electric
%
2011
Power Plant
Silau-2 small
hydro power
plant in North 65.40 07 Oct.
3580
Sumatera
%
2011
Province,
Indonesia
Thus the Plant Load Factor value of the project
activity is acceptable.
Study The validation team confirmed the value to be
correct and acceptable. Moreover the net
electricity supplied to the grid will be
monitored during the whole crediting period.
Study This is a monitoring parameter which will be
monitored during the whole crediting period.
With above data, the validation team can
calculate and confirm the value of 47,471
MWh/year is acceptable.
Auxiliary
consumption
Name
of PLF
CDM project
Validation Report
consumption in the
project activity
Density of diesel
01 997 9105067713
ex-ante calculation
876x10-6
T/litre
Baseline Emissions
As per paragraph 11 of the methodology AMS-I.D., Version 17, the baseline emissions are calculated as the
product of electrical energy baseline EGBL, y expressed in MWh of electricity produced by the renewable
generating unit multiplied by the grid emission factor.
Description
Ex-ante value
BE y
EGBL, y
47,471 MWh/year
EFCO 2, grid , y
0.713 tCO2e/MWh
The baseline emission factor (EFgrid,CM,y) for the project, using the combined margin (CM) approach, is fixed exante during the first crediting period. According to AMS-I.D., Version 17 and the linked tools, the default
weights for the proposed project are 50% for OM and 50% for BM for the first crediting period, and 25% for
OM and 75% for BM for the second and third crediting period.
The validation team has crosschecked the data and calculation listed in Section B.6 of the PDD. It is found that
the OM and BM data are provided by the Directorate General Electricity and Energy Utilization (DJLPE,
Direktorat Jenderal Listrik dan Pemanfaatan Energi) (Indonesian DNA) /45/, /30/
The validation team also checked the PDD, and the grid information applied in the calculation of emission
factor via the Indonesia DNAs webpage. In order to calculate OM emission factor, Average OM method has
been chosen as low cost/must run resources constitute more than 50% of total grid generation.
The Average OM emission factor is calculated as per Option A of the Tool /30/. BM emission factor is
calculated for the group of power capacity additions that have been built most recently and comprise 20% of the
system electricity generation as it has the larger annual generation than the group of five power units that have
been built most recently.
Page 25
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
The raw data on power generation as well as the calculation was provided by the report /30/ and listed in
Section B.6.1. and Annex 3 of the final PDD /2/. The simple OM emission factor is calculated as 0.711
tCO2e/MWh and the BM emission factor as 0.715 tCO2e/MWh.
The calculation of EFgrid,CM is as below:
EFgrid,CM = 0.50.711+0.50.715 = 0.713 (tCO2e/MWh)
The validation team has crosschecked the data listed in Annex 3 of the final PDD /2/ and the calculation
spreadsheet /30/, and confirmed consistent. The emission reductions due to the project activity were estimated
ex-ante to be 33,847 tCO2e per year in the final PDD /2/. The provided baseline data is thus confirmed to be the
most recent data available at the time of submission of the PDD to the DOE for validation (i.e. December 2011),
for the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions.
In summary, the baseline emission factor (EFgrid,CM) of the project activity is 0.713 tCO2e/MWh.
Thus baseline emission is estimated as 33,847 tCO2 per year.
Project emissions
As per paragraph 20 of approved methodology AMS-I.D. (Version-17, EB- 61), the calculation of project
emissions of hydropower project will follow the procedures described in the most recent version of ACM0002.
According to ACM0002, there are two components to be considered, i.e. emission from (i) fossil fuel
consumption (PEFF,y) and (ii) the reservoir (PEHP,y).
The project emission for the project activity will be
PEy = PEHP,y + PEFF,y
Where:
PEHP,y - Emission from reservoir
PEFF,y - Emission from fossil fuel consumption in year y. It is the emission from diesel generator which will be
used in emergency purposes and it is calculated by Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emission from
fossil fuel consumption.
For emissions from fossil fuel consumption (PEFF,y)
Through on-site interviews with the project participant /I01/, it was revealed that diesel backup generators
would be used in unplanned emergency such as both the cut-off of electricity supply from the national grid and
the hydropower plant. The project participant will calculate project emissions from the back-up diesel generator
based on the actual diesel consumption. The consumption of diesel is monitored and the project emissions will
be calculated according to Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion
/B18/. Due to the emergency back-up purpose, the annual consumption amount of diesel fuel is expected to be
very limited, thus the project emissions from fossil fuel consumption can be neglected in ex-ante estimation.
For emissions from the reservoir (PEHP,y)
The project activity does not result in new reservoirs or an increase in area of the existing reservoir. The
reservoir involved in the project activity is a Garut Regency-owned reservoir as part of the irrigation
development works; the modification of the reservoir is beyond the project participants control and not related
to the project activity. Thus the project emissions (PEHP,y) are considered as negligible. Thus PEHP,y = 0.
The following project emissions have been included and excluded from the project emissions estimation
including the validation teams conclusion:
Rev No.: 01 ( 01/11/2011)
Page 26
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
According to the Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emission from fossil fuel consumption, Version 01
/B18/, the project emission of the project activity is estimated as below:
PEFC,j,y = FCi,j y
COEF
i,y
Ex-ante value
Parameter
Description
PEFC,j,y
Are the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j
during the year y
FCi,j,y
0 Tonne/year
COEFi,y
3.23884 tCO2/tonne
NCVi,y
Is the weighted average net calorific value of the fuel type i in year y
0.0433 TJ/tonne
EFCO2,i,y
74.8 tCO2/TJ
Diesel
Thus project emission of the project activity is estimated as 0 tCO2 for ex-ante calculation.
Leakage emissions
Leakage is considered as negligible in accordance with AMS-I.D., Version 17, and hence can be assumed as
zero.
Page 27
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
While the project emissions & leakage emissions are zero, baseline emissions (BEy) are equal to the emission
reductions (ERy) due to the project activity and have been estimated to be 33,847 tCO2e per year in the PDD,
based on an ex-post baseline emission factor of 0.713 tCO2e/MWh /45/.
ERy = BEy = EGBL,y x EFgrid,CM,y
The emission reductions due to the project activity were estimated ex-ante to be 33,847 tCO2e per year.
In summary, the calculation of emission reductions was correctly demonstrated by the PP according to the
methodology AMS-I.D., Version 17 and its tool Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system,
Version 02.2.1 /B19/. The table below summaries validation teams determination of emission reduction:
All assumptions made for estimating GHG
are listed in the PDD
All data used by project participants are
listed in the PDD
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Based on the calculations and results presented in the sections above the implementation of the project activity
will result in an average ex-ante estimation of emission reduction conservatively calculated to be 33,847 tCO2e
per year for the selected crediting period.
All assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD and/or supporting documents,
including their references and sources. All documentation used by the project participants as the basis for
assumptions and source of data is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD. All values used in the PDD are
considered reasonable and conservative in the context of the proposed CDM project activity. The baseline
methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission
reductions. All estimates of the baseline, project and leakage emissions can be replicated using the data and
parameter values provided in the PDD.
Page 28
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
3.5 Additionality :
The project additionality was assessed by the validation team using the approach given below for complying
with;
1) Simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale clean development mechanism project activities /B15/
2) Attachment A to Appendix B of the Simplified Modalities and Procedures for small-scale CDM project
activities /B5/
3) CDM Validation and Verification Manual, EB 55, Annex 1, Version 01.2 /B1/
4) Non-binding best practice examples to demonstrate additionality for SSC project activities EB35, Annex 34
/B8/
The project activitys additionality has been assessed in the PDD under Section B.5, according to Simplified
modalities and procedures for small-scale clean development mechanism project activities /B15/ and
Attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified Modalities and Procedures for Small Scale CDM project
activities /B5/.
This was in line with the requirement stated in the methodology, AMS-I.D. version 17 /B17/.
The project participant has selected project IRR as the financial indicator to demonstrate the investment barrier
of the project activity. The validation team considers this financial indicator selected to be appropriate for the
project.
The investment analysis is applied in accordance to Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis
(EB 62, Annex 5, version 05) /B12/.
The validation team was able to verify that CDM has been introduced and considered prior to the starting of the
project activity.
In conclusion, the assessment of the arguments presented in the PDD has been sufficient to demonstrate that the
proposed project activity is not likely the baseline scenario and the emission reductions resulting from the
project activity are additional.
