VALIDATION REPORT

DAK PRING HYDROPOWER PROJECT

REPORT NO. GHGCC(A)12-004 REVISION NO. 05

GHG Certification Office

KOREA ENERGY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

KEMC-CF-618(Rev.5, 09 FEB 2010)

Date of first issue: Project No.:7 2014-07-11 GHGCC(A)-12-004 Approved by: Organisational unit:

Jae Hoon LEE (Director) GHG Certification Office, Korea Energy Management Corporation

Client: Client ref.: Central Power Corporation Mr. Tran Dinh Nhan Period for Comments 02/11/2012 – 01/12/2012 Category (Sectoral Scope) Energy Industries (renewable-/non-renewable sources) (1) First PDD (version and date) Version 1.0, 19/10/2012 Final PDD (version and date) Version 1.2, 18/07/2014 Summary:

The Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) Validation Team has conducted validation of the “Dak Pring Hydropower Project” in Viet Nam to ensure that the proposed project is in conformity with all applicable CDM requirements including the CDM modalities and procedures, and relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the CDM Executive Board. The validation consisted of following three phases:

1) Desk review of the project design, baseline methodology and monitoring plan, and relevant data and information;

2) On-site assessment and follow-up interviews with relevant stakeholders in the host country, personnel with knowledge of the project design and implementation; and,

3) Resolution of outstanding issues and issuance of the final validation report and opinion. During the validation, the Team assessed, using objective evidence, the completeness and accuracy of the claimed emission reductions and conservativeness of the assumptions made in the project design document (PDD). In addition, based on its sectoral and regional expertise, the Team assessed whether the project activity complies with the relevant requirements set out in the CDM modalities and procedures, the applicability conditions of the selected methodology and guidance issued by the CDM Executive Board. In summary, KEMCO is of the opinion that the project, as described in the project design document as of 18/07/2014, meets all applicable UNFCCC requirements for the CDM and correctly applies the approved baseline and monitoring methodology AMS-I.D (version 17). Hence, KEMCO requests the registration of the Dak Pring Hydropower Project as a CDM project activity. Report No.: Subject Group: GHGCC(A)-12-004 Indexing terms Report title: Dak Pring Hydropower Project UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol/CDM

Validation / Verification Work carried out by: Seung Ho HAN (Team Leader), Min Ha PARK(Validator Under-Observation)

No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organisational unit Work verified by:

Min Ku PARK Limited distribution Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:

29/12/2014 5.0 88 Unrestricted distribution

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page i

Abbreviations Explain any abbreviations that have been used in the report here. BM Build Margin CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEF Carbon Emission Factor CER Certified Emission Reduction CL Clarification request CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent DNA Designated National Authority EVN Electricity of Viet Nam FAR Forward Action Request FSR Feasibility Study Report GHG Greenhouse gas(es) GWP Global Warming Potential IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KEMCO Korea Energy Management Corporation LOA Letter of Approval MP Monitoring Plan NGO Non-governmental Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance OM Operating Margin PDD Project Design Document UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CDM) VVM Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Validation and Verification Manual

Conversion Factors and Definitions Insert and describe any conversion factors used in the report here. In addition, define any specific terminology used in the report.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page ii

Table of Contents Page

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Objective 3 1.2. Scope 3 1.3. GHG Project Description 4

2. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Review of Documents 6

2.2. Follow-up Interviews 7

2.3. Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests 7

2.4. Internal Quality Control 8

3. VALIDATION FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 9 3.1. Approval 9

3.2. Authorization 9 3.3. Modalities of Communications 10 3.4. Project Design Document 11 3.5. Project Description 11

3.6. Baseline and Monitoring Methodology 12 3.6.1. Applicability of the selected methodology to the project activity 12 3.6.2. Project boundary 13 3.6.3. Baseline identification 14 3.6.4. Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions 14 3.7. Additionality 17 3.7.1. Prior consideration of the clean development mechanism 17 3.7.2. Identification of alternatives 17 3.7.3. Investment analysis 17 3.7.4. Barrier analysis 25 3.7.5. Common practice analysis 25 3.8. Monitoring Plan 25

3.9. Environmental Impacts 26

3.10. Local Stakeholders Consultation 26

4. COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS .............................. 27

5. VALIDATION OPINION ......................................................................................... 28

6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: Validation Protocol

Appendix B: Appointment certificates of team members (including technical reviewers)

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 3

1. INTRODUCTION

The Central Power Corporation has commissioned the Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) to perform a validation of the “Dak Pring Hydropower Project” in Viet Nam (hereafter called “the project”). This report summarises the validation findings for the project, as well as means of validation to assess the correctness of the information provided by the project participants.

The validation team consisted of the following personnel:

Role Name Organization Technical areas Participation

Desk review Site visit Team Leader, Technical Area Expert

Seung Ho HAN KEMCO GHG Certification Office

1-2, 3-1, 13-1, 13-2, 14-1, 15-2 P P

Team member (under observation)

Min Ha PARK KEMCO GHG Certification Office 4-1, 5-1, 9-2 P P

Technical reviewer Min Ku PARK KEMCO GHG Certification Office 1-2, 13-1

1.1. Objective The purpose of validation is to ensure a thorough, independent assessment of proposed project activities submitted for registration as a proposed CDM project activity against all applicable CDM requirements. In particular, application of the baseline and monitoring methodology and demonstration of the project additionality is validated through document review, on-site observation and interviews with relevant stakeholders and personnel.

1.2. Scope The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of:

- Technical description of the project;

- GHG sources and types to be included within the project boundaries;

- Baseline scenario; - Project additionality;

- Monitoring plan;

- Environmental impacts by the proposed project; and,

- Comments by local stakeholders

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 4

The validation scope can be extended depending on project-specific situations or required by relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the CDM Executive Board.

1.3. GHG Project Description The Dak Pring Hydropower Project is a grid-connected hydro power plant which will be located in Cha Val commune, Nam Giang district, Quang Nam Province, Viet Nam. The coordinates for the project: longitude of 107º33’10”E and latitude of 15º37’05”N. The proposed project will generate electricity using a small run-of-river reservoir, which is located on the Dak Pring River (a tributary of the Bung and will have a total installed capacity of 7.5MW (3.75MWÍ2units). The annual net generation of electricity exported to the grid is estimated at 30,155 MWh, resulting in emission reductions of 16,896 tCO2e/year by displacing grid electricity generation from fossil fuel-fired plants. The project has the following positive impacts with respect to contribution to sustainable development in Viet Nam: - Environmentally offsetting fossil fuel use and lowering greenhouse gas emissions; - Socially improving quality of life by meeting electricity demand and providing jobs; - Technologically transfer of hydropower-related technology; and, - Economically contributing to local tax system, promoting economic development, alleviating

poverty, ensuring energy security of the region.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 5

2. METHODOLOGY

The validation may consist of the following three phases:

1) Desk review of the project design, baseline methodology and monitoring plan, and relevant data and information;

2) On-site assessment and follow-up interviews with relevant stakeholders in the host country, personnel with knowledge of the project design and implementation; and,

3) Resolution of outstanding issues and issuance of the final validation report and opinion. In order to ensure transparency, a validation protocol was customized for the project, according to the Validation and Verification Manual. The protocol shows in transparent manner, criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes. l It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet; l It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will document how a

particular requirement has been validated and the result of the validation. The validation protocol consists of three tables. The different columns in these tables are described in Figure1. The completed validation protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. Findings established during the validation can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of validation protocol criteria or where a risk to the fulfilment of project objectives is identified. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are issued, where:

i) Mistakes have been made with a direct influence on project results; ii) Validation protocol requirements have not been met; or iii) There is a risk that the project would not be accepted as a CDM project or that emission

reductions will not be certified.

The validation team may use the term Clarification Request (CL), which would be where: i) Additional information is needed to fully clarify an issue.

Forward Action Request (FAR) may also be issued, where:

i) Certain issues related to project implementation should be reviewed during the first verification.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 6

Figure 1 Validation protocol tables

Validation Protocol Table 1: Mandatory Requirements

Requirement Reference Conclusion Cross reference The requirements the project must meet.

Gives reference to the legislation or agreement where the requirement is found.

This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) of risk or non-compliance with stated requirements. The corrective action requests are numbered and presented to the client in the Validation report.

Used to refer to the relevant checklist questions in Table 2 to show how the specific requirement is validated. This is to ensure a transparent Validation process.

Validation Protocol Table 2: Requirement checklist

Checklist Question Reference Means of verification (MoV)

Comment Draft and/or Final Conclusion

The various requirements in Table 1 are linked to checklist questions the project should meet. The checklist is organised in seven different sections. Each section is then further sub-divided. The lowest level constitutes a checklist question.

Gives reference to documents where the answer to the checklist question or item is found.

Explains how conformance with the checklist question is investigated. Examples of means of verification are document review (DR) or interview (I). N/A means not applicable.

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.

This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) due to non-compliance with the checklist question (See below). Clarification is used when the validation team has identified a need for further clarification.

Validation Protocol Table 3: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarifications and corrective action requests

Ref. to checklist question in table 2

Summary of project owner response

Validation conclusion

If the conclusions from the draft Validation are either a Corrective Action Request or a Clarification Request, these should be listed in this section.

Reference to the checklist question number in Table 2 where the Corrective Action Request or Clarification Request is explained.

The responses given by the Client or other project participants during the communications with the validation team should be summarised in this section.

This section should summarise the validation team’s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should also be included in Table 2, under “Final Conclusion”.

2.1. Review of Documents The Project Design Document (PDD) version 1.0 dated 19/10/2012 submitted initially and final version dated 18/07/2014 along with additional background document /3/ - /41/ related to the project design and baseline were assessed as a part of validation.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 7

The desk review focused mainly on the following aspects: l Participation Requirement l Project Design Document l Project Additionality l Sustainable Development and Approval by Parties involved l Baseline Methodology and Project Baseline l Monitoring Methodology and Plan – Coverage of Emission Sources l Monitoring Practices and GHG Data Management

2.2. Follow-up Interviews From 01/07/2014 to 02/07/2014, KEMCO performed interviews with project stakeholders to confirm major information on the project activity and to resolve issues identified in the desk review. The responsible persons of Central Power Corporation and project consultants of Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd. were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Interview topics Interviewed organisation Interview topics

Central Power Corporation Ø Project background information Ø Project technology, operation, maintenance and monitoring capability Ø Project additionality Ø Project monitoring and management plan. Ø Project approval status (incl. EPC approval, CDM project status) Ø Stakeholder consultation process

Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd. Ø Application of selected baseline and monitoring methodology Ø Baseline determination Ø Emission reduction calculation Ø Emission reduction monitoring plan

Local People Ø Environmental Impacts

2.3. Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests The objective of this phase of the validation was to resolve the requests for corrective actions and clarification and any other outstanding issues which needed to be clarified for KEMCO’s positive conclusion on the project design. The Corrective Action Requests and Clarification Requests raised by KEMCO and presented to the project participant in KEMCO’s Non-Conformity report as of 02/07/2014 were resolved during communications between the project participants and KEMCO. To guarantee the transparency of the validation process, the concerns raised and responses given are documented in the validation protocol in Appendix A.

Since modification to the project design documents were necessary to resolve KEMCO’s concerns, the client decided to revise the PDD and resubmitted the updated PDD. After reviewing and assessing the revised PDD, KEMCO issued this final validation report and opinion.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 8

2.4. Internal Quality Control The final draft validation opinion and report have been assessed through technical review before requesting registration of the project activity. The technical review has been conducted by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with KEMCO’s Review of Validation/V&C Procedure mainly in terms of validation procedures and results, and approved by the Director of KEMCO’s GHG Certification Office.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 9

3. VALIDATION FINDINGS In the following sections the findings of the validation are stated. The validation findings for each validation subject are presented as follows:

1) The findings from the desk review of the original project design documents, and the findings from physical site inspection and interviews during the follow-up visit are summarised. These findings are in detail described in the Validation Protocol in Appendix A.

2) Where the validation team had identified issues that needed clarification or that represented a risk to the fulfilment of the project objectives, a Clarification or Corrective Action Request, respectively, have been issued. The Clarification and Corrective Action Requests are stated, where applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the Validation Protocol in Appendix A.

3) Where Clarification or Corrective Action Requests have been issued, the communications between the Client and KEMCO to resolve these Clarification or Corrective Action Requests are summarised.

4) In conclusion, the validation opinion of the validation team has been presented. The final validation findings are based on the revised project design document (Version 1.2, 18/07/2014) and re-submitted supporting documentation.

3.1. Approval The project participant at the host Party’s side is Central Power Corporation, Viet Nam. Viet Nam had ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 25 September 2002 and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Viet Nam takes on the DNA function. The DNA of Viet Nam has issued a Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 27/11/2014, precisely referring to the title of the project activity and confirming that participation is voluntary, and the project assists in achieving sustainable development of the country.

The project participant of the investing Party is Swedish Energy Agency. Sweden had ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May 2002. The DNA of Sweden has issued a Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 08/12/2014, precisely referring to the title of the project activity and confirming that participation is voluntary.

There are no provisions in both LoAs stipulating special conditions with respect to the above-mentioned. KEMCO received the LoAs from the project participant. It is confirmed by comparing to other published LoAs that these LoAs are authentic. The validation team could also check that the above-mentioned DNAs are listed out as DNA entities in the UNFCCC website and hence that the LoAs have been issued from relevant DNA. There are no descriptions in the LoA with respect to version number of PDD and Validation Report.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 10

3.2. Authorization The DNA of Viet Nam has issued a Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 27/11/2014, authorizing Central Power Corporation as a project participant.

The DNA of Sweden has issued a Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 08/12/2014, authorizing Swedish Energy Agency as a project participant.

As described in the above section 3.1, the participation of these two project participants has been approved by Parties of the Kyoto Protocol.

The validation team confirms that the project participants are listed in tabular form in section A.3 of the PDD and that this information is consistent with the contact details provided in annex 1 of the PDD. The validation did not reveal any information indicating that the project can be seen as a diversion of official development assistance (ODA) funding towards Viet Nam. But some official documents are needed. With regards to project participation one CL was raised as follows;

l CL1: The project participants have not submitted any supporting documents demonstrating that no public funding from Annex I Parties is not included in financing the project activity.

n Corrective Actions: The official documents which show that no public funding from Annex I Parties is included in financing this project activity was submitted by project participants.

n Conclusions: It is confirmed that no public funding is included in the project activity. The NC is thus closed.

