common reasons for delays and rejection of cdm projects
Post on 07-Apr-2018
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
1/25
UNFCCC secretariat, programmeFirstname Lastname, Job Title
Main reasons for delay and rejection ofCDM projects during registration and
issuance
Workshop on Enhancing the Regional Distribution of CDM Projects in
Asia and the Pacific
Kathmandu, Nepal. 7 September 2011
Mr. Miguel NaranjoUNFCCC secretariat, SDM/ OSD
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
2/25
REGISTRATION
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
3/25
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
4/25
COMPLETENESS CHECK
Source: Information note on the results of the completeness checks (1 February 2011 30 April 2011)
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
5/25
Main issues raised during CC
Issues related to Modalities of Communication:
Example 1: Two focal points are appointed with the same sole role.
Example 2: No party is mentioned in the Annex 1 of the MoC.
Use of an expired version of the methodology (please refer to paragraph 14 of EB48
Annex 60 for extensions of the validity period of the methodology)
Replicable spreadsheets: Example 1: Existence of debugs or circular references.
Example 2: Sensitivity analysis is not replicable.
Example 3: Some rows/cells in the spreadsheets provided do not contain formulas (only
typed figures), most of the time in the calculation of the income tax
Inconsistencies (mainly related to PPs and Parties)
Documents submitted without any translation
Bundling form not provided
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
6/25
INFORMATION AND REPORTING CHECK
Source: Information note on the results of the completeness checks (24 October 2010 31 January 2011)
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
7/25
Main issues raised during I&R Check
Investment analysis - Validation of input values:
Example 1: No explanation on the application of annual escalation to O&M cost and notto other input values.
Example 2: No validation of each component of the project and/or O&M costs.
Example 3: Validation on why no salvage value was considered is missing.
Example 4: No justification of investment breakdown and electricity schedule is
provided.
Common practice analysis
Example 1: The list of the similar activities considered (including their details) is not
provided in the PDD.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
8/25
Main issues raised during I&R Check
Baseline:
Example 1: The Validation Report does not validate the baseline assumptions or doesnot contain the values of such parameters.
Example 2: Evidence of the assessment of the elimination of the alternatives to the
baseline scenario is not provided.
Example 3: Assessment on the increase in capacity for Small Scale projects is not
provided.
Applicability condition of the methodology
Monitoring
Example 1: Monitoring parameters are not in line with the methodology or tools.
Issues related to closure of CARs
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
9/25
REVIEW STAGE
Registration
142 (66%)
55 (25%)
19 (9%) 1 (0%)
Additionality
Application of baselinemethodology
Application of the
monitoring methodology
Project description
Source: Appendix 2 (Annex 2 to Annotations to the agenda of EB)
Monitoring period from 1 January to 20 June 2010
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
10/25
Main issues raised during the Review stage
Additionality
114 (80%)
10 (7%)
11 (8%)
7 (5%) Prior consideration
Investment analysis
Barrier analysis
Common practice analysis
Application of baseline methodology
20 (36%)
23 (42%)
4 (7%)8 (15%) Project boundary
Baseline identification
Algorithms and/or formulae to
determine emiss ion reductions
Compliance with applicability
conditions
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
11/25
Main issues raised during the Review stage
Investment analysis:
Example 1: Simple cost analysis is not applicable as there is evidence that the project
activity generate some revenues. Example 2: Suitability of input values at the time of investment decision not validated.
Example 3: Input values not cross-checked against independent sources
(contracts/quotations/purchase orders/price indexes/appropriate literature)
Barrier analysis (project-specific) Example 1 - Investment barrier: The financial situation of the PP and its difficulty to
receive loan is not confirmed.
Example 2 - Technological barrier : Training cost (or other resources) have a direct
impact on the financial returns of the project activity and were not assessed by investment
analysis.
Example 3 - Prevailing practice: No information was provided on whether there are
industries with similar or comparable technologies to the project activity that have installed
similar technologies in the country/region and how the application of the technology differs
between such industries and the projects sector.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
12/25
Main issues raised during the Review stage
Continuing and real actions:
Example 1: The type of evidence used to justify the gap between the project starting date
and the commencement of validation is not appropriate or has not been justified (i.e.
termination contracts, minutes of meetings).
Example 2: The specific CDM deliverables and/or actions carried out under the different
consultancy agreements is not explained (in cases where more than one consultant is
involved)
Baseline:
Example 1: The baseline scenario does not take into account the projected increase
in (processing) capacity in line with General Guidance forSSCmethodologies
Example 2 Investment comparison: Different construction period, investment
breakdown and schedule and amount of electricity generation is considered for thebaseline and project scenarios but they are not justified.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
13/25
ISSUANCE
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
14/25
COMPLETENESS CHECK
Source: Information note on the results of the completeness checks (1 February 2011 30 April 2011)
A total of 429 submissions for Issuance were made.
2%
15%65%
17%
Projects Rejected
at CC (step 1) =
40/429 =
9%
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
15/25
Main issues raised during CC
Inconsistency of Information:
The documents submitted are not internally and mutually consistent (EB48 - Annex 68
paragraph 7(b)).Example 1: In the monitoring line diagram for Line II (page 13 of the monitoring report), the
tag number for the monitoring equipment of "P_HNO3" is stated as 322-FT-2-513 whereas
page 43 of the monitoring report states 322-FT-512 inconsistency.