The following sections described the validation details of project activitys additionality by the validation team.
Page 29
Validation Report
Timeline
June 2010
23rd June 2010
2nd September
2010
10th December
2010
21st November
2011
01 997 9105067713
Milestone
Determination by the validation team
Finish Feasibility study report
Feasibility study report, June 2010 /11/
Board decision to processs the clearance for Certified true copy of the resolution passed
the 8 MW project activity
by the board of directors of PT Tirta Gemah
Ripah for developing 8 MW Cirompang
Mini hydropower project, dated 23rd June
2010 /6/
PPA between PT. PLN (Persero) and PT.
Document No. 128/Pj/041/DJBB/2010, date
Tirta Gemah Ripah for Mini Hydro Power
28th June 2010 /7/
Plant Total Capacity 2000 kW.
Investment Approval from the Regent of
Document No. 503/1564/KPM, date 23rd
Garut for Cirompang Mini Hydro Power Plant
July 2010 /8/
with capacity 8.000 kW.
Recommendation on Cirompang MHPs Use
of Land Allocation Permit, from the Office of Document No. 503/167/RK-TR/VII/2010,
Housing, Spatial Planning, and Settlements, date 26th July 2010 /9/
Garut regency.
Recommendation
letter
document
of
Environmental Management Effort & Document No. 660/394/TL-BPLH/10, date
Environmental
Monitoring
Effort
for 2nd September 2010 /10/
Cirompang MHP 8 MW construction.
Board resolution to undertake the project Certified true copy of the resolution passed
activity under CDM
by the board of directors of PT Tirta Gemah
Ripah for developing 8 MW Cirompang
Mini hydropower project, dated 10th
December 2010 /14/
CDM Advisory services agreement between CDM Advisory services agreement, No.
PP and consultant.
CDM/EVI/TGR/03/162011, dated 2nd
March 2011
CDM prior intimation to DNA
CDM notification letter No.
33/DIR/TGR/III/2011, dated 8th March
2011 /16/
CDM prior intimation to UNFCCC
CDM notification letter, dated 9th March
2011 /17/
Stakeholder consultation meeting
Meeting minute, dated 15th April 2011 /19/
EPC contract between PT. Hutama Karya EPC Contract No. TGR 04/SPP/PLTM(Persero) and PT. Tirta Gemah Ripah
CRP/TGR/VIII, dated 4th August 2011 /23/
The Agreement between PT. TGR with GP3A
Daerah Irigasi Cirompang (affiliation of
The Agreement No. TGR:
farmers using Cirompang water) regarding the
001/DIR/TGR/PPJ/CRPM/VIII/2011, dated
Use of Dams, Irrigation Channels, and
11th August 2011 /24/
Tunnels for the Cirompang Mini Hydro
Power Investment Project.
PPA between PT. PLN (Persero) and PT.
047.Add/041/DJBB/2011, date 21st
Tirta Gemah Ripah for Mini Hydro Power
November 2011 /26/
Plant Total Capacity 8000 kW
From the timeline above, it is confirmed that the starting date of project is 04th August 2011, which is the date
when the EPC contract was signed /23/.
Validation Report
/23/)
01 997 9105067713
documents; the signing of EPC
contract was the earliest date
among these real actions of the
project. According to the definition
of project starting date in CDM
Glossary, the selected starting date
of project activity is justified.
March 2011;
(ii) CDM notification received by
EB on 09th March 2011.
In conclusion, the staring dates of the project activity were after 02 August 2008, the proposed project activity is
defined as an new project activity. As per the Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior
consideration of the CDM/B13/, the project participant must inform a Host Party designated national
authority (DNA) and the UNFCCC secretariat in writing of the commencement of the project activity and of
their intention to seek CDM status. Such notification must be made within six months of the project activity start
date and shall contain the precise geographical location and a brief description of the proposed project activity.
The project participant has sent notifications to DNA and UNFCCC and the validation team confirmed that it is
valid and acceptable. Based on the documented evidence as described above, it is clearly demonstrated that the
CDM was seriously considered by the project owners prior to starting dates of the project activity.
3.5.2 Alternatives:
The methodologies AMS-I.D, version 17 /B17/ does not require the analysis of baseline alternatives. Further, as
per paragraph 28 of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities /B15/, a
simplified baseline and monitoring methodology listed in appendix B may be used for a small-scale CDM
project activity if project participants are able to demonstrate to the validation team that the project activity
would otherwise not be implemented due to the existence of one or more barrier(s) listed in Attachment A of
Appendix B /B5/.
TV Rheinland validation team considers the selected baseline is credible and complete.
Page 31
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
the project will be financed 70% loan & 30% equity capital. In addition to this, the baseline scenario also
reveals that the continuation of the current situation - electricity will continue to be imported from the grid,
which is outside the direct control of the project participant. Hence, the choice for the project participant is
restricted to invest or not to invest. The validation team concludes that the benchmark approach is the most
suited as defined in the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis, Version 05, EB 62, Annex 5,
article 19 /B12/.
In order to assess the claim from the project participant that the project scenario is not economically feasible
without benefits from CER sales, the validation team adopted the following approach:
Benchmark selection: Determining the suitability of the benchmark applied for the type of financial indicator
presented:
According to the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis, Version 05, EB 62, Annex 5,
/B12/ article 12, Local commercial lending rates or weighted average costs of capital (WACC) are
appropriate benchmarks for a project IRR.
As noted in the PDD, an investment barrier analysis is carried out through applying benchmark analysis
method, which is mainly based on the comparison between project IRR and the benchmark estimated
from weighted average costs of capital (WACC). The project participant has selected WACC as the
benchmark.
According to interview with the management representative of PP, the project activity is the first
hydropower project owned by TGR, thus there is no past financial behavior or internal company
benchmark of the project participant in relations to similar projects.
Input parameters: Conducting an assessment of parameters and assumptions used in calculating the financial
indicator and determining the accuracy & suitability of parameters, the validation team has considered the
following evidence to support the investment decision timing i.e. Board resolution to undertake the project
activity under CDM, dated 10 December 2010 /14/.
For the purpose of validating the financial input parameters, the validation team has considered the investment
decision date, 10 December 2010 in order to validate the consistency, appropriateness of the input values with
this timing & consistency of the listed input values application in the financial calculation spreadsheet.
It is noted that the FSR /11/ has been the basis of the decision to proceed with the investment in the project, i.e.
that the period of time between the decision making of the project participant to invest into project activity, 10
December 2010, /14/ and the final FSR, November 2010, /11/ is about one months. It is sufficiently short for the
validation team to confirm that it is unlikely in the context of the underlying project activity that the input values
would have materially changed.
The profitability estimates of the project, which forms the basis for IRR calculation is based on plant capacity,
Plant Load Factor, Electricity price, Operation & Maintenance Costs, interest, depreciation, taxation.
The validation team had reviewed the following input values used in the financial calculation through
review of sources presented in the PDD Section B.5 & financial calculation spreadsheet. The project is
envisaged to be financed 70% loan & 30% equity capital. Please be noted that the FSR has been the basis of the
decision to proceed with the investment in the project.
The validation team confirmed that all data used in the investment analysis have been obtained from credible
sources and is valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision taken by the project participant.
Input values for benchmark calculation:
WACC calculation is tabulated as below:
WACC = (E/V) * Re + (D/V)*Rd*(1-Tc)
Re = krf + Rp *
Item
E/V
Description
Average industry equity ratio (%)
Data
30%
Page 32
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
D/V
70%
Re
53.96% Calculated
Rd
13%
Tc
28%
krf
8.71%
Rp
17.7%
Calculated
Beta of industry
2.56
Calculated
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/StaticData/Publication/B
ondBook/FileDownload/INDONESIA%20BOND%20
MARKET%20DIRECTORY%202011.pdf
22.7%
Parameter:
30%
3474
4021
4106
4118
3580
Equity/Debt
structure
Reg. date
No
information
10 Dec.
2010
25% / 75 %
26 Jan.
2011
35% / 65 %
31% / 69%
20% / 80%
12 Feb.
2011
01 Mar
2011
07 Oct.
2011
Page 33
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Sumatera Province,
Indonesia
Wampu Hydro Electric
31 Oct
5368
30% / 70%
Power Project
2011
The equity / debt structure of the project activity lies well within
the range of above projects. Thus the Average industry equity
ratio value of the project activity is acceptable.