3.3. Modalities of Communications Corporate and personal identities which are presented in the MoC have been cross-checked with the website of the project participants. It is specifically confirmed through the website that Mr. Ola Hansen is the Head of International Carbon Market Unit of the Swedish Energy Agency and Mr. Tran Dinh Nhan is the Director General of Central Power Corporation. The validity of the MoC statement was also ensured by reviewing relevant websites of the project participants, the PDD, and the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA) between two parties. It is also confirmed that the MoC statement was received from the Central Power Corporation with whom KEMCO had a contractual relationship, by way of the consultation company hired by the project participants. Further, the officials who submits the MoC statement to KEMCO and the officials who signed the written confirmation are confirmed by reviewing relevant websites of the project participants, the PDD, and the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA) between two parties.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 11

The MoC statement has used the latest version (Version 02.1) of the form “Modalities of Communication statement” (F-CDM-MOC). It is also confirmed that the information required as per the F-CDM-MOC, including its annex 1, is correctly completed. It is further confirmed that the project participant’s authorized signatories signing the F-CDM-MOC correspond to the project participant’s authorized signatories included in F-CDM-MOC, annex 1.

3.4. Project Design Document The PDD is prepared in accordance with the latest template (Version 05.0) and guidance published by the CDM EB. With regards to the PDD form one CAR was raised as follows;

l CAR1: During the site visit, the Validation Team checked whether the PDD form is the latest one. It was found that the PDD form (04.1) submitted by the participants was not the latest one. It is therefore requested to correct this discrepancy. (See Table 2. Section E.1)

n Corrective Actions: The revised PDD using the latest form was submitted to the validation team.

n Conclusions: The validation team confirmed that the revised PDD was prepared using the latest PDD form (05.0). The NC is therefore closed.

3.5. Project Description The proposed project aims to generate renewable-based electricity by capturing potential energy from the vertical fall of the water from the upstream level to the downstream level in a new run-of-river reservoir. Specifically, the following details of the proposed project were validated during the site visit: run-of-river, 3.75 MW´2 units, net head, metering point, transmission line and grid connection. The validation team has checked the description of the proposed project by reviewing the PDD and the Feasibility Study Report in detail and carrying out a site visit.

During the physical site visit, the validation could verify that the the main construction structures of the project include an intake point with a run of river reservoir, gate, tunnel, penstock and powerhouse containing turbines, generators, transformers etc are as per technical diagrams available in the feasibility study and will be imported from a foreign country. This will contribute to the transfer of technology to Viet Nam. The electricity generated by the project will be delivered to the Viet Nam national grid system via 35 kV transmission line, as stated in the Grid Connection Agreement signed by EVN and in the Feasibility Study Report of the proposed CDM project activity.

The project will involve the construction of a small run-of- river reservoir built and operated in an environmentally safe manner, which does not involve significant land clearance, development or resettlement, as in the case of accumulation reservoir type of projects.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 12

The expected lifetime of the project is about 30 years. A fixed crediting period of 10 years has been chosen for the project, starting from 01/08/2016 (or registration date, which is later). The emission reductions are estimated to be 16,896 tCO2e/year and 168,960 tCO2e over the 10 years of crediting period by displacing electricity that would otherwise be generated from fossil fuel-based power plants. No project emissions are generated by the project since the power density of the project activity has been estimated at above 10 W/m2 and it is confirmed through review of the feasibility study and interview of the site personnel that no fossil fuel based generators will be installed at the project site during its operational period.

Technical descriptions are sufficiently provided regarding installed capacity of turbines and generators. In addition, the estimated annual power generation and plant load factor for the project activity were confirmed by cross-check with the Study, Definition of Vietnam Grid Emission Factor prepared by the Department of Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate Change, and based on a 31-year hydraulic study (1977-2007 period).

In conclusion, the validation team concluded that the PDD has adequate accuracy and completeness in the description of the proposed CDM project activity. It provides the reader with a clear understanding of its nature. Validation team also checked the document which states that this project is not related to official development assistance from Annex I Parties.

3.6. Baseline and Monitoring Methodology

3.6.1. Applicability of the selected methodology to the project activity

This project is using the AMS-I.D (ver 17), which is valid till 27/11/2014, but can be applied to the request for registration until 25/07/2015. The validation team could determine that the methodology is correctly quoted and applied in the PDD by comparing it with the actual text of the applicable version of the methodology available on the UNFCCC CDM website.

According to AMS-I.D (ver 17) the methodology is applicable under the following conditions: - This category comprises renewable energy generation units, such as photovoltaic, hydro,

tidal/wave, wind, geothermal and renewable biomass that supply electricity to a national or a regional grid.

- This methodology is applicable to project activities that (a) install a new power plant at a site where there was no renewable energy power plant operation prior to the implementation of the project activity (Greenfield plant); (b) involve a capacity addition; (c) involve a retrofit of (an) existing plant(s)

- Hydro power plants with reservoirs that satisfy at least one of the following conditions are eligible to apply this methodology:

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 13

Ÿ The project activity is implemented in an existing reservoir with no change in the volume of reservoir;

Ÿ The project activity is implemented in an existing reservoir, where the volume of reservoir is increased and the power density of the project activity, as per definitions given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4W/m2;

Ÿ The project activity results in new reservoirs and the power density of the power plant, as per definitions given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4W/m2.

This project involves the installation of a new small-scale hydro power plant that supplies electricity to the national grid. The installed capacity is 7.5 MW, i.e. less than 15 MW which is the threshold for small-scale Type I project activity category. This project results in a new reservoir and the power density of the power plant, as per definitions given in the Section 3.5.4, is greater than 4W/m2 Besides it could be checked that the proposed CDM project activity does not consist in any of the following:

Ÿ A new unit which has both renewable and non-renewable components;

Ÿ Combined heat and power (co-generation) system;

Ÿ Addition of renewable energy generation units at an existing renewable power generation facility

Ÿ Retrofit or replacement Hence all the applicability conditions of the approved methodology are met.

Besides, there are no greenhouse gas emissions occurring within the proposed CDM project activity boundary as a result of the implementation of the proposed CDM project activity which are expected to contribute more than 1% of the overall expected average annual emissions reductions, which are not addressed by the applied methodology. The validation team confirmed that this project is not expected to result in emissions other than those allowed by the methodology. So it can be confirmed that AMS-I.D (ver 17) is applicable to the project activity. In conclusion, it is determined that the choice of the methodology AMS-I.D (ver 17) is correct and the proposed project meets all applicability conditions of the methodology. 3.6.2. Project boundary The validation team checked the project boundary by the desk review and site visit. During the on-site assessment the validation team checked the project boundary as written in the PDD and came to the conclusion that the spatial extent of the project boundary is correct and meets the requirements of the selected baseline methodology. It is thus confirmed that the project boundary includes the project site and all power plants are connected physically to the national grid system, managed by EVN (Electricity of Viet Nam).

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 14

The project participants have justified and chosen all sources and gases to be included within the project boundary according to the methodology requirements. Hence boundary, sources and gases as described in the PDD are applicable to the project activity

3.6.3. Baseline identification As per AMS-I.D (ver 17), if the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit, the baseline scenario is as follows:

- Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity that would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources into the grid.

Hence the procedure contained in the methodology to identify the most reasonable baseline scenario has been correctly applied.

The project proponents identified the baseline scenario based on an official document of “STUDY, DEFINITION OF VIET NAM GRID EMISSION FACTOR” which was published by Viet Nam DNA on 21/04/2014 and made publicly available on their website.

Given that the dispatch data for electricity system of Viet Nam is not available and low cost/must run resources constitute less than 50% of the total grid generation in average of the 5 most recent years, Simple OM (Operation Margin) method was chosen. In addition, BM (Build Margin) was calculated taking into account the set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system generation and that have been built most recently since it represents the larger annual generation than the set of five power units that have been built most recently.

In conclusion, it is confirmed that PDD and the evidenced official document provided a clear and correct description of the identified baseline scenario, including a description of the technology that would be employed and/or the activities that would take place in the absence of the proposed CDM project activity.

3.6.4. Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reduction The algorithms and formulae in the PDD are following those in the approved methodology of AMS-I.D (ver 17). As per AMS-I.D (ver 17) the emission reduction (ERy) by the project activity during the crediting period is calculated as follows: ERy = BEy - PEy - LEy For hydro power plants, emissions of CH4 from the reservoir may be accounted as the project emission in accordance with the approved methodologies. Power density was calculated based on the water surface area and the installed capacity of the hydro power plant which was cross-checked with FSR. Since the calculated power density of 20.83 W/m2 is greater than 10 W/m2,

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 15

the project emissions from the reservoir is zero in line with AMS-I.D (ver 17). In addition, the validation team checked the existence of fossil fuel generation plant for emergency situation at the project site and took note of that the project facilities will be provided with electricity from the grid when necessary and the amount of imported electricity will be deducted from the amount of exported electricity. Therefore, no project emissions are generated by the project. As per AMS-I.D (ver 17) there is no need to consider the leakage (LEy) as the energy generating equipment is not transferred from another activity. The baseline emissions (BEy) are demonstrated in Section B.6.1 of PDD and are calculated using methodology equations as follows: BEy = EGBL,y × EFCO2,grid,y Where: BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2) EGBL,y = Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh) EFCO2,grid,y = CO2 emission factor for grid in year y (tCO2/MWh)

The baseline emission factor for the project is determined ex-ante as a combined margin (CM), consisting of combination of the operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM).

For the baseline emission factor, project proponent applied the combined margin (CM) calculated in the official document of the “STUDY, DEFINITION OF VIET NAM GRID EMISSION FACTOR” which was published by Viet Nam DNA on 21/04/2014. The Viet Nam DNA used “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 04.0)” to calculate the Grid Emission Factor in the study. It is confirmed that the GEF was calculated using the most recent grid data available at the time of validation and the tool was the latest version available at the time of the preparation for the GEF calculation by the Viet Nam DNA.

In the study, the Simple OM emission factor calculation method is selected for the calculation of the OM because the low cost/must run resources constitute less than 50% of the total grid generation in average of the five most recent years and the dispatch data are not available for the analysis. Three years data from 2010 to 2012 are used for operating margin calculation. The OM is calculated to be 0.6448tCO2/MWh as a generation-weighted average for the consecutive three years.

In addition, BM (Build Margin) is calculated taking into account the set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system generation and that have been built most recently since it represents the larger annual generation than the set of five power units that have been built most recently. The BM is calculated to be 0.4758 tCO2/MWh.

Given that the weighting factors, wOM and wBM are selected as 0.5 and 0.5, respectively, as stipulated by Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, the combined margin calculated is 0.5603 tCO2/MWh which is fixed ex-ante for the crediting period.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 16

It was also confirmed that in calculating the OM and BM emission factor the net calorific value (NCVi) and CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel was determined by the Viet Nam DNA based on the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

The validation team further confirmed by cross-checking the website of the Viet Nam DNA1 that the data used by the proposed project are most recently available at the point of the commencement of validation and in line with the latest version of the tool. Regarding the quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity, the validation team cerified that the estimated annual power generation were confirmed by cross-checking the Feasibility Study Report prepared by the Department of Meteorology, Hydrology and Climate Change, and based on a 31-year hydraulic study (1977-2007 period). It is hence considered as a reasonable estimation. The auxiliary consumption is also reasonably estimated to be 2% which has been cross-checked with similar project and deemed reasonable as stated in the section 3.6 below. In conclusion, the emission reduction (ERy) by the project activity during the crediting period is as follows: ERy = BEy - PEy - LEy = (30,155 Í 0.5603) - 0 - 0 = 16,896 tCO2e Hence the validation team could check that the steps taken and equations (including the parameters) applied to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions are correct and fully comply with the requirements of the selected baseline and monitoring methodology. It is also verified that the GHG calculations are accurate, complete and transparent. It is further confirmed that the national grid data used are most recently available at the point of the commencement of validation.

Thus it can be stated that:

Ÿ All assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD, including their references and sources;

Ÿ All documentation used by project participants as the basis for assumptions and source of data is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD;

Ÿ All values used in the PDD are considered reasonable in the context of the proposed CDM project activity;

Ÿ The baseline methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions;

Ÿ All estimates of the baseline emissions can be replicated using the data and parameter values provided in the PDD.

1 http://www.noccop.org.vn/Data/vbpq/Airvariable_ldoc_70vnBao%20cao%20EF%202012.pdf

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 17

3.7. Additionality

The project is a small scale project. Therefore, in accordance with Attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities, the additionality of the project was demonstrated based on the valid version of the Guidelines on the Demonstration and Additionality of Small-Scale Project Activities (Version 09.0), Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 07), and the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (Version 05). 3.7.1. Prior consideration of the clean development mechanism

It is first noted that the project participant has not yet signed the contract for equipment or construction/operation services required for the project activity which is expected to take place by 01/09/2015. Hence, the starting date of the proposed project activity will be later determined as the date when the project proponent is committed to expenditures related to the implementation of the project activity in line with the Glossary of CDM terms (version 07).

The project is a new project activity with a starting date on or after 2 August 2008 as per the Clean Development Mechanism Project Cycle Procedure (Version 07.0). As the PDD has been published for global stakeholder consultation during the period of 02/11/2012 to 01/12/2012 after investment decision (July 2011, Board Resolution), it was not necessary to notify the Viet Nam DNA and UNFCCC secretariat of the commencement of the project and of their intention to seek CDM status. It was therefore concluded that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity.

3.7.2. Identification of alternatives In accordance with AMS-I.D (ver 17) the baseline scenario of the proposed CDM project activity is as follows

- Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity that would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources into the grid.

Since the methodology of AMS-I.D (ver 17) selected by the project activity prescribes the baseline scenario as above, no further analysis is required regarding identification of alternatives.

3.7.3. Investment analysis

To prove additionality, the project proponent fulfilled investment analysis of step 2 in “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 07)” and selected the benchmark analysis and calculated Project IRR for the project activity. Finally, it was shown that the

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 18

proposed CDM project activity is not economically and financially feasible, without the revenue from the sale of certified emission reductions (CERs).

With regards to benchmark analysis it is noted that the IRR for the project is 8.60% without CER revenue, far lower than the relevant benchmark value of 13.8%, as published by the international economic research company, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

Formulae and calculation processes of the IRR: these are validated by reviewing the calculation spreadsheets submitted by the project proponent. The Validation Team checked feasibility reports, public announcements and annual financial reports related to the proposed CDM project activity and the project participants to verify the accuracy of financial calculations carried out for investment analysis of this project.

It was validated that all parameters and assumptions used in the financial calculations are accurate and suitable in light of relevant accounting practices as follows:

Ÿ Electricity tariff: The appropriateness of the electricity tariff for the project activity,

839.55 VND/kWh was confirmed by cross-checking the Feasibility Study Report where the tariff for the proposed project activity was estimated with seasonal power generation and seasonal avoided costs in 2010 as determined by Ministry of Industry. The validation team also confirmed that the electricity tariff chosen was in line with the Tentative Decisions on Assessment of Economy and Finance for Electricity Generation Projects (Decision 2014/QD-BCN) announced by the Ministry of Industry (13/06/2007), stating that 2.7-5.2 US cent/kWh and 2.5-5.0 US cent/kWh would be offered for less than 30MW hydropower plants during the dry and rainy season respectively. The tariff is also compared with those of other registered projects and confirmed to be much greater than average of the tariffs as shown below, which is conservative.