Example 3: The deviation number I-DEV0XXX stated by the DOE in page 5 of verification
report refers to another project activity.Example 4: The default value has only been applied from 01/02/2008 till 01/09/2008 for Site 2
in the Excel spreadsheet whilst the monitoring report Table B5 states that the default value has
been applied from 01/02/2008 till 20/10/2008.
Example 5: The verification report states that the calorific value of Diesel is monitored from
the latest CEA CDM data base and is in line with the registered PDD while the monitoring
report states that the value is taken from IPCC as per registered PDD.
The signed form contains inconsistent number of CERs as compared to the verified value.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
16/25
Main issues raised during CC
Other issues:
Some spreadsheets are missing Inconsistencies between diagrams and monitoring instruments
Different grid name or grid conection in different documents
Different grid emission factor in different documents
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
17/25
INFORMATION AND REPORTING CHECK
Source: Information note on the results of the completeness checks (1 February 2011 30 April 2011)
A total of 429 submissions for Issuance were made.
Projects Rejected
at I&RC (step 2) =
39/429 =
9%
15%
5%
10%
27%
24%
5%
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
18/25
Main issues raised during the I&RC (step 2)
Calibration information not provided:
The verification report does not contain information on how the DOE verified the calibration of
monitored equipments with the calibration requirements.
Calibration Delay:
The verification report does not contain an assessment on how the DOE verified the
calibration delay of monitoring equipments against the requirements of EB52, Annex 6
The information on calibration of monitoring instruments reported is not in accordance with
that specified by the monitoring methodology/ monitoring plan.
Calibration Frequency Requirement:
The verification report does not contain information on how the DOE verified the calibration
frequency of monitored equipments with the calibration requirements.
Calibration Information not provided and no explanation for increase of ERs:
The monitoring report and excel file provided do not contain clear information on monitoring
instruments and related calibration.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
19/25
Main issues raised during the I&RC (step 2)
Incomplete Monitored Parameters:
The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan
and clearly state how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation,
aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the
values in the monitoring reports (VVM 1.2. para 206).
The MR does not contain all parameters required to be monitored as per the monitoring
plan/applied methodology (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (iii)).
Compliance with the monitoring plan / revised monitoring plan:
The VR does not have a statement on whether the monitoring has been carried out in
accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan (VVM v.1.2 para 203).
Cross-checking with other sources: The Verification Report does not indicate how the information provided in the monitoring
report has been cross-checked with other sources (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (b)).
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
20/25
Main issues raised during the I&RC (step 2)
Inappropriate Calculation of ERs:
The monitoring report does not contain the formulae for Baseline Emissions and/or ProjectEmissions and/or emission reductions calculations, including reference to formulae and
methods used.
The emission reductions spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation.
No sufficient explanation for Increase of ER:
The MR does not contain an explanation of any significant increase of actual emission reduction
claimed in the monitoring period in relation to the estimated in the registered PD.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
21/25
Review Stage: Issuance
Reasons for Review of Request for Issuance
Sourced from Appendix 2 (Annex 2 to Annotations to the agenda of EB61)
Monitoring period from 1 Jan- 30 June 2010
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
22/25
Main issues raised during the Review stage
Implementation of Project Activity:
MR & VR does not mention reasons for higher PLF than the one in the registered PDD
The DOE has not requested either approval or notification of changes from project
design, if there is a permanent change in the plant load factor from the PDD.
Turbines model number and capacity are different from those described in the registered
PDD.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
23/25
Main issues raised during the Review stage
Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions:
The DOE to clarify how it verified that there were no leakage emissions due to electricity
consumption from Site A considering that the MR indicated that this site was in operation
during the monitoring period even though there was no gas generation.
How DOE checked that the calibration of the 7 individual meters was done following the
Guidance for SSC project activities.
The DOE shall clarify how it confirmed that the guidelines for small scale project activities
which require recalibration of meters at least once in three years was complied with
considering that after the initial calibration of the meters.
Incorrect IPCC values.
Inconsistent input values.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
24/25
Main issues raised during the Review stage
Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology:
The DOE is required to clarify how it verified that the calibration of all measurement
instruments, except for the HFC23 flow-meter, was done according with the requirements from
the methodology (i.e., monthly frequency).
The DOE is required to clarify how it verified the reported values of electricity consumed from
the grid by the clinker production and by the blended cement grinding units as the existing
electricity-meter, located in the main feeder, monitors the total electricity imported.
The methodology requires the measurement of the volume of auxiliary fuel Qi used by the
project activity to determine project emissions. Since the project emissions had been calculated
in respect of the steam supplied to de-oxygenation process rather than measured, the DOE is
requested to clarify: 1) how it verified that the monitoring of project emissions is in accordance
with the methodology and, 2) if they were not monitored in accordance with the
methodology why the DOE did not submit a request for deviation.
-
8/4/2019 Common Reasons for Delays and Rejection of CDM Projects
25/25
SDM programme
UNFCCC secretariat
THANK YOURegional Meeting of the DNA Forum for Asia and the Pacific
Kathmandu, Nepal. 5 September 2011
Mr. Miguel Naranjo
top related