Parameter:
70%
Parameter:
Rev No.: 01 ( 01/11/2011)
Equity/Debt
structure
Reg. date
Ranteballa Small-Scale
No
10 Dec.
3474 Hydroelectric Power
information 2010
Project
10 MW Tangka/Manipi
26 Jan.
4021 Hydro Electric Power
25% / 75 %
2011
Plant
Parluasan Hydro Electric
12 Feb.
35% / 65 %
4106
Power Plant
2011
Asahan 1 Hydroelectric
01 Mar
4118
31% / 69%
Power Plant 2 x 90 MW
2011
Silau-2 small hydro
power plant in North
07 Oct.
3580
20% / 80%
2011
Sumatera Province,
Indonesia
Wampu Hydro Electric
31 Oct
30% / 70%
5368
Power Project
2011
The equity / debt structure of the project activity lies well within
the range of above projects. Thus the Average industry debt
ratio value of the project activity is acceptable.
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
53.96%
Calculated
Parameter:
13%
Ranteballa Small-Scale
3474 Hydroelectric Power
Project
10 MW Tangka/Manipi
4021 Hydro Electric Power
Plant
Parluasan Hydro Electric
4106
Power Plant
Asahan 1 Hydroelectric
4118
Power Plant 2 x 90 MW
Silau-2 small hydro
3580 power plant in North
Sumatera Province,
Lending rate
Reg. date
11.72 %
10 Dec.
2010
13.01 %
26 Jan.
2011
14.92 %
8 % (in US
Dollar)
13.74 %
12 Feb.
2011
01 Mar
2011
07 Oct.
2011
Page 35
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Indonesia
Wampu Hydro Electric
31 Oct
5368
13.65 %
Power Project
2011
The cost of debt of project activity is among the lowest values of
CDM registered projects. Thus, the cost of debt of 13 % of
project activity is conservative and acceptable.
Parameter:
28%
Parameter:
8.71%
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/StaticData/Publication/BondBook/
FileDownload/INDONESIA%20BOND%20MARKET%20DIRE
CTORY%202011.pdf
Page 36
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Parameter:
17.7%
Calculated
(krf).
Justification by the validation team
according to 113 of VVM: ( cross
checking and comparison as applicable)
Parameter:
Beta of industry ()
2.56
Parameter
Value
Plant capacity
8 MW
68.77%
Operational hours
Page 37
Validation Report
Auxiliary consumption
01 997 9105067713
1.5%
20 years
28%
Depreciation
5%
Exchange Rate
9000 IDR/USD
http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi
Project cost
Contingency
5% of Project cost
Cost per MW
Debt ratio
70%
13%
8 years
Labour cost
Management Operation
Maintenance cost
Insurance,
ISO
Production Service
Overhead & Admin. Cost
Total O&M cost
and
Inflation Rate
5.2%
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/201
1/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2009&ey=20
16&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br
=1&pr1.x=27&pr1.y=12&c=536&s=PCPI%2
CPCPIPCH%2CPCPIE%2CPCPIEPCH&grp
=0&a=
Salvage value
10%
Page 38
Validation Report
Emission reductions / year
01 997 9105067713
33,847 tCO2e
Calculation /31/
Parameter:
Plant capacity
8 MW
Parameter:
68.77%
Page 39
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Ref
Ranteballa Small-Scale
3474 Hydroelectric Power
Project
10 MW Tangka/Manipi
4021
Hydro Electric Power Plant
Parluasan Hydro Electric
4106
Power Plant
Silau-2 small hydro power
3580 plant in North Sumatera
Province, Indonesia
Thus the Plant Load Factor value
acceptable.
PLF
Reg. date
80.00%
10 Dec.
2010
Parameter:
Operational hours
Parameter:
Page 40
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Parameter:
Auxiliary consumption
1.5%
Parameter:
Calculated
Parameter:
Electricity price
Page 41
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
The value is sourced from Feasibility Study Report /11/ & the
validation team confirmed the value to be correct & available at
the time of investment decision.
The selected Electricity tariff = 656.0 IDR/kWh is sourced from
FSR /11/. This is in line with the REGULATION OF THE
MINISTER OF ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
NUMBER: 31 YEAR 2009 /41/, article 2.
Reg No.
3474
4021
4106
3580
Price (IDR/kWh)
432
469.22
437.17
468.3
Capacity (MW)
2.4
10
4.2
8
Proposed project
656
In conclusion, the validation team confirmed that the value of
electricity price is acceptable.
Parameter:
20 years
Parameter:
Page 42
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
28%
Parameter:
Depreciation
5%
Parameter:
Exchange Rate
9000 IDR/USD
http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi
The validation team checked the exhange rate from the source
http://www.x-rates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi and confirmed it is
correct.
Page 43
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Parameter:
Project cost
Billion IDR
EPC
Contract
128
Billion IDR
103.061
It was found the actual contract values is about 20% lower than
the FSR values. The EPC contract is accounted for more than
95% of total investment cost. The actual EPC contract cost is
substituted in project cost in Financial Analysis sheet, the
project IRR is 18.60%, which is still lower than benchmark of
22.7%.
Thus, the value of Project cost of 128,101 Million IDR is
acceptable.
Parameter:
Contingency
5% of Project cost
Page 44
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Parameter:
Parameter:
Debt ratio
70%
Parameter:
13%
Page 45
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Parameter:
8 years
Parameter:
No.
Item
Value
Maintenance cost
Labour cost
Management Operation
Insurance,
ISO
Production Service
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Total
Capacity
(MW)
3474
4021
4106
4118
3580
5368
Project
Activity
2.4
10
4.2
180
8
46.8
O&M
(% of project
cost
3.11%
5.57%
2.00%
2.14%
1.80%
2.65%
8.0
2.42%
Parameter:
Inflation Rate
5.2%
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/weore
pt.aspx?sy=2009&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.
&br=1&pr1.x=27&pr1.y=12&c=536&s=PCPI%2CPCPIPCH%2
CPCPIE%2CPCPIEPCH&grp=0&a=
The validation team checked Inflation Rate from the source and
confirmed it is correct.
Parameter:
Salvage value
10%
Page 47
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Installed capacity
22.7%
8 MW
15.06%
18.60%
It is clearly demonstrated that the proposed project activity without CER revenues is financially unattractive.
The validation took cognizance of 97, 112 and 113 of VVM (version 01.2).
10%
13.66%
16.78%
16.78%
14.81%
5%
14.34%
15.93%
15.93%
14.94%
0%
15.06%
15.06%
15.06%
15.06%
-5%
15.85%
14.18%
14.18%
15.19%
-10%
16.72%
13.27%
13.27%
15.31%
The validation took cognizance of 111 (e) of VVM (version 01.2). The table below summaries the situation
where the IRR would reach the benchmark:
Input value
Investment
cost
Variation
Page 48
Validation Report
Input value
Variation
01 997 9105067713
Validation teams opinion
recent years. The Indonesias inflation rate is 5.2% in 2010.
(http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/01/weodata/
weorept.aspx?sy=2009&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=c
ountry&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=27&pr1.y=12&c=536&s=PCPI
%2CPCPIPCH%2CPCPIE%2CPCPIEPCH&grp=0&a= ),
By applying actual costs available from the signed EPC
contract together with the estimated tariff (from approved
FSR) in the financial calculation spreadsheet, the project
participant justified that the project IRR would reach
18.6%, which is well lower than the benchmark.
Therefore, the project capital costs would be unlikely to
decrease by 35%.
O&M cost
Electricity
tariff
Electricity
supply
The validation team thus confirms that the sensitivity analysis is in accordance with the Simplified modalities
and procedures for small-scale clean development mechanism project activities /B15/ and the Guidelines on
the Assessment of Investment Analysis, Version 05, EB 62, Annex 5, /B12/. All input parameters used for
sensitive analysis constitute more then 20% of either total project costs or total project revenues. The
Rev No.: 01 ( 01/11/2011)
Page 49
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
justifications provided by the PP with the veriations of these parameters are been analysed, clarifed and
accepted by the DOE.
3.6 Monitoring
The project activity applies the approved monitoring methodology AMS-I.D.: Grid connected renewable
electricity generation, Version 17. The selected monitoring methodology is applicable to the project activity as it
utilizes hydropower technology for grid-connected renewable power generation
It has been assessed that the project correctly addresses all factors required by the methodology as provided in
the most recent PDD guidelines /02/. The project monitoring plan is in compliance with the monitoring
methodology AMS-I.D (version 17).
The project participant stated that the CDM training will be carried out before the project operation. The CDM
training plan is not yet available. Thus the validation team cannot conclude that whether the project participant
is capable to implement the monitoring plan as the relevant training program arrangement is not available. DOE
request to address this issue during verification.
See FAR01, Table 3
The validation concludes that the monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible & the
project participants are capable to implement the monitoring plan effectively parameters determined ex-ante as
below.
EFCO 2, grid , y
Value
0.713
tCO2e/MWh
Means of validation
The grid emission factor is correctly determined
according to the tool and it is transparently
documented in the GEF calculation spreadsheet /30/
and Annex 3 of the PDD /02/, the raw data used were
taken from PLN national electricity grid. This have
been demonstrated in Annex 3 of the PDD and cross
checked with the source:
http://pasarkarbon.dnpi.go.id/web/index.php/komnas
mpb/read/20/faktor-emisi-jaringan-listrik-jawamadura-bali-jamali-2010-.html
The validation team concluded that the official data
sources are deemed to be valid and correct.
Page 50
Validation Report
8 MW
01 997 9105067713
The validation team confirms that all relevant parameters have been sufficiently considered and the values of the
parameters are real, measureable and conservative.
Parameters
EGfacility,y
NCVi , y
diesel
FCi , y
Decription
Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid in year y
Quantity of fossil fuel consumption(diesel) in project activity in a year
Net calorific value of the fossil fuel (i) (diesel) combusted in the project
activity during the year y.
Density of fossil fuel diesel combusted in the project activity
These parameters have been described in the monitoring plan, in which the parameter EGfacility,y will be
measured by the meter systems at the connection point. The main electricity meter for establishing the
electricity delivered to the grid will be installed at the project site using a Metering System that is approved by
PLN. This electricity meter provides the main data for electricity invoicing. The data of net electricity export
will be measured continuously and recorded at least monthly, in which this fulfills the methodology
requirement. The metering systems will be comply with PPA between PT. PLN and PT. TGR for PLTM
Cirompang, dated 28th June 2010 /7/. The accuracy class is 0.2s for main meters. Calibrations are carried out
for the monitoring meters by metrologi association /7, page 18/ at least once per year.
The quantity of fuel combusted FCi,j,y will be be monitored continuously and aggregated monthly, and can be
crosschecked with the fuel purchased invoices.
Weighted average net calorific value of diesel in year y NCVi,y and weighted average CO2 emission factor of
fuel type i in year y EFCO2,i,y will be determined as IPCC 2006 default values of fuel combusted at the upper
limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of
the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories.
Density of fossil fuel diesel combusted in the project activity diesel is taken from regional values available
Project emissions from fossil fuel combustion PEFC,j,y will be calculated based on the quantity of fuel combusted
FCi,j,y multiplying to CO2 emission factor of fuel type.
The GHG indicators, parameters, monitoring methods, frequencies and measurement equipments are acceptable.
The monitoring of emission reductions generated by the project activity will be carried out systematically
according to the monitoring plan. It has been assessed that all parameters required by the methodology have
been included in the PDD under Section B.7.1
The calibration, maintenance of measurement, and monitoring equipments are subjected to procedure
established by the equipment manufacturers.
In summary, the validation team is convinced of compliance of the monitoring plan with the requirements of the
monitoring methodology AMS-I.D Version 17 /B17/. During the on-site assessment, the validation team
interviewed the PP that the monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible within the
project design. The emission reductions resulting from the proposed CDM project activity can be reported ex
post and verified.
Page 51
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
PDD. The operational procedure will be updated by the project participant as required during the operation of
the project activity. The monitoring and recording of the required parameters will be carried out by trained
personnel.
All measurements will rely upon calibrated measurement equipment that will be maintained regularly and
checked for its functioning which will meet the minimum requirement of the methodology.
Hence, all indicators of importance for controlling and reporting of projects performance have been
incorporated in the monitoring plan as well as indicated in the planned formal set of monitoring protocol and
work instructions.
The validation team has also reviewed the Management and operational structure for monitoring in the PDD
/02/ & has been confirmed that the designated personnel & their responsibility has been defined clearly with
respect to the key monitoring features.
The application of the monitoring methodology is transparent and the validation team considers the project
participants able to implement the monitoring plan.
Page 52
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Page 53
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Appendix A
CDM Validation Protocol
Project Title and Location
Report No. 01 997 9105067713
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 54
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Table 1:
Validation requirements
(based on 37 of the CDM Modalities and Procedures and on CDM Validation and Verification Manual version 1.2)
Findings, comments,
Checklist question
Ref.
MoV1
references, data sources
1.
Approval(VVM V E.1)
1.1 Have Letters of Approval have been
VVM
provided from all involved Parties?
Art. 44 to
If yes, indicate:
50
when and by which Party the LoA has been
/02/
issued, with a clear reference to the LoA itself
/03/
and any supporting documentation;
whether the LoA was provided to the DOE by
the project participants or directly by the
DNA;
the means of validation employed to assess the
authenticity of the document; and
by a clear statement, that the DOE considers
the LoA to be valid.
1.2 Are all Parties, who issued the LoA,
VVM
Parties to the Kyoto Protocol and is this
Art. 45
stated in the LoA?
/02/
/03/
1.3 Is every LoA from the Parties involved
VVM
issued by an organisation listed as
Art. 47
Designated National Authority (DNA) on
/02/
the UNFCCC web site?
/03/
Indicate the official name of the DNA and
contact person name.
DR, I
Draft
Final
conclusion conclusion
CAR 02
DR, I
See above
CAR 02
DR
See above
CAR 02
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 55
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 45
/02/
/03/
DR
See above
CAR 02
VVM
Art. 46
/02/
/03/
DR
See above
CAR 02
VVM
Art. 45
/02/
/03/
DR
See above
CAR 02
VVM
Art. 50
/02/
/03/
DR
See above
CAR 02
/29/
DR, I
See above
CL 04
Please kindly provide supporting documents to substantiate no
public funding in the project activity
CAR 02
CL 04
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 56
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
The LoA from the host party (Indonesia) was not provided yet.
CAR 01
1.1) The project participants name (PT. Tirta Gemah Ripa) is
inconsistent between sections A.2., A.3., B.8. and Annex 1
1.2) Kindly provide the applicable supporting documents to
substantiate the following statement: With annual 8,760
operating hours the project is expected to generate net
electricity 47471 MWh/year and expected to bring about GHG
emission reductions of approximately 33,846 tCO2e annually.
CAR 02: Please provide the LoAs of Host Country and Annex I
Country for validation
CAR 01
CAR 02
DR, I
See above
CAR 02
DR, I
See above
CAR 02
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 57
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
DR
See above
Version No.:02
CAR 02
OK
OK
Page 58
Validation Report
4.
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
CAR 03
CAR 05
CAR 13
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 59
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR
Version No.:02
CAR 04
CL 01
CL 02
CL 03
OK
Page 60
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
DR
DR, I
CAR 04
CL 01
CL 02
CL 03
OK
The PDD does not clearly describe whether the project activity
reflects current good practices, uses environmentally safe and
sound technology.
Please refer to 4.1 of Table 1 for details.
CAR 04
CL 01
CL 02
CL 03
OK
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 61
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 62
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR
4.8 Is the small scale project activity a
VVM
debundled component of a larger project
Art. 58 to
activity in accordance with the rules
64
defined in appendix C of the simplified
/01/
modalities and procedures for small-scale
/02/
CDM project activities?
A proposed small-scale project activity shall
be deemed to be a debundled component of a
large project activity if there is a registered
small-scale CDM project activity or an
application to register
another small-scale CDM project activity:
(a) With the same project participants;
(b) In the same project category and
technology/measure; and
(c) Registered within the previous 2 years;
and
(d) Whose project boundary is within 1 km of
the project boundary of the proposed smallscale activity at the closest point.
5.
Baseline and Monitoring methodology(VVM V E.5)
5.1
General requirements
5.1.1 Is the methodology used in the project
VVM
DR
activity approved by the CDM EB and
Art. 65 to
is the selected version still valid?
67
If during the course of validation the
/02/
originally applied version of the methodology
expires, a CAR shall be raised in Table 3 of
the validation protocol. Any new requirements
of the revised version of the methodology not
yet validated in Table 2 of the validation
protocol shall be validated in Table 3 as part
of the assessment of the CAR raised.
5.2 Applicability of the selected methodology
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
OK
OK
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 63
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
Yes. The project activity qualifies the criteria for SSC project
activities as below:
The project activity consists of a run-of-river diversiontype hydropower project which generates electricity by
utilizing the renewable hydro resource, which supplies
electricity to and displaces electricity from the national
electricity distribution system, i.e. Jamali grid which
mainly comprises fossil fuel-fired power plants which have
been supplied by at least one fossil fuel fired generating
unit;
The project activity is implemented in an existing
reservoir with no change in the volume of reservoir;
The total installed capacity of the project activity is
8MW, which does not exceed the threshold of 15MW for
small-scale CDM project;
The project activity does not involve heat recovery and
co-fired fossil fuel, thus it is not a combined heat and
power (co-generation) system;
The project activity (i) does not involve the addition of
renewable energy generation at an existing facility or (ii)
does not seek to retrofit or modify an existing facility.
OK
OK
DR, I
OK
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 64
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 71
/02/
DR
CAR 06
CAR 07
OK
VVM
Art. 71
/02/
DR
See above
CAR 06
CAR 07
OK
VVM
Art. 71
/02/
DR
See above
CAR 06
CAR 07
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 65
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR
OK
OK
DR
No, the PDD does not describe the project boundary correctly.
CAR 08
8.1) The project boundary shall include Jamali grid as
description in sections A.2 and A.4.2 of the PDD
8.2) Please kindly confirm whether the existing reservoir and
dam is included in the project boundary or not
8.3) PDD does not explain clearly whether the project activity
would use any backup diesel gen set in the event of emergency
etc?
CAR 08
OK
VVM
Art. 79
/02/
/11/
DR
See above
CAR 08
OK
VVM
Art. 80
DR
See above
CAR 08
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 66
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
VVM
Art. 82
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
OK
OK
CAR 09
CL 06
OK
DR, I
See above
CAR 09
CL 06
OK
VVM
Art. 82
DR, I
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 82
DR, I
OK
OK
DR
No
Version No.:02
Page 67
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 82
DR, I
CAR 11
OK
VVM
Art. 83
/02/
DR
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 84
/02/
DR
CAR 09
OK
VVM
Art. 84
/02/
DR
See above.
CAR 09
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 68
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
CAR 09
OK
CAR 09
OK
CAR 12
OK
CAR 12
OK
Page 69
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR
See above.
CAR 12
OK
DR
See above.
CAR 12
OK
DR
Yes, the major risks and uncertainties have been identified and
addressed in the PDD
OK
OK
See above
OK
OK
See above
OK
OK
DR
DR
Version No.:02
Page 70
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR
Version No.:02
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
O.K.
O.K.
OK
OK
OK
OK
Page 71
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
7 c) What is the project additionality mainly
Art. 94 to
based on (Investment analysis or barrier
DR
97
analysis)?
/01/
/02/
7.1
Prior consideration of the CDM (VVM V E.6.III.a)
7.1.1 Is there documented evidence provided
VVM
DR, I
by the project participants on how and
Art. 98 to
when the decision to proceed with the
104
project activity was taken?
/02/
/32/
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
OK
OK
CAR 10
OK
Page 72
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 98 to
104
/02/
/32/
DR, I
DR, I
The project starting date was 04th August 2011 when the EPC
contract for construction of the proposed project was signed.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
CAR 10
OK
OK
OK
Page 73
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
The project starting date was 04th August 2011 when the EPC
contract for construction of the proposed project was signed.
DR, I
OK
OK
CAR 10
OK
DR
Not applicable.
OK
OK
DR
Not applicable.
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 74
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR
OK
OK
DR
Not applicable.
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 75
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
DR
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
DR
See above
OK
OK
DR
See above
OK
OK
DR
See above
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 76
Validation Report
7.3
Investment Analysis(VVM V E.6.III.c)
7.3.1 Are all sources of revenues (including
VVM
savings) have been considered in the
Art. 108
PDD and all calculations?
to 114
/02/
/11/
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
The FSR has been the basis of the decision to proceed with the
investment in the project. All sources of revenues should be
documented in the PDD. The project participant is requested to
provide FSC and more supporting information in the investment
analysis.
See 7.1.1 above.
CL 05
5.1) Please clarify what is Tc in WACC calculation in section
B.5
5.2) Through interviews with the project participant during site
visit, it was found that the project participant was granted a
business license on 15th June 2010 with installed capacity of 2
MW.
a) Please clarify whether there is any real action was taken to
implement the project prior to 04th August 2011 (project
starting date as indicated in the PDD published for webhosting).
b) Please provide an implementation timeline of the proposed
CDM project activity which includes key events and actions
such as first meeting for stakeholder consultation, the date when
the first and second FSRs were approved, the date when Board
of Director decided to implement the project, the date when
investment license was granted and revised, the date when
construction works started, the date when equipment purchase
contract was signed, etc. This was not yet specified clearly for
validation team to conclude the adequacy of CDM prior
consideration compliance and starting date of project activity
5.3) Please clarify whether there is any national and/or sectoral
policies and circumstances in baseline scenarios as per Annex
3, EB22
Version No.:02
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
Page 77
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 108
to 114
/02/
DR, I
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 108
to 114
/02/
DR, I
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 110,
111
/02/
DR, I
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
Version No.:02
Page 78
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 1113
/02/
/11/
DR, I
Since the FSR has been applied as the basis of the decision to
proceed with the investment in the project, the project
participant is requested to provide FSR for validation.
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
VVM
Art. 113
/02/
/11/
DR, I
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
VVM
Art. 113
/02/
/11/
DR, I
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
VVM
Art. 108
to 114
/02/
/11/
DR, I
See above.
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
VVM
Art. 110
/02/
DR, I
See above.
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 79
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 95
/01/
/02/
DR
See above
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
VVM
Art. 111
/01/
/02/
DR
See above
CAR 10
CL 05
OK
VVM
Art. 116
/02/
DR, I
OK
OK
Not applicable.
Version No.:02
Page 80
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
DR, I
Not applicable.
OK
OK
DR, I
Not applicable.
OK
OK
DR, I
OK
OK
DR, I
Not applicable.
OK
OK
DR, I
Not applicable.
OK
OK
Version No.:02
Page 81
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art.
120,121
/02/
DR, I
Not applicable.
OK
OK
VVM
Art.
120,121
/02/
DR, I
Not applicable.
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
OK
CAR 14
Please specify monitoring / measuring frequency for EGy.
Please specify the accuracy of energy meter
Version No.:02
Page 82
Validation Report
8.2
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
See above.
CAR 15
15.1) Please clearly indicate the responsibilities for and
institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving.
Please describe the connecting point more transparently and
layout of metering system.
15.2) Please specify whether back-up meter will be used
15.3) Please specify the emergency procedure and training
requirements for monitoring implementation
15.4) Please specify calibration frequency as required by
relevant national standards
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 11
OK
Version No.:02
Page 83
Validation Report
8.4
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 15
OK
8.5
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
OK
8.6
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
See above.
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
8.7
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
See above.
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
8.8
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
See above.
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 84
Validation Report
8.9
01 997 9105067713
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
OK
OK
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
See above.
8.10 Are
procedures
identified
for
maintenance of monitoring equipment
and installations?
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
/25/
DR, I
Yes.
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 85
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
FAR01
Please refer
to Table 3
for details.
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR, I
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 86
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
CAR 14
CAR 15
OK
OK
OK
Yes
OK
OK
DR
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR
See above
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
DR
See above
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/01/
/02/
DR, I
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/01/
/02/
DR, I
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/01/
/02/
DR, I
VVM
Art. 122
to 124
/02/
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 87
Validation Report
9.1
9.2
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 125
to 127
/02/
DR
CAR 02
VVM
Art. 125
to 127
/02/
DR
OK
OK
OK
OK
10.
Stakeholders consultation and comments (VVM V E.9)
10.1 Were the stakeholders identified in
VVM
DR, I
appropriate and complete manner?
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
10.2 Are
the
plausible?
stakeholders
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
DR, I
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
DR, I
The PDD stated that the local stakeholders were invited through
advertisement on newspaper and invitation letters.
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
DR, I
See above.
OK
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
identified
Version No.:02
Page 88
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
DR, I
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
/11a/
/14c/
DR, I
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
DR
CL 08
OK
VVM
Art. 128
to 130
/02/
DR
OK
OK
DR, I
OK
OK
DR, I
See above.
OK
OK
11.
Environmental impacts(VVM V E.10)
11.1 Is the documentation supplied by the
VVM
PPs regarding environmental impacts
Art. 131
relevant and accurately reflected in the
to 133
PDD?
/02/
/14a/
11.2 Is an environmental impact assessment
VVM
(EIA) required for the CDM project
Art. 131
activity?
to 133
Note: determine by using a review of relevant
/02/
legislation and local expertise.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 89
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
VVM
Art. 131
to 133
/02/
DR, I
See above.
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 131
to 133
/02/
DR, I
See above.
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 131
to 133
/02/
DR, I
See above.
OK
OK
VVM
Art. 131
to 133
/02/
DR, I
CAR 16
CL 07
OK
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 90
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Table 2:
List of Requests for Corrective Action (CAR) and Clarification (CL)
Validation / Verification Manual
(35) The DOE shall raise a corrective action request (CAR) if one of the following occurs:
(a) The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional emission
reductions;
(b) The CDM requirements have not been met;
(c) There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated.
(36) The DOE shall raise a clarification request (CL) if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM
requirements have been met.
The wording of CAR/CL shall clearly address nonconformity or seek clarification, and avoid instructive / consultative language in order to prevent
actual or perceived consultancy.
Summary of project owner
No
CAR/CL
Observation (CAR/CL)
Reference
Validation team conclusion
response
1.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
CAR 01
1.1) The project participants name
(PT. Tirta Gemah Ripa) is
inconsistent between sections A.2.,
A.3., B.8. and Annex 1
A.2
A.3
B.8
Annex 1
A.2
Version No.:02
Response No.1
The project participants name PT.
Tirta Gemah Ripa is corrected in
section A.2, A.3, B.8 and Annex 1 of
the revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
The project participants name PT.
Tirta Gemah Ripah is corrected in
section A.2, A.3 of the revised PDD,
version 2.1.
The statement has been reframed in
section A.2 of the revised PDD,
version 2. The supporting document
for 8760, net electricity generation of
47471 MWh/year is feasibility study
report and CER amount of 33,847 is
Emission Reduction calculation sheet.
The emission reduction calculation
spreadsheet is attached for your
reference.
Response No. 1
The project participants name PT. Tirta
Gemah Ripa was not yet corrected in
section A.2, A.3
Response No. 2
The project participants name PT. Tirta
Gemah Ripa has been corrected in the
revised PDD.
CAR01 (1.1) is resolved & closed.
The feasibility study report /11/ page 42
provided information of operating hours
(Operational Day and Production Hours) of
8760 hours and net electricity production of
47,471 MWh/year. The expected amount of
GHG emission reductions of approximately
33,847 tCO2e annually is supported by the
emission reduction calculation spreadsheet
/30/, 31/
Page 91
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
2.
CAR 02
Please provide the LoAs of Host
Country and Annex I Country for
validation
A.3
3.
CAR 03
3.1) Please provide the coordinates of
the dam and powerhouse in 4 decimal
points
A.4.1.4
3.2) Please
location
A.4.1.4
Response No. 1
The co-ordinates of the dam and
powerhouse in 4 decimal points are
provided in section A.4.1.4 of the
revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
The co-ordinates of dam and the
power house in decimal points are
provided in section A.4.1.4 of revised
PDD, version 2.1. These co-ordinates
are taken during the validation site
visit. Hence the proof for co-ordinates
taken is sighted during validation site
visit itself.
Response No. 1
The project location is indicated in
map in section A.4.1.4 of the revised
PDD, version 2.
Response No 2
The map has been revised in section
A.4.1.4 of the revised PDD, version
2.1
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
specify
the
project
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
The map in which the project location is
indicated is not clear enough to identify the
location of the project activity. Please use
better map to identify the project location.
Response No. 2
A better map to identify the project location
has been provided in the revised PDD.
CAR03 (3.2) is resolved & closed.
Page 92
Validation Report
4.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
CAR 04
4.1) Please indicate the unit of turbine
speed
A.4.2
Response No. 1
The unit of turbine speed is
mentioned in section A.4.2 of the
revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator will be provided for
validation along with the response.
A.4.2
Response No. 1
The technical specification of turbine
and generator from supplier will be
provided for validation.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator will be provided for
validation along with the response.
A.4.2
Response No. 1
The key parameters of generators in
section A.4.2 of the revised PDD,
version 2.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator will be provided for
validation along with the response.
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
Please provide the technical specifications
from the manufacturer of the hydro turbine
and generator including the rated capacity
for validation
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator including the rated capacity has
been provided for validation
CAR04 (4.1) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
Please provide the technical specifications
from the manufacturer of the hydro turbine
and generator including the rated capacity
for validation.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator including the rated capacity has
been provided for validation
CAR04 (4.2) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
Please provide the technical specifications
from the manufacturer of the hydro turbine
and generator including the rated capacity
for validation.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator including the rated capacity has
been provided for validation
CAR04 (4.3) is resolved & closed.
Page 93
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
A.4.2
A.4.2
The
description
of
how
environmentally safe and sound
technology and knowhow is being
applied by the project activity is
provided in section A.4.2 of the
revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 1
The capacity factor has been taken as
per feasibility study report and it will
be submitted for validation.
Response No. 2
The feasibility study report is
prepared by third party. The third
party who has prepared the feasibility
study report is expertise in
preparation of feasibility studies for
hydro projects. Moreover, this meets
the condition specified for assessment
of plant load factor as per EB 48,
Annex 11.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
A.4.2
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
Response No. 1
Page 94
Validation Report
5.
6.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
B.3
B.7.1
B.7.2
B.6.3
CAR 05
5.1) Spelling mistakes on year 1 and
year 4
A.4.3
A.4.3
CAR 06
6.1) Footnote No. 2 is missing
B.1
Version No.:02
The template of table under A.4.3 is The correct template of table under A.4.3
corrected in section A.4.3 of the has been corrected to be consistent versus
revised PDD, version 2.
with the format template published by
UNFCCC.
CAR05 (5.2) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
Response No. 1
The footnote 2 is included in section The link provided in footnote 2 can not be
B.1 of the revised PDD, version 2.
accessed.
Response No. 2
Response No. 2
The link provided in the footnote 2 is The link has been updated in the revised
corrected in the revised PDD, version PDD.
2.1 and it should be in page 10 of the CAR06 (6.1) is resolved & closed.
PDD, as footnote is mentioned in
Page 95
Validation Report
7.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
B.1
B.6.1
B.1
CAR 07
7.1) Paragraph Illustration of
respective situations under
Spelling mistakes at e.g. grid imp
rt, the user end
xcess,
electricity company of Indoensia
B.2
B.2
The
justification
for
these The justification for the applicable criteria
applicability criteria is reframed in has been updated in the revised PDD.
section B.2 of the revised PDD, CAR07 (7.2) is resolved & closed.
version 2.
B.2
B.6.1
The version of the meth AMS I D is The version 17 of Methodology AMS I.D
updated in section B.2 and B.6.1 of has been updated in the revised PDD.
the revised PDD, version 2.
Version No.:02
Page 96
Validation Report
8.
01 997 9105067713
CAR 08
8.1) The project boundary shall
include Jamali grid as description in
sections A.2 and A.4.2 of the PDD
B.3
B.3
B.3
9.
CAR 09
The statement Hence in the project
scenario the electricity delivered to
the Jamali grid by the project activity
would have otherwise been generated
by the operation of grid connected
power plants and by the addition of
new
generation
sources
is
incomplete
B.4
10.
CAR 10
10.1) Please provide approved
Feasibility Study Report and other
data sources for validation of
financial / technical parameters
specified in section B.5 and Financial
Spreadsheet
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
B.6.2
Response No. 1
The approved feasibility study report
and other data sources will be
provided for validation.
Response No. 2
The feasibility study report is
prepared by third party. The third
party who has prepared the feasibility
study report is expertise in
preparation of feasibility studies for
hydro projects. Moreover, this meets
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
The salvage value is inconsistent between
FSR and Financial Spreadsheet
Response No. 2
The salvage value has been updated in
Financial Spreadsheet
CAR10 (10.1) is resolved & closed.
Page 97
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
B.5
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
The detail about the investment
decision date is included in section
B.5 of the revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
The documents mentioned in the
chronology will be provided along
with the response.
Response No. 1
Please provide the supporting document for
the investment decision date (23rd June
2010).
Moreover, please provide below documents
as mentioned in the revised PDD:
- Investment Approval from the Regent of
Garut dated 23rd July 2010
- Recommendation on Cirompang MHPs
Use of Land Allocation Permit, dated
26th July 2010
- The Agreement between PT. TGR with
GP3A Daerah Irigasi Cirompang, dated
2nd August 2010
- Recommendation letter document of
Environmental Management Effort &
Environmental Monitoring Effort &
Environmental Monitoring Effort for
Cirompang MHP 8 MW construction,
dated 2nd Sep 2010
- CDM Advisory services agreement
between PP and consultant, dated 2nd
Sep 2010
- PPA between PT. PLN (Persero) and PT.
Tirta Gemah Ripah for Mini Hydro
Power Plant Total Capacity 8000 kW,
dated 21st Nov 2011
Page 98
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
B.5
Response No. 1
The prior CDM consideration
notification sent to UNFCCC and
Host party DNA will be submitted for
validation.
Response No. 2
The date of the prior CDM
consideration notification sent to
Indonesia DNA is corrected in section
B.5 of the revised PDD, version 2.1.
B.5
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
C.1.2
Response No. 1
The reference sources for the
following are provided in section B.5,
C.1.2 of the revised PDD, version 2
and in financial spreadsheet.
Determination of power tariff As
per Permen ESDM Nomor 31 2009
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Response No. 2
The timeline of project activity and
supporting documents has been updated in
the revised PDD.
CAR10 (10.2) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
The the prior CDM consideration
notification sent to UNFCCC and Host
party DNA were provided for validation.
The prior CDM consideration notification
sent to UNFCCC can be verified via
UNFCCC web page /18/.
However the date of the prior CDM
consideration notification sent to Indonesia
DNA is inconsistent with section B.5 of the
revised PDD.
Response No. 2
The date of the prior CDM consideration
notification sent to Indonesia DNA has
been updated in section B.5 of the revised
PDD.
CAR10 (10.3) is resolved & closed.
Legend of D/V has been corrected to
Percentage of financing that is by debt
(%) in the revised PDD.
CAR10 (10.4) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
The reference sources of Power tariff,
Time span for assessment period,
Income Tax Rate, Depreciation,
Exchange Rate, Contingency, IDC
have been provided.
Calculation at Cell N12 of sheet Cashflow
Page 99
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
IDC
Values for calculation of Net energy
supplied to the grid are not traceable.
Please clarify?
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
dated
13
November
2009,
Government of Indonesia regulating
the tariff rate in Indonesia.
Time span for assessment period
Feasibility study report
Income tax rate Indonesia
Government Regulation No.17 Year
2000, clausal No.17
Depreciation Indonesia Government
Regulation No.17 Year 2000, clausal
No.11
Exchange rate http://www.xrates.com/cgi-bin/hlookup.cgi
Contingency Feasibility study
report
IDC Feasibility study report.
The formula used calculation of net
energy supplied to the grid is
provided in financial spreadsheet.
Response No. 2
The feasibility study report states the
commissioning schedule plan of the
project. However the board has
decided that expected commissioning
date of the project will be during Feb
2013.
The feasibility study report is
prepared by third party. The third
party who has prepared the feasibility
study report is expertise in
preparation of feasibility studies for
hydro projects. Moreover, this meets
the condition specified for assessment
of plant load factor as per EB 48,
Page 100
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
Version No.:02
Annex 11.
Calculation at Cell N12 of sheet
Cashflow is revised in the Financial
Spreadsheet
Response No. 1
The phasing of project costs as per the
feasibility study report is included in
revised financial spreadsheet for your
reference.
In accordance to the Law of Indonesia
No.17/2000 on Income Tax, Article
11,
local
accounting
practice
regulations, the depreciation rate for
permanent building is 5% which is 20
years will be fully depreciated.
The equipment is considered as non
building asset under group 4 with a
depreciation rate of 5% that will be
fully depreciated by year 20.
Based on the law, the salvage value
for the project will be zero.
Response No. 2
The salvage value is included in
project IRR calculation in the
financial spreadsheet.
Response No. 1
The selected values of E/V and D/V
are substantiated in section B.5 of the
revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
The debt equity ratio is changed to
70:30 in the benchmark calculation
Response No. 1
The phasing of project costs and data
sources have been provided in sheet
Assumption of Financial Spreadsheet.
The salvage value is inconsistent between
FSR and Financial Spreadsheet. Please
correct.
Response No. 2
The salvage value has been updated to be
consistent between FSR and Financial
Spreadsheet.
CAR10 (10.6) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
According to Para. 17 of EB62, Annex 5,
the percentage of debt financing and equity
financing should reflect the long-term
debt/equity finance structure of the legal
entity owning the assets of the project
activity. As the debt/equity finance structure
of this project activity is 70/30 as stated in
Page 101
Validation Report
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
01 997 9105067713
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
Version No.:02
and accordingly corrected in section FSR, please explain why the used D/V and
B.5 of the revised PDD, version 2.1.
E/V are different.
Response No. 2
The debt/equity finance structure of this
project activity has been corrected into
70/30.
CAR10 (10.7) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
Response No. 1
The justification of selected values of Please show to connect to specific link to
is substantiated in the revised PDD, download the data in Excel sheet Beta.
version 2.
Value of Re in inconsistent between
Financial Spreadsheet and section B.5 of the
Response No. 2
revised PDD.
In the following link
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/ Response No. 2
Please go to updated data, under the Value of Re has been corrected to be
data sets headline, please check for consistent between Financial Spreadsheet
total beta by industry sector. and section B.5 of the revised PDD.
Historical data under total beta by CAR10 (10.8) is resolved & closed.
industry are provided. The latest
available beta applicable to the
project activity is Jan 2010, and hence
that has been chosen.
The value of Re is corrected in
financial spreadsheet and section B.5
of the revised PDD, version 2.1
Response No. 1
Response No. 1
The calculation of market risk and Value of Re in inconsistent between
span chosen for market risk Financial Spreadsheet and section B.5 of the
calculation is substantiated in revised revised PDD.
PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
Response No. 2
Value of Re has been corrected to be
The value of Re is corrected in consistent between Financial Spreadsheet
financial spreadsheet and section B.5 and section B.5 of the revised PDD.
Page 102
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
Response No. 1
The correct link used for the krf value
is:
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/Static
Data/Publication/BondBook/FileDow
nload/INDONESIA%20BOND%20M
ARKET%20DIRECTORY%202011.
pdf
The calculation is provided in
financial spreadsheet.
Response No. 2
The value of Re is corrected in the
financial spreadsheet and section B.5
of the revised PDD, version 2.1.
The bond FR55 has been removed in
the risk free rate return calculation in
the financial spreadsheet.
Version No.:02
Page 103
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
11.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
B.5
Financial
Spreadsheet
Response No. 1
The critical parameters are included
in sensitivity analysis in section B.5
of the revised PDD, version 5.
Response No. 2
The salvage value is included in
project IRR calculation in the
financial spreadsheet.
Response No. 1
Please calculate project IRR with salvage
value stated in FSR.
Response No. 2
The updated calculation of project IRR with
salvage value stated in FSR has been
provided.
CAR10 (10.11) is resolved & closed.
B.5
Response No. 1
The correct link is provided in section
B.5 of the revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
The correct link is provided in section
B.5 of the revised PDD, version 2.1.
CAR 11
11.1) The below link can not be
accessed:
http://dnacdm.meth.go.id/en/database/
Please provide the raw data and
calculation of emission factor for
validation and please document the
calculation of the operating margin
and build margin emission factors as
B.6.1
B.6.2
B.6.3
Response No. 1
The updated link can not be accessed:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/P/U/2/PU2
ARNBM3KFXS9HZ6OELGTICJ81VYD/e
b62_repan13.pdf?t=RHd8bHp
1N2kyfDDyYPDMTFvHabVNNYW0S1L
w
Response No. 2
The correct link has been provided in
section B.5 of the revised PDD.
CAR10 (10.12) is resolved & closed.
The correct link has provided in the revised
PDD:
http://pasarkarbon.dnpi.go.id/web/index.php
/komnasmpb/read/20/faktor-emisi-jaringanlistrik-jawamadura-bali-jamali-2010-.html
The raw data and calculation of grid
emission factor of Jamali Grid has been
updated in section B.6.1 and Appendix A of
the revised PDD. The correct version of the
Version No.:02
Page 104
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
12.
13.
14.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
The tool version applicable for Tool has been updated in section B.6.1,
calculation is provided in section B.6.2 and B.6.3 of the revised PDD.
B.6.1, B.6.2 and B.6.3 of the revised CAR11 (11.1) is resolved & closed.
PDD, version 2.
B.6.1
Response No. 1
The justification is corrected in
section B.6.1 of the revised PDD,
version 2.
Response No. 2
The justification is provided in
section B.6.1 and B.6.3 of the revised
PDD, version 2.1
CAR 12
12.1) Calculation of Baseline
emissions (BEy) is incorrect
B.6.3
12.2) Please
LEy,exante
or
B.6.3
CAR 13
13.1) The template of table in section
B.6.4 is inconsistent versus the
guidelines published by UNFCCC
B.6.4
B.6.4
CAR 14
Please specify monitoring / measuring
B.7.1
Response No. 1
Response No. 1
The year 3 and year 4 of the table are The table in section B.6.4 has been
corrected in section B.6.4 of the corrected in the revised PDD..
revised PDD, version 2.
CAR13 (13.2) is resolved & closed.
The measuring frequency and The measuring frequency (continuously) for
accuracy of the energy meters are EGy has been updated in section B.7.1 of
clarify
LEy
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
The justification why Project Emissions
(PEy) = 0 (caused by Emission from diesel
generator backup) is not substantiated in
section B.6.1 and B.6.3 of the revised PDD.
Response No. 2
The justification for Project Emissions
(PEy) = 0 (caused by Emission from diesel
generator backup) has been substantiated in
section B.6.1 and B.6.3 of the revised PDD.
CAR11 (11.2) is resolved & closed.
The calculation of Baseline emissions
(BEy) has been corrected in section B.6.3 of
the revised PDD.
CAR12 (12.1) is resolved & closed.
LEy has been corrected in section B.6.3 of
the revised PDD.
CAR12 (12.2) is resolved & closed.
The template of table in section B.6.4 has
been corrected to be consistent versus the
guidelines published by UNFCCC.
CAR13 (13.1) is resolved & closed.
Page 105
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
15.
16.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
CAR 15
15.1) Please clearly indicate the
responsibilities for and institutional
arrangements for data collection and
archiving. Please describe the
connecting point more transparently
and layout of metering system.
B.7.2
B.7.2
B.7.2
B.7.2
CAR 16
Please provide the supporting
documents for the arrangement of
compensation due to resettlement of
households involved for the project
D.1
Version No.:02
The back-up meters will be used and The back-up meters will be installed at the
the details are provided in section power house and described in section B.7.2
B.7.2 of the revised PDD, version 2.
of the revised PDD.
CAR15 (15.2) is resolved & closed.
The details about the emergency The emergency procedure has been updated
procedure and training requirements in section B.7.2 of the revised PDD.
for monitoring are provided in section Training on CDM monitoring will be
B.7.2 of the revised PDD.
provided to relevant staff prior to the start of
the crediting period.
CAR15 (15.3) is resolved & closed.
The
calibration
frequency
is The calibration frequency has been updated
mentioned in section B.7.2 of the in section B.7.2 of the revised PDD.
revised PDD, version 2.
Moreover this is also required in the PPA
/7/, /26/.
CAR15 (15.4) is resolved & closed.
Response No. 1
Response No. 1
The supporting documents for During the interview with the local people
arrangement of compensation due to when on site visit, its confirmed that there
resettlement of households involved were 135 people with 7.4 ha of land
will be provided for validation.
affected by the project. All effected people
Page 106
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
activity
Response No. 2
The sample records on land
compensation will be provided for
validation along with the response.
17.
CL 01
Through interviews with project
participant and review of Agreement
between PT. TGR with GP3A DI
Cirompang dated 11th Aug 2011, it
was confirmed that the project
participant is allowed to use the dam
owned by Garut Regency until the
PPA between the project participant
and PLN is no longer valid (i.e. for 15
years), please clarify what will
happen with the project facilities
(powerhouse, tunnel, channel, etc)
when that Agreement and PPA
become invalid.
A.2
B.5
C.1.2
Response No. 1
The PP may extend the PPA until the
lifetime of the equipments installed in
the project activity.
Response No. 2
The article 3 of the PPA between PT.
PLN (Persero) and PT. Tirta Gemah
Ripah for Mini Hydro Power Plant
Capacity 2000 kW about terms of
agreement describes, that the PP may
extend the PPA until the lifetime of
the equipments installed in the project
activity.
18.
CL 02
Please provide the supporting
information from the turbine and
generator manufacturer for the
validation of project lifetime and
technical specifications including the
rated capacity
A.4.2
Response No. 1
The EPC contract has been signed for
Engineering,
Procurement
&
Construction Plant of 8 MW mini
hydro
project.
The
technical
specification will be provided for
validation.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator will be provided for
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
Please provide the technical specifications
from the manufacturer of the hydro turbine
and generator including the rated capacity
for validation.
Response No. 2
The technical specifications from the
manufacturer of the hydro turbine and
generator including the rated capacity has
been provided for validation
CL02 is resolved & closed.
Page 107
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Response No. 1
The PP has been approved for using
existing reservoir and dam for construction
of a hydropower plant. This is supported by
the Agreement between the PP and GP3A
(Association of farmers) dated 11 August
2011, and Investment Approval from the
Regent of Garut, dated 23 July 2010.
However, please kindly describe this
scenario in the PDD.
Response No. 2
The scenario of the proposed project has
been updated in the revised PDD.
CL03 is resolved & closed.
The declaration from PP on non The PP has provided supporting documents
involvement of public funding in the to confirm no public funding in the project
project activity will be provided for activity /29/.
validation.
CL04 is resolved & closed.
19.
CL 03
Please clarify who is the owner of the
existing dam and whether the project
participant was approved to build a
channel at the existing dam to take
water for power generation. Please
clarify whether the existing dam is
modified when implementation of
project activity
A.4.2
20.
CL 04
Please kindly provide supporting
documents to substantiate no public
funding in the project activity
A.4.4
21.
CL 05
5.1) Please clarify what is Tc in
WACC calculation in section B.5
B.5
The Tc is tax rate and it is provided in The justification for Tc has been updated in
section B.5 of the revised PDD, the revised PDD.
version 2.
CL05 (5.1) is resolved & closed.
B.5
Response No. 1
The chronology of the events is
presented in section B.5 of the revised
PDD, version 2 for better clarity.
Response No. 2
The supportive documents for all the
events mentioned in the chronology
will be provided along with the
response.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Response No. 1
The chronology of the events has been
updated in section B.5 of the revised PDD.
However, please provide the supporting
documents for all events listed in section
B.5 of the revised PDD.
Response No. 2
All supporting documents for the timeline
of the project activity have been provided
for validation.
Page 108
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
22.
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
CL 06
Kindly clarify whether the name of
person / entity determining baseline
and monitoring methodology is
correct
B.5
B.8
Response No. 1
The name of the person and entity
determining baseline and monitoring
methodology is provided in section
B.8 of the revised PDD, version 2.
Response No. 2
Yes. The person/ entity mentioned in
section B.8 of the PDD is also a
project participant as listed in Annex
1 of the PDD and the same is
included in section B.8 of the revised
PDD, version 2.1.
Version No.:02
Page 109
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
23.
CL 07
Please clarify what PLTMH means
D.1
24.
CL 08
Please clarify what MHPP means
E.1
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
Version No.:02
Page 110
Validation Report
01 997 9105067713
Table 3:
List of forward action requests (FARs)
Validation / Verification Manual
(37) The DOE shall raise a forward action request (FAR) during validation to highlight issues related to project implementation that require review
during the first verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to the CDM requirements for registration.
FAR number
Reference
Summary of project owner response
Validation team conclusion
FAR01
The project participant is requested to provide CDM
training plan to the validation team for review
Rev 01 (2011-11-01) ,
B.7.2
Version No.:02
Page 111
Appendix B
Certificates of Competence
Page
112