Ÿ Plant load factor (PLF): PLF (46.83%) is estimated properly by an engineering company, Power 1 Construction Consultancy Company, considering natural conditions including water flow and net head. It is particularly noted that the estimated annual power generation and plant load factor for the project activity were based on a 31-year hydraulic study (1977-2007 period). It is thus confirmed that estimation of annual power generation and plant load factor is in line with para 3(b) of the “Guideline for the reporting and validation of plant load factors”. Comparing with the average PLF of the reference projects (69 hydropower projects registered as a CDM in Viet Nam, please refer to the table below), PLF of the proposed project activity is deemed appropriate. The Validation Team therefore concludes that the value is correctly applied.

Ÿ Auxiliary consumption: the estimated auxiliary consumption (incl. transmission and distribution losses), 2% of the generated electricity was confirmed by cross-checking with the reference projects. Around 45% of the reference projects have applied more than 2% as a rate of auxiliary consumption, so it is concluded that application of the auxiliary consumption is appropriate. Moreover, the effect of auxiliary consumption is not much great on the project IRR, increasing it from 8.60% to 8.85% in the case of no auxiliary consumption employed.

Ÿ Investment cost: it is confirmed that total investment costs was based on the Feasibility Study Report of the proposed project activity. The appropriateness of total investment costs of the proposed project, i.e. 233.24 billion VND or around 31.1 million VND/kW,

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 19

is reinforced by cross-checking the Viet Nam Master plan for Electricity production, “Development Plan for National Electricity, Period 2006-2015, Vision 2025 (June 2006)” which states that per kW investment costs for hydropower projects in Viet Nam have a range of 15 million VND/kW to 25 million VND/kW. Due to high inflation in the period of June 2006 to Jun 2010, the Consumer price index of June 2010 (FSR date: August 2010) was 66.16% and CPI for Housing and construction materials even higher 76.05% compared to the base of June 20062. Applying the lower CPI increase of 66.16%, the range of investment costs from the master plan become 24.9 to 41.54 million VND/kW – the documented project costs lies just below the mean of these values. In addition, the Investment Cost of Construction Projects 2010 published by Ministry of Construction in Viet Nam states that the investment costs per kW for hydropower projects between 60 and 150 MW in Viet Nam is estimated at 25.89 million VND/kW (the basic cost for construction and equipment excluding costs for compensation, resettlement, environmental protection, contingency, Loan Interest during construction and other specific project specific costs such as transmission lines, transportation outside project site, etc). Excluding the costs for land clearance, contingency, Loan Interest during construction, transmission line, transportation outside project site, the unit cost for Dak Pring is only around 25.63 million VND/kW thus investment cost for the proposed project activity is deemed reasonable. More so when it is considered that smaller projects such as Dak Pring experience diseconomies of scale. Lastly, it is to be mentioned that the unit cost of the project activity as per the approved total cost provided in the updated investment license of the project is 37.45 million VND/KW. However, in line with CDM guidelines the more conservative cost of 31.1 million VND/KW which was valid at the time of the investment decision has been used by the project participant in the PDD. It is however noted that the investment costs per capacity of registered hydropower projects in Viet Nam during the period of 2009 and 2011 are in the range of 11.4 million VND/kW and 28.5 million VND/kW as described the table below. The validation team applied conservative assumptions that the project costs would be reduced into 25 million VND/KW and confirmed that the assumed internal rate of return of the proposed project activity still remained far below the benchmark value, 13.8%. Therefore the validation team confirmed that the investment costs for the proposed project activity was appropriately determined. On the other hand, contingency expense is based on the FSR and it accounts for about 7% of the total investment cost. It was checked that the contingency expense is in line with the Circular 05/2007/TT-BXD guiding that contingency expenses are equal to 10% of the total investment cost. For all costs including the equipment, administration, compensation cost etc., they were cross-checked with the FSR and accepted as correct. It is therefore confirmed that all the costs in the investment cost are properly applied in the investment analysis.

Ÿ O&M costs: O&M cost for the proposed project is 2% of the total investment cost and it was crosschecked with Decision 2014/QD-BCN,13 (June 2007) of MOI which describes the typical O&M costs for less than 30MW hydropower projects as 1~2% of total

2 http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=625&idmid=4

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 20

investment costs. From a conservative viewpoint escalation in O&M costs was not applied. Therefore the validation team confirmed the appropriateness of the O&M costs for the proposed project.

Ÿ Income tax rate: as per Decree No. 124/2008/ND-CP of Detailing and Guiding the Implementation of the Law on Enterprise Income Tax (December 11, 2008), enterprise income tax rate is 25%, but the incentive tax rate of 10% for 15 years is applied for hydropower plants. In addition, the A Luoi district of the Thua Thien Hue Province, where the proposed project activity is located, is classified as the geographical area with extreme socio-economic difficulties and thus entitled to tax exemption for 4 years and 50% reduction (5%) of payable tax amounts for 9 subsequent years. It is concluded that income tax rates and cumulative loss are correctly applied in the investment analysis to calculate the yearly income tax in line with the decree.

Ÿ Natural Resources Tax: in line with the Government Decree No. 05/2009/ND-CP, Natural Resources Tax was properly considered in the IRR calculation and it is confirmed to be 2% of the average selling price of power generated by hydropower plants.

Ÿ Residual value: it is confirmed that the residual value is assumed as zero because the whole technical lifetime is included in the investment analysis and the entire assets are also fully depreciated at the end of the expected operation time. Technical lifetime for the project activity is selected as 30 years in light of the Decision No. 2014/QD-BCN (Ministry of Industry, 16/06/2007) which defines that technical lifetime of hydropower project below or as 30 MW is from 20 to 40 years. In addition, Circular No. 203/2009/TT-BTC (Ministry of Finance, 20/10/2009) states that maximal duration of use for equipments and civil works in hydropower project is 10 and 20 years respectively, so it is assumed that the assets are fully depreciated within the technical lifetime of 30 years.

Ÿ Debt/Equity ratio: The debt/equity ratio (70/30) applied is sourced from the FSR. The validation team crosschecked with relevant regulation that the privately developed projects in host country must legally contribute a minimum of 30% of the equity of project in order to receive a bank loan (Decision No. 30/2006/QD-BCN, Promulgating the regulation on investment and construction management applicable to independent power project), thus the validation team concluded that the debt/equity ratio is considered properly.

Ÿ Interest rate on term loan: it is confirmed that the interest rate, 6.9% is based on the Term Loan Agreement with the Ministry of Finance, Government of Viet Nam on 14/12/2009.

Ÿ Loan and moratorium period: it is confirmed that loan and moratorium periods (20 years with 5-year moratorium respectively) are based on the Supplement Term Loan Agreement with the Ministry of Finance, Government of Viet Nam on 02/06/2010.

Ÿ Benchmark value: According to the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 05), local commercial lending rates or weighted average costs of capital (WACC) are appropriate benchmarks for a project IRR. In this view, the project proponents have selected the commercial lending rate (13.8%) in 2011 offered by commercial banks in Viet Nam at the time of decision making based on information published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) - a research and advisory company providing country, industry and management analysis worldwide. The Validation Team checked the country report published by EIU and cross-checked it with the registered

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 21

project activities. With regards to whether the selected benchmark is a post-tax benchmark, the validation team first takes note that the purpose of project IRR for the PP is to check if the proposed project fully repays the debt. So, it is deemed reasonable that the proposed project, if economically feasible, should repay the debt from the bank after paying the income tax. It can be thus concluded that the commercial lending rate as selected by the project participant can be applied as the benchmark that needs to be crossed after paying the income tax. In addition, the validation team confirms that actual interest payable is taken into account in the calculation of income tax as per the Guidance on the assessment of investment analysis (Version 05). However, taking a highly conservative approach, pre-tax project IRR excluding enterprise income tax would make the IRR value increase to 9.13%, still far less than the benchmark value. The validation team concluded that the benchmark value selected was appropriate to the proposed project.

Ÿ Validity of Feasibility Study Report (FSR): the Feasibility Study Report for the project activity was prepared by an independent engineering company, Power 1 Construction Consultancy Company (August 2010). Its main contents including the generation capacity and investment costs was approved by the Quang Nam Province Committee who issued accordingly the investment license for the proposed project activity. It was particularly noted in the investment license that the FSR estimated the total investment costs for the proposed project activity conservatively in that the approved total investment costs in the investment license was 280.867 billion VND, more than those initially estimated by the FSR. Comparing the publishing date of the Report (August 2010), the date of investment decision (July 2011, Board Resolution) and the fact that the construction contract has not yet been signed, it can be concluded that the period of time between the finalization of the FSR and the investment decision is sufficiently short such that it is unlikely in the context of the underlying project activity that the input values would have materially changed. Besides, the values used in the PDD and associated annexes are fully consistent with the FSR.

Ÿ Assessment of correctness of computation: The validation team checked the data input taken from FSR and other published documents and ensured that right input has been taken in the financial calculation process. The accounting principles adopted with interest rates and tax computation were confirmed to be in order. The arithmetic was also found to be correct.

The reference hydropower projects (69) of Viet Nam registered in UNFCCC are as follows;

No. Reg No. Title MW PLF Auxiliary

Consumption Tariff

(VND/kWh) MVND /MW Benchmark

1 2367 Phu Mau 5.6 45.50% 2.0% 602 18,020 11.70% 2 2371 Muong Sang 2.4 39.00% 2.0% 595 13,796 12.38% 3 2368 Suoi Tan 5.5 51.22% 2.0% 585 18,085 12.38% 4 2372 So Lo 8.7 35.11% 2.0% 592 11,400 12.38% 5 2627 Nam Pia 15.0 46.67% 1.0% 603 20,333 14.30% 6 2891 Ta Niet 3.6 57.39% 2.0% 521 18,339 11.65% 7 2878 An Diem 2 15.6 57.28% 1.0% 604 20,060 14.60%

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 22

8 2971 Nam Gion 20.0 46.49% 1.0% 605 19,761 12.47% 9 2978 Nam Khoa 3 18.0 48.06% 2.0% 602 18,175 12.00% 10 3034 Nam Khot 14.0 46.17% 1.0% 606 19,214 12.76% 11 3051 Yan Tann Sien 19.5 46.05% 1.0% 603 19,795 12.76% 12 3255 Ha Rao Quan 6.4 43.16% 1.0% 602 18,755 13.00% 13 3256 Coc Dam 7.5 49.62% 1.0% 602 17,977 13.44% 14 3457 Chieng Cong 11.4 44.78% 1.0% 605 19,600 12.76% 15 3484 Dak Ne 8.1 53.50% 1.0% 625 20,373 12.38% 16 3505 Dak Rung 8 45.39% 1.0% 672 17,680 12.38% 17 3530 Suoi Sap 3 14 40.06% 2.0% 651 17,154 13.72% 18 3589 Ea Drang 2 6.4 45.73% 2.0% 610 15,601 12.38% 19 3514 Pa Khoang 2.4 57.08% 2.0% 601 18,433 12.38% 20 3667 La Hieng 2 15 43.30% 1.0% 680 24,794 13.13% 21 3711 Thai An 82 49.77% 1.0% 603 20,607 13.10% 22 3421 Song Quang 12 45.37% 2.0% 814 24,900 13.00% 23

3682 Na Hau 3.5 41.62% 2.0% 668 16,907 13.80%

24 Nam Tang 6.5 41.36% 2.0% 668 17,893 13.80% 25 3745 Su Pan 2 34.5 46.60% 1.5% 620 19,348 12.38% 26 3810 Tra Linh 3 7.2 47.30% 1.0% 608 20,710 13.67% 27 3442 Nam Chien 2 32 46.97% 1.0% 602 19,661 13.01% 28 3858 Nam Ngan 13.5 49.06% 1.0% 608 18,618 13.61% 29 3944 Dak Nong 2 14.63 45.79% 1.0% 650 21,001 12.00% 30 3942 Dak N'Teng 10 58.79% 3.2% 643 24,007 12.38% 31 3872 Ngoi Phat 72 49.83% 2.1% 603 17,264 12.38% 32 3396 Chau Thon 18 47.38% 2.0% 680 20,325 13.13% 33 3980 Da Den 9 41.20% 2.0% 645 19,421 10.30% 34 4117 Song Ong 8.1 57.10% 1.3% 573 19,272 12.60% 35 3557 Ngoi Hut 1 8.4 48.00% 1.3% 612 18,430 10.77% 36 3552 Dak Rung 1 6 50.08% 2.0% 662 23,000 10.88% 37 3389 Dak Srong 2 24 44.59% 2.0% 733 22,492 12.38% 38

4156 Nam Mu 10 45.15% 1.5% 681 20,486 10.50%

39 Khuoi Luong 4.4 50.87% 1.5% 679 21,519 10.50% 40 4259 Group of Nam Tha 19.5 44.23% 1.0% 603 18,713 13.55% 41 4236 Ban Coc 18 47.86% 2.0% 590 17,230 14.99% 42

4279

Ta Lat 3 40.60% 1.0% 659 18,993 10.50% 43 Namgie 4 57.20% 1.0% 659 28,499 10.50% 44 Dakgret 3.6 49.51% 1.0% 679 22,861 10.50% 45 Daklay 3.2 46.11% 1.0% 660 23,063 10.50% 46 4392 Dak Hnol 2.1 54.52% 1.0% 636 22,666 13.57% 47 4417 HaNang 11 45.95% 2.0% 605 19,981 13.13% 48 3954 Ho Bon 18 46.53% 2.0% 656 17,524 13.70% 49 4210 Dak Srong 2A 18 37.29% 2.0% 761 19,631 14.40% 50 4384 Dak Doa 14 45.91% 1.0% 665 20,556 12.31% 51 4626 La La 3 46.04% 2.0% 644 17,834 12.40% 52 4656 Dak Psi 5 10 49.91% 2.0% 645 20,115 13.13% 53 3843 Muong Kim 34.5 43.81% 2.0% 607 20,239 12.47% 54 4338 Thanh Thuy 18 50.16% 2.0% 675 23,977 12.54% 55 4714 Doc Cay 15 47.70% 2.0% 750 13,948 12.52% 56 4720 Nam Phang 36 46.44% 2.0% 882 27,186 13.86% 57 4755 Ia Puch 3 6.6 52.95% 2.0% 634 19,807 15.24% 58 4823 Ba Thuoc 2 80 41.43% 2.0% 746 18,595 13.68%

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 23

59 4537 DakRTih 144 50.49% 1.0% 630 21,384 12.40% 60

4544 Nam Soi 10 42.01% 1.0% 606 19,574 8.60%

61 Nam Cong 10 44.73% 1.0% 606 21,515 8.25% 62

4550 Dak Pone 14 51.28% 1.0% 599 18,428 12.91%

63 Dak Pone Expansion 1.6 44.24% 1.0% 599 19,236 12.91% 64

4577 Ngoi Xan 1 10.5 45.87% 1.0% 599 18,165 14.70%

65 Ngoi Xan 2 8.1 48.34% 1.0% 700 16,937 13.94% 66 4703 Vinh Son 5 28 41.95% 1.0% 750 22,193 11.44% 67 4765 H'Mun 16.2 45.65% 2.0% 637 16,157 15.83% 68 4829 Nam Trai 4 9.6 43.94% 1.0% 607 21,755 12.78% 69 5115 Srepok 4 80 47.76% 1.0% 685 22,507 10.06%

Average 47.08% 1.5% 642 19,746 The Guidance on the Assessment of Investment Analysis requires the robustness of the investment analysis to be proved through a sensitivity analysis by varying the critical assumptions to reasonable variation. As per the guidelines, sensitivity analysis was properly carried out considering both negative and positive variations (from -10% to +10%) in major variables such as total investment costs, O&M costs, power generation (PLF), and electricity tariff. In terms of variable selection, even though O&M cost does not account for 20% of the total cost, it has been considered as a variable in the sensitivity analysis because interest on term loan and depreciation are not subject to variations with determined by the project cost and loan documentation.

The sensitivity analysis revealed that even under more favorable conditions, the IRR would not cross the benchmark as given in the following table:

Major Variables Variations -10% 0 10%

PLF(Plant Load Factor) 7.34% 8.60% 9.82% Project cost 9.95% 8.60% 7.45% O&M cost 8.69% 8.60% 8.51% Tariff 7.34% 8.60% 9.82%

Benchmark 13.80%

Results of the sensitivity analysis are confirmed by assessing the appropriateness of the assumed variations in the cash flow and noting that the IRR remains below the benchmark value under the favorable conditions assumed. Furthermore, validation team verified that the project activity would become non-additional only if the major variables change by values as mentioned below:

Ÿ The project activity would be non-additional if power generation (i.e. Plant Load Factor)

goes up by 45%. However, the power generation of the project activity is derived from the FSR and it has been determined based on 31-year hydrological study, from 1981 to 2007. The FSR was prepared by an independent third party in a scientific way. Therefore, it is concluded that it is not possible in terms of water resources for the power generation

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 24

to increase by 45%. Ÿ The project activity would be non-additional if electricity tariff goes up by 45%. The

electricity tariff for the project activity is based on the relevant decision (Decision 2014/QD-BCN, 13 June 2007). Based on the sectoral expertise, it is the validation team’s opinion that it is not possible for the electricity tariff to increase by 45% as the electricity tariff is likely to be fixed by the decision of the Prime Minister on the spot market and the practice to sign a long term PPA with EVN.

Ÿ The project activity would be non-additional if investment cost goes down by 32%. The total investment cost is based on the FSR and it was prepared in July 2009. Since preparation of the FSR, the equipment cost, construction cost and labor cost have been expected to increase significantly considering the past high increase in the consumer price index in the period of June 2006 to Jun 20103. Hence, it is concluded that the investment cost is not likely to decrease over 32%.

Ÿ The project activity is not sensitive to O&M cost at all as even 100% reduction in O&M cost does not render the project activity non-additional. Therefore, the O&M cost is impossible to decrease by 100% as it is unrealistic to assume that a project could operate with no O&M costs.

But, with regards to the electricity tariff, one CL was raised and closed out as below: l CL2: The project activity assumed that it would sell electricity at the power tariff of

839.55 VND/kWh during the operation. However, the supporting documents for the assumption have not been sufficiently submitted to the validation team. This point needs to be further clarified. (See Table 2. Section G.32)

n Corrective Actions: The project participants provided the clarifications that the tariff for the proposed project activity was estimated with seasonal power generation and seasonal avoided costs in 2010 as determined by Ministry of Industry.

n Conclusions: The validation team confirmed the table for electricity tariff including seasonal power generation and seasonal avoided costs in 2010. The NC is therefore closed.

In conclusion, it is confirmed that all assumptions and financial calculations used in investment analysis are appropriate, correct, and consistent between PDD and calculation spreadsheets, and that the Project IRRs are properly calculated. With regards to changes between input values of initial and final PDD, please refer to Section 5.

The investment analysis has been properly applied and complies with the latest version of the Guidance on the Assessment of Investment Analysis. The assessment of all parameters used and of the financial calculation show their accuracy and suitability. Hence the validation team confirms that the financial returns of the proposed CDM project activity would be insufficient to

3 http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=625&idmid=4

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 25

justify the required investment if CDM-related income is not considered. The proposed project is therefore deemed additional.

3.7.4. Barrier analysis The barrier analysis is not used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed CDM project activity.

3.7.5. Common practice analysis The common practice analysis is not required to be carried out because the proposed CDM project activity is a small-scale project.

3.8. Monitoring Plan

The monitoring plan for the project activity is established pursuant to the approved baseline and monitoring methodology, AMS-I.D (version 17), “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (ver 04.0),” and the official document of the “STUDY, DEFINITION OF VIET NAM GRID EMISSION FACTOR .

The combined margin emission factor (CM) is determined ex-ante based on the most recently available information. Hence, the quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as well as installed capacity and area of reservoir will be monitored.

The net electricity generated from the project activity will be recorded on a monthly basis. This data will be cross-checked against the sales receipt from the grid company.

The validation team, during the site visit, went to the site for construction and observed how the proposed project activity will be connected to the grid. It was also checked that the monitoring of power generation and parasitic consumption by the hydropower plant would be implemented properly. It is confirmed through review of the feasibility study and interview with the project director that no fossil fuel based generators will be installed at the project site during its operational period. The monitoring and QA/QC procedures including responsibilities and authorities for project management, calibration of metering equipment, double-check of key monitoring indicators are provided in the PDD. Detailed procedures will be implemented at the latest prior to the start of the crediting period to enable subsequent verification of emission reductions. Through interview with the project director and review of the training plan, it could be checked that the project participants are able to implement the monitoring plan.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 26

Hence it can be confirmed that the monitoring plan contains all necessary parameters and that they are clearly described in the PDD. Besides, it complies with the requirements of the methodology.

It can also be checked that the monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible within the project design. The validation team is of the opinion that the implementation of the monitoring plan (including data management, quality assurance and quality control procedures) is sufficient to ensure the reporting and the verification of the emission reductions resulting from the proposed CDM project activity.

3.9. Environmental Impacts According to the Vietnamese regulation the hydropower plants need to have their environmental impacts assessed through an Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA), or Environmental Protection Commitment (EPC). In case of the proposed project activity, an assessment of the environmental impacts was required at the stage of getting an approval of EIA from the district authorities. The validation team checked the Environment Impacts Assessment Report which included potential environmental impacts by the proposed project to the neighboring area and how to minimize the identified impacts. It was also noted that the Environment Impacts Assessment Report was approved by the People’s Committee of Quang Nam province on 19/12/2013. It was therefore concluded that the project participant has undertaken an analysis of environmental impacts in accordance with procedures as required by the Vietnamese law and project does not have any significant environmental impacts.

3.10. Local Stakeholders Consultation It was confirmed that the stakeholder meeting was held in Cha Val Commune close to the project site on 23/02/2011. Stakeholders were invited to comment on the proposed project activity through public announcement prior to the publication of PDD on the UNFCCC website. Public notices of the planned consultations were placed in Labor Newspaper (16/02/2011) which is widely published and read in provinces. In the consultation meeting, presentations were made by the project owner and consultant who outlined the planned project activity in a non-technical manner (including environmental, social and technological considerations), climate change, the role of the Clean Development Mechanism and annual emission reductions potential. The validation team checked evidences including the attendance list, questionnaire sheets and the public notice. In addition, two attendees of the consultation meeting were interviewed during the on-site assessment. The validation team concluded that the process of receipt of stakeholder’s comments was appropriately implemented.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 27

Hence the validation team is of the opinion that local stakeholder consultation was adequately implemented. 4. COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS

In accordance with Paragraph 40(c) of the CDM Modalities and Procedures, the project design document of the “Dak Pring Hydropower Project” had been posted on the UNFCCC CDM website for public comments and Parties, stakeholders and NGOs were through CDM website invited to provide comments during 30 days period from 02/11/2012 to 01/12/2012. No comments were received during the period.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 28

5. VALIDATION OPINION

KEMCO has undertaken the validation of Dak Pring Hydropower Project which claimed approximately 16,896 tCO2e annually by generating electricity utilizing water resources. To ensure the transparency and integrity of the validation, the Validation Team first had established the validation protocol taking into account UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Marrakesh Accords, Decision 3, 4/CMP.1 and relevant decisions of the CDM executive board. Based on the checklist the validation of the project activity was undertaken in three stages, i.e. desk review, on-site assessment and follow-up interviews, and review of corrective actions. As a result of the desk review and on-site assessment, the Validation Team identified one Corrective Action Request (CAR) and two Clarification Requests (CLs) and then requested the project proponents to take corrective actions against them. In response to the request, the project proponents submitted the revised project documentation to the Validation Team, of which the Validation Team made a full review. Then the team fully agreed that all the significant CAR and CLs issued had been cleared.

In conclusion, KEMCO is of the opinion that Dak Pring Hydropower Project is in full compliance with all applicable requirements for the CDM by leading to emission reductions additional to what would have otherwise occurred, providing for reliable and measurable emission reductions with the well-established monitoring plan and contributing to sustainable development in Viet Nam through improvement of environmental condition, resource exploration and conservation, and socio-economic benefits. KEMCO also confirms that all the project components and identified issues have been covered by the validation process.

Ÿ Main changes between GSC and final PDD

Item GSC PDD Final PDD Note

Version 1.0 1.2

Submission Date 19/10/2012 18/07/2014

PDD Form Version 04.1 Version 05.0

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 29

6. REFERENCE

Category 1: Documents and electronic files submitted by the Project Participants

/1/ Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd., Project Design Document (Version 1.0, 19/10/2012)

/2/ Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd., Project Design Document (Version 1.2, 18/07/2014)

/3/ Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd., Investment Analysis Excel File (PDD Version 1.0)

/4/ Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd., Investment Analysis Excel File (PDD Version 1.2)

/5/ Viet Nam DNA, Report of STUDY, DEFINITION OF VIET NAM GRID EMISSION FACTOR, 21/04/2014

/6/ Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report- Viet Nam, March 2011 /7/ Viet Nam Master plan for electricity production, “Development Plant for National

Electricity, Period 2006~2015, Vision 2025”, June 2006

/8/ Power 1 Construction Consultancy Company, Total Investment Report, August 2010

/9/ Central Power Corporation, Board Resolution on Investment in Dak Pring hydropower Pant, 12/07/ 2011

/10/ Quang Nam Province Committee, Investment Licence on Dak Pring Hydropower Project of Central Power Corporation, 17/04/2014

/11/ Central Power Corporation, Environmental Impact Assessment Report, June 2010

/12/ People’s Committee of Quang Nam province, Approval on Environmental Impact Assessment, 19/12/2013

/13/ Labour Newspaper for invitation of stakeholder meeting, 16/02/2011

/14/ Ministry of Industry, Decision 2014/QD-BCN Tentative Decisions on Assessment of Economy and Finance for Electricity Generation Projects, Appendix I, 13/06/2007

/15/ Ministry of Finance, Circular No. 203/2009/TT-BTC Guiding Regime on Management, Use and Calculation of Depreciation of Fixed Assets, 20/10/2009

/16/ National Assembly, No 14/2008/QH12 Law on Enterprise Income Tax, 03/06/2008

/17/ Government, Decree No. 124/2008/ND-CP Detailing and Guiding the Implementation of a number of Articles of the Law on Enterprise Income Tax, 11/12/2008

/18/ Ministry of Finance, Decision No. 33/2004/QD-BTC Promulgating Construction, Installation Insurance rules, Charge Tables, 12/04/2004

/19/ Government, Decree No. 80/2006/ND-CP On Detailed Regulations and Guidelines for Implementation of Some Articles of Law on Environmental Protection, 09/08/2006

/20/ Investment Cost of Construction Projects 2010, Ministry of Construction, 22/03/ 2011

/21/ Circular 05/2007/TT-BXD, Guiding the Formulation and Management of Work Construction Investment Expenditures, 25/07/ 2007

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 30

/22/ Term Loan Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Power Company No 3 About ADF loan for Renewable Energy Development and Power Grid Expansion for Remote Communes (Loan No. 2517-Vie), 14/12/2009

/23/ Supplement Term Loan Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and the Power Company No 3 About ADF loan for Renewable Energy Development and Power Grid Expansion for Remote Communes (Loan No. 2517-Vie), 02/06/2010

/24/ Ministry of Industry and Trade, Decision 1388/QD-BCT Approval on capital allocation and assignment in order to carry out the project "Renewable Energy Development and Power Grid Expansion for Remote Communes" with the loan from ADB, 23/03/2010

/25/ Central Power Corporation, No ODA Inclusion Confirmation Letter, 02/07/2014

/26/ Swedish DNA, Letter of Approval on Dak Pring Hydropower Project, 08/12/2014

/27/ Viet Nam DNA, Letter of Approval on Dak Pring Hydropower Project, 27/11/2014

/28/ Modalities of Communication for Dak Pring Hydropower Project, 19/12/2014

Category 2: Documents and websites referred to by KEMCO

/29/ Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard (Version 07.0)

/30/ Clean Development Mechanism Project Standard (Version 07.0)

/31/ Clean Development Mechanism Project Cycle Procedure (Version 07.0)

/32/ Glossary of CDM terms (Version 07.0) /33/ AMS-I.D. “Grid connected renewable electricity generation” (Version 17)

/34/ General guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies (Version 17)

/35/ Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 04.0)

/36/ Guidelines on the Demonstration and Additionality of Small-Scale Project Activities (Version 09.0)

/37/ Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 7.0)

/38/ Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (Version 05)

/39/ http://cdm.unfccc.int/DNA/index.html

/40/ Homepage of Viet Nam DNA, http://www.noccop.org.vn/

/41/ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 31

Persons interviewed: List persons interviewed during the validation, or persons contributed with other information that are not included in the documents listed above.

Central Power Corporation

Mr. Le Kim Hung (Deputy General Director)

Mr. Dinh Chau Hieu Thien (Director of Hydropower Division)

Local stakeholders

Mr. Hien Van

Mr. Poloong Me Chon

Kyoto Energy Pte. Ltd.

Mr. Arijit Paul

Mr. Bui Thanh Binh

- o0o -

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 32

Appendix A

Validation Protocol

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 33

Table 1. Mandatory Requirements for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Project Activities REQUIREMENT Reference Conclusion Cross reference

1. All Parties involved have approved the project activity.

Kyoto Protocol(KP) Article 12.5(a), CDM Modalities and Procedures(M&P) paragraph 28, 40(a), CDM Validation and Verification Standard(VVS) para. 39

Checked The LoAs from Viet Nam and Sweden have been received.

2. All project participants have been listed in a consistent manner in the project documentation, and their participation in the project activity has been approved by a Party to the Kyoto Protocol.

CDM VVS para. 46 Checked

The participation of all participants has been approved in the form of LoA.

3. Public funding for the project from Annex I Parties shall not result in a diversion of official development assistance Decision 17/CP.7 Checked

The validation did not reveal any information that indicates that the project can be seen as a diversion of ODA funding towards Viet Nam.

4. Comments on the validation requirements shall be received, within 30 days, from Parties, stakeholders and UNFCCC accredited NGOs, and thereafter made publicly available.

CDM M&P para. 40(c) CDM VVS para. 35

Checked

The PDD of the project had been posted on the UNFCCC CDM website for public comments and Parties, stakeholders and NGOs were through CDM website invited to provide comments from 02/11/2012 to 01/12/2012 (30 days). No comments were received during the period.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 34

REQUIREMENT Reference Conclusion Cross reference 5. The PDD used as a basis for validation shall be prepared in

accordance with the latest template and guidance from the CDM Executive Board available on the UNFCCC CDM website

CDM M&P paragraph 40(b), CDM VVS para. 63 Checked Table2, Section E.1

6. The PDD shall contain a clear description of the project activity that provides the reader with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the project activity and the technical aspects of its implementation

CDM VVS para. 65 Checked Table 2, Section F.1

7. The DOE shall ensure that the baseline and monitoring methodologies selected by the project participants comply with the methodologies previously approved by the CDM Executive Board.

CDM M&P paragraph 37(e), CDM VVS para. 71 Checked Table 2, Section G.1

8. The DOE shall validate that the selected baseline and monitoring methodology previously approved by the CDM Executive Board, is applicable to the project activity.

CDM VVS para. 74 Checked Table 2, Section G.3

9. The PDD shall correctly describe the project boundary, including the physical delineation of the proposed CDM project activity included within the project boundary for the purpose of calculating project and baseline emissions for the proposed CDM project activity.

CDM M&P paragraph 52, CDM VVS para. 84 Checked Table 2, Section G.8-9

10. The PDD shall identify the baseline for the proposed CDM project activity, defined as the scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs that would occur in the absence of the proposed CDM project activity.

CDM M&P paragraph 45(b), (c), (e), CDM VVS para. 90 Checked Table 2, Section G.11-15

11. The steps taken and equations applied to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions shall comply with the requirements of the selected baseline and monitoring methodology.

CDM M&P paragraph 45(b), CDM VVS para. 101 Checked Table 2, Section G.16-17

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 35

REQUIREMENT Reference Conclusion Cross reference

12. The PDD shall describe how a proposed CDM project activity is additional.

KP Article 12.5(c), CDM M&P paragraph 37(d), 43, CDM VVS para. 106

Checked Table 2, Section G.1-13

13. If the project activity start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for stakeholder comments it shall be demonstrated that the CDM benefits were considered necessary in the decision to undertake the project as a proposed CDM project activity.

CDM VVS para. 111 Checked Table 2, Section G.23-24

14. The PDD shall identify credible alternatives to the project activity in order to determine the most realistic baseline scenario, unless the approved methodology that is selected by the proposed CDM project activity prescribes the baseline scenario and no further analysis is required (e.g., methodology ACM0002).

CDM M&P paragraph 45(b), (c), (e), CDM VVS para. 120 Checked Table 2, Section G.28-29

15. If investment analysis has been used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed CDM project activity, the PDD shall provide evidence that the proposed CDM project activity would not be: (a) The most economically or financially attractive alternative; or (b) Economically or financially feasible, without the revenue from the sale of certified emission reductions (CERs). The DOE shall comply with the latest version of the “Guidance on the Assessment of Investment Analysis” as provided by the CDM Executive Board.

CDM VVS para. 124 Checked Table 2, Section G.30-34

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 36

REQUIREMENT Reference Conclusion Cross reference

16. If barrier analysis has been used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed CDM project activity, the PDD shall demonstrate that the proposed CDM project activity faces barriers that: (a) Prevent the implementation of this type of proposed CDM project activity; or (b) Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives.

CDM VVS para. 131 Checked Table 2, Section G.35-36

17. For large-scale CDM project activities, unless the proposed project type is first-of-its kind, common practice analysis shall be carried out as a credibility check of the other available evidence used by the project participants to demonstrate additionality. This is a test to complement the investment analysis (Step 2 of the additionality tool) or barrier analysis (Step 3 of the additionality tool) to confirm that the project activity is not widely observed and commonly carried out in the region.

CDM VVS para. 135 Checked N.A

18. The PDD shall include a monitoring plan. This monitoring plan shall be based on the approved monitoring methodology applied to the proposed CDM project activity.

CDM M&P paragraph 37(f), CDM VVS para. 138 Checked Table 2, Section G.38

19. CDM project activities shall assist Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention in achieving sustainable development.

KP Article 12.2, CDM VVS para. 51 Checked Table 2, Section C.1

20. Local stakeholders shall be invited by the PPs to comment on the proposed CDM project activity prior to the publication of the PDD on the UNFCCC website.

CDM M&P paragraph 37(b), CDM VVS para. 145 Checked Table 2, Section I.1

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 37

REQUIREMENT Reference Conclusion Cross reference

21. Project participants shall submit documentation to the DOE on the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity in accordance with paragraph 37(c) of the CDM modalities and procedures.

CDM M&P paragraph 37(c), CDM VVS para. 141 Checked Table 2, Section H.1

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 38

Table 2. Requirements Checklist

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

A. Approval In this section, it is assessed that the designated national authority (DNA) of each Party indicated as being involved in the proposed CDM project activity in the PDD has provided a written letter of approval.

Para 39

A.1. Does each letter confirm that: (a) The party is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol (b) Participation is voluntary (c) In the case of the host Party, the proposed

CDM project activity contributes to the sustainable development of the country

(d) It refers to the precise proposed CDM project activity title in the PDD being submitted for registration.

Para 40 /26/, /27/

DR 1. Checked: The project participant at the host Party’s side is Central Power Corporation, Viet Nam. Viet Nam had ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 25 September 2002 and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Viet Nam takes on the DNA function.

2. The DNA of Viet Nam has issued a Letter of Approval (LOA) dated 27/11/2014, precisely referring to the title of the project activity, Dak Pring Hydropower Project, and confirming that the project assists in achieving sustainable development. KEMCO received this letter from the project participant.

3. The project participant of the investing Party is Swedish Energy Agency. Sweden had ratified the Kyoto Protocol on 31 May 2002. The DNA of Sweden has

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 39

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

issued a Letter of Approval (LoA) dated 08/12/2014, precisely referring to the title of the project activity and confirming that participation is voluntary.

4. The DNA of Sweden has issued a Letter of Approval (LOA) dated 08/12/2014, precisely referring to the title of the project activity, Dak Pring Hydropower Project.

A.2. Is the letter(s) of approval unconditional with respect to A.1 above?

Para 41 /26/, /27/

DR 1. Checked: There are no provisions in the LoAs stipulating special conditions with respect to A.1 above.

OK OK

A.3. Has the letter(s) of approval been issued by the respective Party’s designated national authority (DNA)? and is the letter(s) of approval valid for the proposed CDM project activity under validation?

Para 42 /26/, /27/

DR 1. Checked: KEMCO received the LoAs from the project participants. It is confirmed by comparing to the other published LoAs that the LoAs are authentic.

OK OK

A.4. If the DOE doubts the authenticity of the letter of approval, has it been verified with the DNA that the letter of approval is authentic?

Para 43 /26/, /27/

DR 1. Checked: It is confirmed by comparing to the other published LoAs that the LoAs are authentic.

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 40

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

B. Authorization In this section, it is assessed that each project participant has been authorized by at least one Party involved in a letter of approval.

Para 46

B.1. Has it been confirmed that the project participants are listed in tabular form in the PDD and that this information is consistent with the information provided in the section that contains the contact information for project participants?

Para 47 /26/, /27/

DR 1. Checked: The information on the project participants is described in a consistent manner in the PDD.

2. The participation of the project participants has been approved by the LoAs of Viet Nam and Sweden which are authorizing Central Power Corporation and Swedish Energy Agency as project participants respectively.

OK OK

B.2. Has it been confirmed that no entities other than those approved as project participants are included in these sections of the PDD?

Para 48 /26/, /27/

DR 1. It is confirmed no entities other than those approved as project participants are included in the Section F of the PDD.

OK OK

B.3. Has it been confirmed that the approval of participation has been issued from the relevant DNA? If in doubt, has it been verified with the DNA that the approval of participation is valid for the proposed CDM project participant?

Para 49 /26/, /27/

DR 1. It is confirmed by comparing to the other published LoAs that the LoAs are authentic.

OK OK

C. Contribution to sustainable development In this section, it is assessed the DNA has considered whether the proposed CDM project activity assists the host Party in achieving sustainable development.

Para 51

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 41

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

C.1. Has it been determined whether the letter of approval by the DNA of the host Party confirms the contribution of the proposed CDM project activity to the sustainable development of the host Party?

Para 52 /27/ DR 1. It is confirmed by reviewing the letter of approval the DNA of the host Party that the host Party confirms the contribution of the proposed CDM project activity to the sustainable development of the host Party.

OK OK

D. Modalities of communications In this section, the validity of MoC is assessed, i.e. the corporate identity of all project participants and focal points included in the Modalities of Communication (MoC) statement, as well as the personal identities, including specimen signatures and employment status, of their authorized signatories.

Para 54

D.1. Has been the validity of MoC assessed through: (a) Directly checking evidence for corporate,

personal identity and other relevant documentation;

(b) Notarized documentation; or (c) Written confirmation from the project

participant or the coordinating/managing entity that submits to it the MoC statement that all corporate and personal details, including specimen signatures, are valid and accurate.

Para 55 /28/ DR 1. Checked: Corporate and personal identities which are presented in the MoC have been cross-checked with the website of the project participants. It is specifically confirmed through the website that Mr. Ola Hansen is the Head of International Carbon Market Unit of the Swedish Energy Agency and Mr. Tran Dinh Nhan is the Director General of Central Power Corporation. The validity of the MoC statement was also ensured by reviewing the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA) between two parties.

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 42

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

D.2. When validating identity, has it been ensured the MoC statement is received from a project participant with whom the DOE has a contractual relationship, and for CDM PoAs, that the MoC statement is received from the coordinating/managing entity?

Para 56 /28/ DR 1. Checked: It is confirmed that the MoC statement was received from the Central Power Corporation with whom KEMCO had a contractual relationship, by way of the consultation company hired by the project participants.

OK OK

D.3. When validating identity, has it been ensured that the official who submits the MoC statement to the DOE and the official who signed the written confirmation (if a different person) is/are duly authorized to do so on behalf of the respective project participant or coordinating/managing entity?

Para 57 /28/ DR 1. Checked: The officials who submits the MoC statement to KEMCO and the officials who signed the written confirmation are confirmed by reviewing relevant websites of the project participants, the PDD, and the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA) between two parties.

OK OK

D.4. Unless validating the requirements by applying paragraph 54 (a), (b) or (c) above, has it been confirmed that the corporate and personal details, employment status and specimen signatures included in the MoC statement are valid and accurate and comply with the requirements of this section through performing further validation activities?

Para 58 /28/ DR 1. Checked: The validity of the MoC statement is confirmed by reviewing relevant websites of the project participants, the PDD, and the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA) between two parties.

OK OK

Modalities of communication statement: it shall be validated that the MoC statement has been correctly completed and duly authorized.

Para 60

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 43

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

D.5. Has it been checked that : (a) The latest version of the form “Modalities of

Communication statement” (F-CDM-MOC) has been used;

(b) The information required as per the F-CDM-MOC, including its annex 1, is correctly completed;

(c) The project participant’s authorized signatories signing the F-CDM-MOC correspond to the project participant’s authorized signatories included in F-CDM-MOC, annex 1.

Para 61 /28/ DR 1. Checked: The MoC statement has used the latest version (Version 02.1) of the form “Modalities of Communication statement” (F-CDM-MOC). It is also confirmed that the information required as per the F-CDM-MOC, including its annex 1, is correctly completed. It is further confirmed that the project participant’s authorized signatories signing the F-CDM-MOC correspond to the project participant’s authorized signatories included in F-CDM-MOC, annex 1.

OK OK

E. Project design document In this section, it is assessed that the PDD was completed using the latest version of the PDD form appropriate to the type of project activity.

Para 63

E.1. Has it been checked whether the PDD was completed using the latest version of the PDD form appropriate to the type of project activity?

Para 63 /2/ DR 1. CAR1: It was found that the PDD form (04.1) submitted by the participants was not the latest one. It is therefore requested to correct this discrepancy

CAR OK

F. Description of project activity In this section, it is assessed that the description of the proposed project activity in the PDD is accurate, complete, and provides an understanding of the proposed CDM project activity.

Para 65

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 44

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

F.1. Unless other means are specified in the methodology, has a physical site inspection been conducted for the following proposed project activities in existing facilities or utilizing existing equipments:

(a) Large-scale projects; (b) Non-bundled small-scale projects with

emission reductions exceeding 15,000 tonnes per year;

(c) Bundled small-scale projects, each with emission reductions not exceeding 15,000 tonnes per year; in such cases the number of physical site visits may, however, be based on sampling, if the sampling size is justified through statistical analysis.

Para 66

/2/, /8/ DR, I 1. Checked: From 01/07/2014 to 02/07/2014, the validation team performed a site visit and interviewed with PPs and local stakeholders to confirm the selected information and to resolve issues identified in the desk review.

OK OK

F.2. For other individual proposed small-scale CDM project activities with emission reductions not exceeding 15,000 tonnes per year, the DOE should conduct a physical site visit as appropriate. For proposed CDM project activities for which the DOE does not undertake a physical site inspection this shall be justified. The DOE may apply a sampling approach in accordance with the Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities.

Para 67 N.A. OK OK

F.3.For all other proposed CDM project activities not referred to in paragraphs 65-66 , the DOE shall undertake the validation of project description by

Para 68

N.A. OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 45

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

reviewing available designs and feasibility studies and should conduct comparison analysis with equivalent projects, as appropriate.

F.4.If the proposed CDM project activity involves the alteration of an existing installation or process, the DOE shall ensure that the project description states the differences resulting from the project activity compared to the pre-project situation.

Para 69 /2/, /8/ DR, I 1. Checked: The proposed project is a new hydropower project

OK OK

G. Application of the selected baseline and monitoring methodology

In this section, it is assessed that the baseline and monitoring methodologies selected by the project participants are the valid versions of those approved by the Board. The DOE shall apply specific guidance and/or clarifications provided by the Board with respect to the approved methodology and any applicable tools. It shall be determined whether the selected methodology applies to the project activity and was correctly applied with respect to the following:(a) Project boundary;(b) Baseline identification;(c) Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions;(d) Additionality;(e) Monitoring methodology.

Para 71

Para 72

Para 73

Applicability of the selected baseline and monitoring methodology to the project activity: It shall be validate that the selected baseline and monitoring methodology and, where applicable, the selected standardized baseline is(are) applicable

Para 74

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 46

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

to the project activity and that the selected version is valid at the time of submission of the proposed project activity for registration.

G.1. Is(Are) the methodology and, where applicable, the standardized baseline correctly quoted and applied by comparing it with actual text of the applicable version of the methodology and, where applicable, of the standardized baseline, and relevant requirements in the Project standard and any other applicable standard or guideline?

Para 75 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The proposed project activity applies the approved methodologies for small scale projects AMS I.D (version 17) which is valid till 27/11/2014, but can be applied to the request for registration until 25/07/2015.

OK OK

G.2. If the PDD of a proposed project activity is based on a previous version of a methodology and was published for global stakeholder consultation but was not submitted for registration within the grace period, Has it been requested the project participants to provide a revised PDD in accordance with the Project cycle procedure?

Para 76 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The proposed project activity applies the latest approved methodology for small scale projects.

OK OK

G.3. The DOE shall request the project participants to provide a revised PDD in accordance with the Project cycle procedure if:

(a) The PDD or PoA-DD has been published for global stakeholder consultation when no applicable approved standardized baseline was valid;

(b) An applicable approved standardized baseline whose selection is mandatory has become valid after the publication of the PDD or PoA-DD for global stakeholder consultation but

Para 77 N.A. OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 47

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

before the submission of a request for registration of the proposed CDM project activity or PoA;

(c) The request for registration has not been submitted within 240 days after the standardized baseline became valid.

G.4. Has it been determined that the project activity meets each of the applicability conditions of the approved methodology or any tool or other methodology component referred to therein? This shall be done by validating the documentation referred to in the PDD and by verifying that the documentation content is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD. If the DOE, based on local and sectoral knowledge, is aware that comparable information is available from credible sources other than that used in the PDD, then the DOE shall cross-check the PDD against other sources to confirm that the project activity meets the applicability conditions of the methodology.

Para 78 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: It is confirmed that the selected approved methodology AMS-I.D (version 17) is fully applicable to the proposed project. All applicability conditions are met as follows: i. The proposed project is a hydropower

plant applying renewable energy technology and the capacity is 7.5 MW less than 15 MW;

ii. It provides renewable-based electricity to the national grid; and,

iii. The proposed project is a Greenfield project and results in a new reservoir with the power density greater than 4 W/m2.

2. It is shown transparently in Section B.2 of the PDD that the proposed project meets the applicability conditions.

3. The validation team checked during the site visit how the proposed project

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 48

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

activity would be connected with the national grid. Furthermore, the power density has been checked by reviewing the FSR. It was also confirmed by on-site assessment that the project is a new hydropower facility with new reservoir.

Small-scale CDM project activity: It shall be determined whether the proposed project activity meets the small-scale eligibility requirements.

Para 157

G.5. For a project activity that is within the small-scale project activity threshold but applies a large-scale approved methodology, has it been determined whether this project activity follows the modalities and procedures for large-scale project activities?

Para 158 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The proposed project activity applies the approved methodologies for small scale projects AMS I.D (version 17).

OK OK

G.6. It shall be determined whether: (a) The project activity qualifies within the

thresholds of the three possible types of small-scale project activities. It may include more than one component; for example, a type III methane recovery component activity and a type I electricity component activity;

(b) The project activity conforms to one or more of the approved small-scale methodologies applied in conjunction with the general guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies;

(c) The proposed small-scale project activity is not

Para 159 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /34/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: This project generates electricity utilizing renewable resources and feed it to grid. The capacity of the proposed project is 7.5 MW and will not exceed 15 MW, the limit of the small scale during the crediting period.

2. It was confirmed that this project belongs to type I of small-scale project activities and an approved small-scale methodology AMS-I.D is applied in conjunction with the General guidelines to SSC CDM

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 49

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

a debundled component of a large-scale project activity.

methodologies. 3. During the site visit, it was confirmed that

there were no other CDM projects with the same project participant within 1 km of the project boundary.

Debundling: The DOE shall determine whether the proposed small-scale project activity is not a debundled component of a large-scale project activity in accordance with the “Guidelines on assessment of debundling for SSC project activities

Para 161

G.7. Has it been determined the proposed small-scale project activity to be a debundled component of a large-scale project activity if there is a registered small-scale project activity or an application to register another small-scale project activity?

Para 162 N.A. OK OK

G.8. The DOE shall, where appropriate, take into account specific debundling requirements for Type I project activities and small-scale transport project activities.

Para 163 N.A. OK OK

Deviation from an approved methodology: The DOE may seek guidance from the Board on the acceptability of a deviation prior to the submission of a request for registration or publication of the PDD of the proposed CDM project activity, if the DOE, when performing validation for a proposed CDM project activity, or upon request from the project participants

Para 80 Para 81 Para 82

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 50

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

before the publication of the PDD, finds that, due to a project-specific issue6 implying that a revision of the methodology would not be required to address the issue, the project participants or the coordinating/managing entity deviated from: (a) An approved baseline and monitoring methodology; or (b) A section (or sections) in the selected methodology that is(are) not standardized by the selected standardized baseline, if the proposed CDM project activity uses an approved standardized baseline. The DOE shall submit to the Board an assessment of the case including demonstration that the deviation does not require revision of an approved methodology, and shall include a description of the impact of the deviation on the emission reductions from the project activity. Alternatively, if the DOE considers that a revision of the methodology would be required to address the project situation then the DOE shall request the project participants to submit a request for revision in accordance with the Project cycle procedure. Clarification on the applicability of an approved methodology: If the DOE cannot make a determination regarding the applicability of the selected methodology and/or the selected standardized baseline to the proposed project activity, then the DOE shall request clarification of the methodology. The DOE shall conduct an assessment to ensure that the request is not submitted with the intention of revising an approved methodology and/or an approved standardized baseline to expand its applicability.

Para 83

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 51

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

Project boundary: The DOE shall determine whether all main GHG emission sources, the physical delineation of the proposed project activity and other relevant project and baseline emission sources covered in the methodology and, where applicable, the standardized baseline are included within the project boundary for the purpose of calculating project and baseline emissions for the proposed project activity.

Para 84

G.9. Has it been confirmed that the project boundary based on documented evidence and shall corroborate it by a site visit where required?

Para 85 /2/, /8/ DR, I 1. Checked: The project boundary was confirmed by reviewing the FSR and conducting the site visit including the weir and penstock construction site, power house site and grid connection.

OK OK

G.10. If the methodology allows project participants to choose whether a source or gas is to be included within the project boundary, has it been determined whether the project participants have justified that choice? The DOE shall determine whether the justification provided is reasonable, based on an assessment of supporting documented evidence provided by the project participants and corroborated by observations if required.

Para 86 /2/, /8/ DR, I 1. Checked: The project boundary established encompasses the physical, geographical site of the proposed project and the connected electricity system in Viet Nam.

2. In the baseline, only CO2 emissions from sources connected to the national grid are included within the project boundary in line with the baseline methodology.

3. For hydropower projects, CH4 emitted from the reservoir is included in the project emission. Validation team checked the water surface area of the reservoir based on the FSR, and it was assumed that the project emission derived

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 52

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

from the CH4 of the reservoir is zero as the power density is 20.83 W/m2, greater than 10 W/m2 in line with the baseline methodology.

4. Therefore, it is confirmed that all sources and GHGs required by the methodology have been included within the project boundary.

G.11. For the project activities that have both A/R and non-A/R components, in order to avoid double counting of emission sources, has it been confirmed that the emissions associated with the A/R activity will be accounted for and documented by the A/R project activity?

Para 87 N.A. OK OK

Baseline scenario identification and description: The DOE shall determine whether the baseline identified for the proposed project activity is the scenario that reasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs that would occur in the absence of the proposed project activity.

Para 90

G.12. Has it been determined whether any procedure contained in the methodology to identify the most reasonable baseline scenario has been correctly applied? If the selected methodology requires the use of tools (such as the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” and the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”) to establish the baseline scenario,

Para 92 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The project applies the approved methodology for small scale projects AMS I.D (version 17) since its capacity is less than 15 MW and it provides renewable-based electricity to grid. In line with the methodology, the baseline scenario is established reasonably, i.e. the electricity delivered to

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 53

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

has it been consulted the methodology on the application of these tools? In such cases, the specific guidance in the methodology shall supersede the corresponding requirements of the tool.

the 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 into the grid.

G.13. If the methodology requires several alternative scenarios to be considered in the identification of the most plausible baseline scenario, has it been, determined, based on financial expertise and local and sectoral knowledge, whether all scenarios that are considered by the project participants and any scenarios that are supplementary to those required by the methodology, are realistic and credible in the context of the proposed project activity and that no alternative scenario has been excluded.

Para 93 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The single baseline scenario is established by the approved methodology for small scale projects AMS I.D (version 17).

OK OK

G.14. Has it been determined whether the most plausible baseline scenario identified is reasonable by validating the assumptions, calculations and rationales used in the PDD? It shall determine whether documents and sources referred to in the PDD are correctly quoted and interpreted. Has it been cross-checked the information provided in the PDD with other verifiable and credible sources, such as local expert opinion, if available?

Para 94 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The baseline scenario of this project is based on the reasonable assumptions that the project will displace the electricity generated by power plants in the existing electricity system.

OK OK

G.15.Has it been determined whether the PDD provides a description of the identified baseline

Para 95 /2/, /5/,

DR 1. Checked: The PDD describes that the proposed project activity is the

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 54

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

scenario, including a description of the technology that would be employed and/or the activities that would take place in the absence of the proposed project activity?

/33/, /35/

installation of a new grid-connect hydro power plant and would displace electricity from the Vietnamese national grid system which is partly composed of greenhouse gas intensive fossil fuel based power stations.

G.16. The DOE shall determine whether, drawing on its knowledge of the sector and/or advice from local experts, that all applicable CDM requirements have been taken into account in the identification of the baseline scenario for the proposed project activity, as well as relevant national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances, such as sectoral reform initiatives, local fuel availability, power sector expansion plans, and the economic situation in the project sector. Two (2) types of national and/or sectoral policies have to be taken into account:

(a) National and/or sectoral policies or regulations that give comparative advantages to more emissions-intensive technologies or fuels over less emissions-intensive technologies or fuels, otherwise known as policies that increase GHG emissions, and are called type E+. For this type of national and/or sectoral policies or regulations, only those that have been

Para 96 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: In line with the methodology, the baseline scenario is ensured to be established reasonably taking into account all applicable CDM requirements.

2. It was found that an electricity tariff for IPP hydropower plants is generally determined under the Power Purchase Contract with Electricity of Viet Nam (EVN) based on the seasonal avoided cost structure. It was further confirmed during the site visit that no further financial incentives were provided by the government for the proposed project activity.

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 55

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

implemented before adoption of the Kyoto Protocol by the COP (decision 1/CP.3, 11 December 1997) shall be taken into account when identifying a baseline scenario. If such national and/or sectoral policies were implemented since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, the baseline scenario shall refer to a hypothetical situation without the national and/or sectoral policies or regulations being in place;

(b) National and/or sectoral policies or regulations that give comparative advantages to less emissions-intensive technologies over more emissions-intensive technologies (e.g. public subsidies to promote the diffusion of renewable energy or to finance energy efficiency programmes), otherwise known as policies that decrease GHG emissions, are called type E-. For this type of national and/or sectoral policies or regulations, those that have been implemented since the adoption by the COP of the CDM M&P (decision 17/CP.7, 11 November 2001) need not be taken into account in identifying a baseline scenario (i.e. the baseline scenario could refer to a hypothetical situation without the national and/or sectoral policies or regulations being in place).

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 56

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

G.17. The DOE shall determine whether the description of the identified baseline scenario in the PDD is in accordance with the selected standardized baseline for a proposed CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that standardizes the baseline scenario instead of paragraphs 92–96 above

Para 97 N.A. OK OK

Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions: The DOE shall determine whether the steps taken and the equations and parameters applied in the PDD to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission reductions comply with the requirements of the selected methodology including applicable tool(s).

Para 101

G.18. Where the methodology and, where applicable, the standardized baseline allows for selection between options for equations or parameters, has it been determined whether adequate justification has been provided (based on the choice of the baseline scenario, context of the proposed project activity and other evidence provided) and that the correct equations and parameters have been used, in accordance with the methodology selected and, where applicable, the selected standardized baseline including applicable tool(s)?

Para 102 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: Combined Margin for the proposed project, weighted average of Simple OM and BM option (b), is calculated with the National Grid Emission Factor published by Viet Nam DNA on on 21/04/2014.

2. Selection of the Simple OM method is justified by showing that contribution of low-cost and must-run resources is less than 50% of total grid generation in average of the five most recent years. Simple OM was calculated using the most recent available data from 2010 to 2012.

3. In addition, selection BM option (b) is justified by showing that the set of power

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 57

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system generation and that have been built most recently, comprises the larger annual generation than the set of five power units that have been built most recently.

4. The validation team checked the process to calculate the baseline emissions and concluded that it is replicable.

5. Viet Nam DNA used “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 04.0)” to calculate the Grid Emission Factor, and it is confirmed that the GEF was calculated using the most recent grid data available at the time of validation and the tool was the latest version available at the time of the preparation for the GEF calculation by Viet Nam DNA. The validation team also confirmed that the correct equations and parameters have been used and justified adequately.

6. As per AMS-I.D (ver 17) there is no need to consider the leakage (LEy) as the energy generating equipment is not transferred from another activity.

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 58

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

G.19. Has it been verified the justification given in the PDD for the choice of data and parameters used in the equations? If data and parameters will not be monitored throughout the crediting period of the proposed project activity but have already been determined and will remain fixed throughout the crediting period, the DOE shall determine whether all data sources and assumptions are appropriate and calculations are correct as applicable to the proposed project activity, and will result in an accurate or otherwise conservative estimate of the emission reductions. If data and parameters will be monitored or estimated on implementation and hence become available only after validation of the project activity, the DOE shall determine whether the estimates provided in the PDD for these data and parameters are reasonable.

Para 103 /2/, /5/,

/33/, /35/

DR 1. Checked: The project participants chose the ex ante option for the baseline emission factor, consisting of the operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM). The national grid data used for the baseline emission factor is most recently available at the point of the commencement of validation. It is confirmed by the report published by the Viet Nam DNA. Refer to Section G.16 above.

2. The validation team therefore confirmed that all data sources, assumptions and calculations are appropriate and correct and will result in a conservative estimate of the emission reductions. Refer to section G.16 above.

Additionality of a project activity: The DOE shall determine whether the proposed project activity is additional as demonstrated in the PDD.

Para 106

G.20. Has it been assessed and verified the reliability and credibility of all data, rationales, assumptions, justifications and documentation provided by project participants to support the demonstration of additionality? This requires the DOE to critically assess the evidence presented, using local knowledge and sectoral

Para 107 /2/, /4/, /6/, /7/, /8/, /9/,

/10/, /14/, /15/,

DR, I 1. Checked: Refer to F.9 below OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 59

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

and financial expertise. /16/, /17/, /18/, /19/, /20/, /21/, /22/, /23/, /24/, /36/, /37/, /38/

G.21. If required by the applicable approved methodology, has it been considered tools and guidelines provided by the Board to demonstrate the additionality of proposed project activities? Has it been also considered specific complementary or alternative requirements included in the methodology for demonstrating the additionality of the proposed project activity?

Para 108 /2/, /4/, /6/, /7/, /8/, /9/,

/10/, /14/, /15/, /16/, /17/, /18/, /19/, /20/, /21/, /22/, /23/, /24/, /36/, /37/, /38/

DR, I 1. Checked: The glossary of CDM terms (version 07), Non-binding best practice examples to demonstrate additionality for SSC project activities (EB35, Annex34), Additionality Tool (version 07), and Guideline on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 05) have been appropriately consulted.

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 60

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

G.22. The DOE shall assess whether the proposed CDM project activity meets the additionality criteria (e.g. positive lists of technologies) in the selected standardized baseline for a proposed CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraphs 107 and 108 above and 124–137 below.

Para 109 N.A. OK OK

Additionality of Small-scale project activities: It shall be determined whether the proposed SSC project activity is additional in accordance with CDM requirements applicable for small-scale project activities. Paragraph 106 above applies to a proposed small-scale CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraph 165 above.

Para 165

Para 166

G.23. Has it been refered to the specific requirements on demonstration of additionality for small-scale project activities and the Non-binding best practice examples to demonstrate additionality for SSC project activities?”

Para 167 /2/, /4/, /6/, /7/, /8/, /9/,

/10/, /14/, /15/, /16/, /17/, /18/, /19/, /20/, /21/, /22/,

DR, I 1. Checked: the proposed project activity demonstrated that it would not be financially attractive under the baseline scenario in line with the Non-binding best practice examples to demonstrate additionality for SSC project activities (EB35, Annex34), Additionality Tool (version 07), and Guideline on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 05)

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 61

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

/23/, /24/, /36/, /37/, /38/

G.24. In the case of Type I project activities up to 5 MW that employ renewable energy as their primary technology, Type II energy efficiency project activities that aim to achieve energy savings at a scale of no more than 20 GWh per year, and Type III project activities that aim to achieve emissions reductions at a scale of no more than 20 ktCO2e per year, has it been assessed the relevant criteria to establish the automatic additionality for these projects?

Para 168 N.A. OK OK

G.25. Paragraph 109 above applies to a proposed small-scale CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that standardizes additionality instead of paragraphs 167 and 168 above.

Para 169 N.A. OK OK

Assessment of prior consideration of the clean development mechanism: The DOE shall determine whether CDM benefits were considered necessary in the decision to undertake the project as a proposed project activity if the starting date of the proposed project activity is prior to the start of validation, which is the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation.

Para 111

G.26. Has it been determined whether the start date of the project activity, reported in the PDD, is the

Para 112 /2/, /9/ DR 1. Checked: It is noted that the project participant has not yet signed the contract

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 62

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

earliest date at which either the implementation or construction or real action of a project activity begins? For project activities that require construction, retrofit or other modifications, the date of commissioning cannot be considered the project activity start date. The DOE shall determine whether it is a project activity with a start date:

(a) On or after 2 August 2008; or

(b) Before 2 August 2008.

for equipment or construction/operation services required for the project activity. The starting date of the proposed project activity will be later determined as the date when the project proponent committed to expenditures related to the implementation of the project activity in line with the “Glossary of CDM terms” (version 07).

G.27. For a project activity with a start date on or after 2 August 2008, for which a PDD has not been published for global stakeholder consultation or a new methodology has not been proposed to the Board before the project activity start date, has it been confirmed by referring to the list of prior consideration notifications from the UNFCCC website and communication between the project proponent, the secretariat and the host Party DNA regarding the commencement of a new project activity? If such notification has not been provided by the project participants within 180 days of the project activity start date, has it been determined that the CDM was not seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity?

Para 113 /2/, /9/ DR 1. Checked: The project is a new project activity with a starting date on or after 2 August 2008 as per the CDM Project Standard (version 07)”. As the PDD has been published for global stakeholder consultation during the period of 02/11/2012 to 01/12/2012, it is not necessary to notify the Viet Nam DNA and UNFCCC secretariat of the commencement of the project and of their intention to seek CDM status. It was therefore concluded that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity.

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 63

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

G.28. For a project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, has it been assessed the project participant’s prior consideration of the CDM? Specifically, the DOE shall assess whether the project participants:

(a) Had an awareness of the CDM prior to the project activity start date, and that the benefits of the CDM were a decisive factor in the decision to proceed with the project. Evidence to support this could include, inter alia, minutes and/or notes related to the consideration of the decision by the Board of Directors, or equivalent, of the project participants, to undertake the project as a proposed project activity;

(b) Demonstrated that real and continuing actions were taken to secure CDM status for the project in parallel with its implementation. Evidence to support this could include one or more of the following: contracts with consultants for CDM/PDD/methodology/ standardized baseline services, draft versions of PDDs and underlying documents such as letters of authorization, and if available, letter of intent, emission reduction purchase

Para 114 N.A. OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 64

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

agreements (ERPA) term sheets, ERPAs or other documentation related to the potential sale of the certified emission reductions (CERs) (including correspondence with multilateral financial institutions or carbon funds), evidence of agreements or negotiations with a DOE for validation services, submission of a new methodology or standardized baseline or requests for clarification or revision of existing methodologies or standardized baselines to the Board, publication in a newspaper, interviews with the DNA, and earlier correspondence on the project with the DNA or the secretariat.

G.29. Assessment of real and continuing actions shall be conducted by the DOE and should focus on real documented evidence as indicated in F.18(b) above, including an assessment by the DOE of the authenticity of the evidence. Has it been assessed letters, e-mail exchanges and other documented communications submitted by the project participants to substantiate the above information, and these shall be considered as evidence only after the DOE has assessed the reliability and authenticity of such communications, inter alia through cross-checking (e.g. interviews)?

Para 115 N.A. OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 65

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

G.30. In validating proposed project activities where:

(a) There is less than two years of a gap between the documented evidence, the DOE shall conclude that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status for the project activity;

(b) The gap between documented evidence is greater than two years and less than three years, the DOE may determine that continuing and real actions were taken to secure CDM status for the project activity and shall justify any positive or negative validation opinion based on the context of the evidence and information assessed;

(c) The gap between documented evidence is greater than three years, the DOE shall conclude that continuing and real actions were not taken to secure CDM status for the project activity.

Para 116 N.A. OK OK

G.31. If evidence to support the serious prior consideration of the CDM as indicated above is not available, has it been determined that the CDM was not considered in the decision to implement the project activity?

Para 117 N.A. OK OK

Identification of alternatives: The requirements contained in paragraphs 120–123 below are not applicable to a proposed

Para 119

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 66

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

CDM project activity using an approved standardized baseline that standardizes the baseline scenario. Where the baseline scenario is not prescribed in the approved methodology, the DOE shall assess the list of identified credible alternatives to the project activity in the PDD selected to determine the most realistic baseline scenario.

Para 120

G.32. The DOE shall assess the list of alternatives given in the PDD and to determine whether:

(a) The list of alternatives includes as one of the options that the project activity is undertaken without being registered as a proposed project activity;

(b) The list contains all plausible alternatives that the DOE, on the basis of its local and sectoral knowledge, considers to be viable means of supplying the comparable outputs or services that are to be supplied by the proposed project activity;

(c) The alternatives comply with all applicable and enforced legislation.

Para 121 /2/, /4/,

/33/, /37/

DR, I 1. Checked: the baseline scenario includes, as an alternative, grid-connected power plants in the existing electricity system. In addition, the investment barriers to proposed project are analyzed assuming that the proposed project is undertaken without being registered as a proposed CDM project activity.

2. The baseline scenario includes as an alternatives, grid-connected power plants in the existing electricity system under the scenario, CO2 emission factor is accounted for using the Simple OM method and BM option (b). It is therefore concluded that all plausible alternatives supplying the outputs that are to be supplied by the proposed project activity are considered properly.

3. All the alternatives as well as the

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 67

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

proposed project are in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.

G.33. Where the baseline scenario is prescribed in the approved methodology, no further analysis is required.

Para 122 /2/, /4/,

/33/, /37/

DR, I 1. Checked: AMS I.D (version 17) prescribes the single baseline scenario, i.e. the electricity delivered to the 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 into the grid.

OK OK

Investment analysis: If investment analysis has been used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed project activity, the DOE shall determine whether the proposed project activity would not be: (a) The most economically or financially attractive alternative; or (b) Economically or financially feasible without the revenue from the sale of CERs.

Para 124

G.34. Has it been applied the latest version of the Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis” as provided by the Board and with other relevant provisions?

Para 125 /2/, /4/,

/37/, /38/

DR 1. Checked: It was confirmed that the proposed project activity was in compliance with the latest version of Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis (version 05).

OK OK

G.35. Has it been determined whether the project activity is not the most economically or financially attractive alternative, or that it is not economically or financially feasible without CDM:

(a) The proposed project activity would produce

Para 126 /2/, /4/,

/37/, /38/

DR 1. Checked: The proposed project activity demonstrated that it would not be economically or financially feasible without CDM because the financial returns of the proposed project activity would be insufficient to justify the

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 68

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

no financial or economic benefits other than CDM-related income. The DOE shall determine whether the documented costs associated with the proposed project activity and the alternatives identified demonstrate that there is at least one alternative which is less costly than the proposed project activity;

(b) The proposed project activity is less economically or financially attractive than at least one other credible and realistic alternative;

(c) The financial returns of the proposed project activity would be insufficient to justify the required investment.

required investment.

G.36. To verify the accuracy of financial calculations carried out for any investment analysis, the DOE shall:

(a) Determine the suitability of the financial indicator selected by the project participants and conduct a thorough assessment of all parameters and assumptions used in calculating such financial indicators, and determine the accuracy and suitability of these parameters using available evidence and applying its expertise in relevant accounting practices;

Para 127 /2/, /4/, /6/, /7/, /8/, /9/,

/10/, /14/, /15/, /16/, /17/, /18/, /19/, /20/, /21/, /22/,

DR, I 1. Checked: It was validated that key parameters and assumptions of the proposed project are accurate and suitable in light of relevant accounting practices as follows:

2. CL2: The project activity assumed that it would sell electricity at the power tariff of 839.55 VND/kWh during the operation. However, the supporting documents for the assumption have not been sufficiently submitted to the

CL OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 69

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

(b) Cross-check the parameters against third-party or publicly available sources, such as invoices or price indices;

(c) Review, as appropriate, feasibility reports, public announcements and annual financial reports related to the proposed project activity and the project participants;

(d) Assess the correctness of computations carried out and documented by the project participants; and

(e) Assess, where applicable, the sensitivity analysis by the project participants to determine under what conditions variations in the result would occur, and the likelihood of these conditions.

/23/, /24/, /36/, /37/, /38/

validation team. This point needs to be further clarified.

3. Plant load factor (PLF): PLF (46.83%) is estimated properly by the Power 1 Construction Consultancy Company, considering natural conditions including water flow and net head. It is particularly noted that the estimated annual power generation and plant load factor for the project activity were based on a 31-year hydraulic study (1977-2007 period). It is thus confirmed that estimation of annual power generation and plant load factor is in line with para 3(b) of the “Guideline for the reporting and validation of plant load factors”. The validation team therefore concludes that the value is correctly applied.

4. Investment cost: it is confirmed that total investment costs was based on the Feasibility Study Report of the proposed project activity. The appropriateness of total investment costs of the proposed project, i.e. 233.24 billion VND or around 31.1 million VND/kW, is

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 70

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

reinforced by cross-checking the Viet Nam Master plan for Electricity production, “Development Plan for National Electricity, Period 2006-2015, Vision 2025 (June 2006)” which states that per kW investment costs for hydropower projects in Viet Nam have a range of 15 million VND/kW to 25 million VND/kW. Due to high inflation in the period of June 2006 to Jun 2010, the Consumer price index of June 2010 (FSR date: August 2010) was 66.16% and CPI for Housing and construction materials even higher 76.05% compared to the base of June 2006. Applying the lower CPI increase of 66.16%, the range of investment costs from the master plan become 24.9 to 41.54 million VND/kW – the documented project costs lies just below the mean of these values. In addition, the Investment Cost of Construction Projects 2010 published by Ministry of Construction in Viet Nam states that the investment costs per kW for hydropower projects between 60 and 150 MW in Viet Nam is estimated at

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 71

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

25.89 million VND/kW (the basic cost for construction and equipment excluding costs for compensation, resettlement, environmental protection, contingency, Loan Interest during construction and other specific project specific costs such as transmission lines, transportation outside project site, etc). Excluding the costs for land clearance, contingency, Loan Interest during construction, transmission line, transportation outside project site, the unit cost for Dak Pring is only around 25.63 million VND/kW thus investment cost for the proposed project activity is deemed reasonable. More so when it is considered that smaller projects such as Dak Pring experience diseconomies of scale.

5. O&M costs: O&M cost for the proposed project is 2% of the total investment cost and it was crosschecked with Decision 2014/QD-BCN,13 (June 2007) of MOI which describes the typical O&M costs for less than 30MW hydropower projects as 1~2% of total

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 72

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

investment costs. From a conservative viewpoint escalation in O&M costs was not applied. Therefore the validation team confirmed the appropriateness of the O&M costs for the proposed project.

G.37. To confirm the suitability of any benchmark applied in the investment analysis, the DOE shall:

(a) Determine whether the type of benchmark applied is suitable for the type of financial indicator presented;

(b) Ensure that any risk premiums applied in determining the benchmark reflect the risks associated with the project type or activity;

(c) Determine whether it is reasonable to assume that no investment would be made at a rate of return lower than the benchmark.

Para 128 /2/, /4/, /6/, /38/

DR, I 1. Checked: Benchmark value: According to the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 05), local commercial lending rates or weighted average costs of capital (WACC) are appropriate benchmarks for a project IRR. In this view, the project proponents have selected the commercial lending rate (13.8%) in 2011 offered by commercial banks in Viet Nam at the time the decision making based on the information published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) - a research and advisory company providing country, industry and management analysis worldwide. The Validation Team checked the country report published by EIU and cross-checked it with the registered project activities. The validation team concluded that the benchmark value selected was

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 73

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

appropriate to the proposed project. G.38. Where project participants rely on values from

Feasibility Study Reports (FSR) that are approved by national authorities for proposed project activities, the DOE shall determine whether:

(a) The FSR is the basis for the decision to proceed with the investment in the project, i.e. that the period of time between the finalization of the FSR and the investment decision is sufficiently short that it is unlikely in the context of the underlying project activity that the input values would have materially changed;

(b) The values used in the PDD and associated annexes are fully consistent with the FSR, and where inconsistencies occur the DOE shall assess the appropriateness of the values;

(c) The input values from the FSR are valid and applicable at the time of investment decision. The DOE shall confirm this on the basis of its specific local and sectoral expertise and by cross-checking or other appropriate means.

Para 129 /2/, /4/, /8/,

/10/, /38/

DR, I 1. Checked: The Feasibility Study Report for the project activity was prepared by an independent engineering company, Power 1 Construction Consultancy Company (August 2010). Its main contents including the generation capacity and investment costs was approved by the Quang Nam Province Committee who issued accordingly the investment license for the proposed project activity. It was particularly noted in the investment license that the FSR estimated the total investment costs for the proposed project activity conservatively in that the approved total investment costs in the investment license was 280.867 billion VND, more than those initially estimated by the FSR. Comparing the publishing date of the Report (August 2010), the date of investment decision (July 2011, Board Resolution) and the fact that the construction contract has not yet been signed, it can be concluded that the period of time between the finalization of the FSR and the investment decision is

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 74

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

sufficiently short such that it is unlikely in the context of the underlying project activity that the input values would have materially changed. Besides, the values used in the PDD and associated annexes are fully consistent with the FSR.

Barrier analysis: If barrier analysis13 was used to demonstrate the additionality of the proposed project activity, the DOE shall determine whether the proposed project activity faces barriers that: (a) Prevent the implementation of this type of proposed project activity; (b) Do not prevent the implementation of at least one of the alternatives.

Para 131

G.39. The DOE shall determine whether issues that have a direct impact on the financial returns of the project activity are not considered barriers and shall be assessed by investment analysis. This does not refer to either:

(a) Risk related barriers, for example risk of technical failure, that could have negative effects on financial performance; or

(b) Barriers related to the unavailability of sources of finance for the project activity.

Para 132 N.A. OK OK

G.40. The DOE shall apply a two-step process to assessing the barrier analysis performed, as follows:

(a) Determine whether the barriers are real: The

Para 133 N.A. OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 75

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

DOE shall assess the available evidence and/or conduct interviews with relevant individuals (including members of industry associations, government officials or local experts if necessary) to determine whether the barriers listed in the PDD exist. The DOE shall determine whether the existence of barriers is substantiated by independent sources of data such as relevant national legislation, surveys of local conditions and national or international statistics. If the existence of a barrier is substantiated only by the opinions of the project participants, the DOE shall not consider this barrier to be adequately substantiated. If the DOE considers, on the basis of its sectoral or local expertise, that a barrier is not real or is not supported by sufficient evidence, it shall raise a CAR to have reference to this barrier removed from the project documentation;

(b) Determine whether the barriers prevent the implementation of the project activity but not the implementation of at least one of the possible alternatives: Since not all barriers present an insurmountable hurdle to a project activity being implemented, the DOE shall apply its local and sectoral expertise to judge whether a barrier or set of barriers would

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 76

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

prevent the implementation of the proposed project activity and would not equally prevent implementation of at least one of the possible alternatives, in particular the identified baseline scenario.

Common practice analysis: For proposed large-scale project activities, unless the proposed project type is first-of-its-kind as determined in accordance with the relevant guidelines, the DOE shall assess whether the project participants have conducted a common practice analysis.

Para 135

G.41. The DOE shall use official sources and its local and sectoral expertise to:

(a) Assess whether the geographical scope (e.g. the defined region) of the common practice analysis is appropriate for the assessment of common practice related to the project activity’s technology or industry type. For certain technologies, the relevant region for assessment will be local and for others it may be transnational/global. If a region other than the entire host country is chosen, the DOE shall assess the explanation of why this region is more appropriate;

(b) Determine to what extent similar and operational projects (e.g. using similar technology or practice), other than project activities, have been undertaken in the defined

Para 136 N.A. OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 77

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

region;

(c) Assess, if similar and operational projects, other than project activities, are already widely observed and commonly carried out” in the defined region, whether there are essential distinctions between the proposed project activity and the other similar activities.

Monitoring plan: The DOE shall determine whether the description of the monitoring plan included in the PDD is based on the approved monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s) and, where applicable, the approved standardized baseline.

Para 138

G.42. The DOE shall apply a two-step process to meet the above requirement:

(a) To assess compliance of the monitoring plan with the approved methodology and the applicable tool(s) and, where applicable, the approved standardized baseline, the DOE shall:

i) Identify the list of parameters required by the selected approved methodology including applicable tool(s) and, where applicable, the selected standardized baseline by means of document review;

ii) Confirm that the description of the monitoring plan contains all necessary

Para 139 /2/, /33/

DR 1. Checked: In line with the AMS-I.D (version 17), electricity supplied to the grid by the hydropower plant will be monitored.

2. Net electricity supplied to the grid, excluding auxiliary electricity consumption within the hydropower plants and any electricity import from the grid, will be directly measured by electricity meters and double-checked with the receipt for sales.

3. The electricity generation data is directly measured by kilowatt hour meters at the project site and collated according to the

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 78

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

parameters, that they are described and that the means of monitoring described in the plan complies with the requirements of the methodology including applicable tool(s).

(b) To assess the implementation of the plan the DOE shall, by means of review of the documented procedures, interviews with relevant personnel, project plans and any physical inspection of the proposed project activity site, assess whether:

i) The monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible within the project design;

ii) The means of implementation of the monitoring plan, including the data management and quality assurance and quality control procedures, are sufficient to ensure that the emission reductions achieved by/resulting from the proposed project activity can be reported ex post and verified.

monitoring plan. The data collected is transmitted to the EVN for reporting and ensuring the consistency and reliability of the metering data.

4. The Central Power Corporation is the project owner and responsible for project management. The position and corresponding responsibilities to monitor emission reductions are described in detail in the PDD. The monitoring arrangements are deemed feasible and it is concluded that the project participants have the ability to implement the monitoring plan.

5. The data from electricity sales receipts will be cross checked against meter readings taken at the project site. Considering the monitoring parameters and plan, it is confirmed that the means to implement the monitoring plan are sufficient to report and verify the ex-post emission reductions.

H. Environmental impacts In this section, it is assessed that the project participants conducted an analysis of the environmental impacts of the

Para 141

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 79

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

proposed project activity, including transboundary impacts, and whether those impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party. The DOE shall also determine whether the project participants conducted an environmental impact assessment, if required to do so by the host Party, in accordance with the host Party’s procedures.

Para 142

H.1. Has it been assessed the above requirements by means of a document review and/or using local official sources and expertise?

Para 143 /2/, /12/

DR, I 1. Checked: In case of the proposed project activity, an assessment of the environmental impacts was required at the stage of getting an approval of EIA from the district authorities. The validation team checked the Environment Impacts Assessment Report which included potential environmental impacts by the proposed project to the neighboring area and how to minimize the identified impacts. It was also noted that the Environment Impacts Assessment Report was approved by the People’s Committee of Quang Nam province on 19/12/2013. It was therefore concluded that the project participant has undertaken an analysis of environmental impacts in accordance with procedures as required by the Vietnamese law and project does not have any

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 80

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

significant environmental impacts.

I. Local stakeholder consultation It is assessed in this section the project participants have completed a local stakeholder consultation process and that due steps were taken to engage stakeholders and solicit comments for the proposed project activity.

Para 145

I.1. The DOE shall, by means of document review and interviews with local stakeholders as appropriate, determine whether:

(a) Comments have been invited from local stakeholders that are relevant for the proposed project activity;

(b) The summary of the comments received as provided in the PDD is complete;

(c) The project participants have taken due account of all comments received and have described this process in the PDD.

Para 146 /2/, /13/

DR, I 1. Checked: It was confirmed that stakeholder consultation meeting was held in Cha Val Commune close to the project site on 23/02/2011. Public notices of the planned consultations were placed in Labor Newspaper which is widely published and read in provinces. In the consultation meeting, presentations were made by the project owner and consultant who outlined the planned project activity in a non-technical manner (including environmental, social and technological considerations), climate change, the role of the Clean Development Mechanism and annual emission reductions potential.

2. In the consultation meeting, there were 21 participants ranging from local authorities to local inhabitants. The questions received in the stakeholder meetings and

OK OK

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 81

KEMCO

Validation Checklist VVS

Criteria (Ver 7.0)

Ref. MoV Comments Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

answers from the project developers, are summarized in Section E.2 and E3 of the PDD.

3. Checked: it is sufficiently provided how the project owner addressed the concerns of local stakeholders.

<Annex 1> Please double-check the following items.

Items Reference VVM Criteria (v1.2)

Reference page in the VR

Validation Yes No

1. Assessment of accuracy and completeness in the project descriptions Section F. Para 64

- Assess descriptions about the precise nature of the project activity and technical aspects of its implementation in the project descriptions

Page 11

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 82

Items Reference VVM Criteria (v1.2)

Reference page in the VR

Validation Yes No

- Assess descriptions about a project electricity system particularly taking into consideration project emissions from on-site electricity consumption

Page 11

2. Assessment of the relevant information in the PDD against each applicability condition listed in the approved methodology selected

Section G.3 Para 76 Page 12

3. Assessment of the baseline scenario including its associated sub-scenarios in terms of, e.g. power generation, heat generation, use of biomass feedstock, etc.

Section G.11 Para 89 Page 13

4. Assessment of the accuracy and conservativeness of financial calculations in the investment analysis Section G.32 Para 120

- Assess the consistency of input parameters in investment analysis, for example the project lending rate and benchmark value, the escalation of O&M cost and the fixed power tariff.

Page 17 to Page 20

- Assess the validity of investment cost and other parameters used in the investment analysis by comparing with the region values.

Page 21 to Page 22

- Assess the conditions which make the IRR of the project reach the benchmark value, and their likelihoods. Page 23 to Page

24

- Assess whether power balance is sufficiently considered in calculating costs and revenues for the investment analysis.

Page 17 to Page 18

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 83

Items Reference VVM Criteria (v1.2)

Reference page in the VR

Validation Yes No

- Assess whether investment costs are estimated for the project activity only, excluding the items not relating to the project activity itself.

Page 17 to Page 20

5. Assessment of the accuracy of emission calculation in line with the approved methodology(ies)

- Calculation of leakage emissions Section G.16 Para 97 Page 14

- In case of the project which transfers the electricity generated by project activities to a grid, for example renewable energy power generation project, check the all possible project emissions including the import of electricity from the grid and on-site standby fossil fuel generation.

Section G.38 Para 132 Page 11, Page 18, and Page 25

6. Assessment of barrier analysis and common practice analysis Section G.35, G.37 Para 125, 129 Page 24

7. Assessment on the process of local stakeholders consultation Section I.1 Para 139 Page 26

KEMCO

VALIDATION REPORT

Page 84

Table 3. Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Non-conformities Reference Summary of project participant response Conclusion

1. CAR1: It was found that the PDD form (04.1) submitted by the project participants was not the latest one. This discrepancy is therefore requested to be corrected.

Table 2. Section E.1

The revised PDD using the latest form was submitted to the validation team.

The validation team confirmed that the revised PDD was prepared using the latest PDD form (05.0). The NC is therefore closed.

2. CL1: The project participants have not submitted any supporting documents demonstrating that no public funding from Annex I Parties is not included in financing the project activity.

Validation Report, Section 3.2

The official documents which show that no public funding from Annex I Parties is included in financing this project activity was submitted by project participants.

It is confirmed that no public funding is included in the project activity. The NC is thus closed.

3. CL2: The project activity assumed that it would sell electricity at the power tariff of 839.55 VND/kWh during the operation. However, the supporting documents for the assumption have not been sufficiently submitted to the validation team. This point needs to be further clarified.

Table 2. Section G.32

The project participants provided the clarifications that the tariff for the proposed project activity was estimated with seasonal power generation and seasonal avoided costs in 2010 as determined by Ministry of Industry.

The validation team confirmed the table for electricity tariff including seasonal power generation and seasonal avoided costs in 2010. The NC is therefore closed.

KEMCO

Page 85

Appendix B

CVs of Validation Team Members

KEMCO

Page 86

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name HAN Date of Birth -

Given name Seung-Ho Sex Male

Organization KEMCO Phone No. +82-31-260-4883

Position Manager Fax No. +82-31-260-4886

Address 1157, Pungdukchun-2-dong, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 448-994, Republic of Korea E-mail shhan@kemco.or.kr

Title Proposed Title Qualification

Lead Full-time Validator/verifier

Sectoral Scope

Proposed Sectoral Scope Qualification 1. Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources)

1-2 Energy generation from renewable energy sources

13 Waste handling and disposal

13-2 Animal waste management

14. Afforestation and reforestation

14-1 Forestry

15. Agriculture 15-2 Animal waste management

Work experience

* Please describe every employment you have had

From to Details of Duties

2000-03-01 2006-01-22 Supporting National Climate Change Policy, Climatic Change Mitigation Department, KEMCO

2006-01-23 Present Conducting validation and verification of GHG reduction projects, GHG Certification Office, KEMCO

KEMCO

Page 87

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name PARK Date of Birth -

Given name Min-ha Sex Female

Organization KEMCO Phone No. +82-31-260-4885

Position Assistance manager Fax No. +82-31-260-4886

Address 1157, Pungdukchun-2-dong, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 448-994, Republic of Korea E-mail pminha@kemco.or.kr

Title Proposed Title Qualification

Full-time Validator/verifier

Sectoral Scope

Proposed Sectoral Scope Qualification 1. Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources)

1-2 Energy generation from renewable energy sources

4. Manufacturing industries

4-1 Cement and lime production

5. Chemical industry 5-1 Chemical industry

9. Metal production 9-2 Iron, steel and Ferro-alloy production

Work experience * