Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to present the sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a) and step 1 of the assessment of additionality stated the applied methodology.
The PDD has not presented the sensitivity analysis of the IRR calculation.

2: The DOE is requested to provide a description of steps taken to cross-check the information given in the PDD as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 88.
(a) It is not clear how the DOE has crosschecked the following input values in the levelized cost analysis:
(i) for alternative of subcritical coal power plant: project cost, cost of coal and NCV of coal;
(ii) for alternative of supercritical coal power plant with imported coal: project cost, cost of imported coal and NCV of imported coal;
(iii) for alternative of supercritical coal power plant with domestic coal: project cost, cost of coal and NCV of coal. Furthermore, it is not clear why the project cost is different with the alternative of supercritical coal power plant with imported coal while the validation report indicates that they use the same unit cost in USD/kW (page 164 and page 168);
(iv) for alternative of lignite power plant: project cost, cost of lignite and NCV of lignite;
(v) for alternative of naphtha power plant: project cost, cost of naphtha and NCV of naphtha. Furthermore, it is not clear why the project cost of naphtha alternative is different with the project activity given that the VR page 174 mentions it is as per the project activity.
(b) the spreadsheet for the levelized cost analysis has not been provided.

3: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
With regard to the input values of the project activity, the Validation Report has not provided the following:
(a) the value of the heat rate that was used to crosscheck the heat rate of the project activity;
(b) the values of the O&M expense and O&M annual escalation that were used to crosscheck the O&M expense and O&M annual escalation of the project activity;
(c) the justification to use levelized cost for tariff, instead of the applicable tariff in the IRR calculation.

4: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated sensitivity analysis of the investment analysis as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 111 (e).
The Validation Report lacks information on the validation of the sensitivity analysis of the IRR calculation.

5: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
The DOE has not validated: (a) beta, and why 5 years data are used; (2) the average Prime Lending Rate being 13%, while the spreadsheet does not show that the average is 13% (it shows 10.50%-12% and 12.75%-13.25%).

6: The DOE is requested to identify if the PDD has been updated and rectified according to the responses to the CARs, CLs and or FARs raised during validation as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 39.
The project participant on its response to CAR B18 mentions that information regarding monitoring of parameters has been stated in the PDD. However, the information about the accuracy of the ultrasonic meters being less than 0.1% (Validation Report page 43) and the calibration of gas flow meter being once in a year (Validation report page 44) is not available in the PDD.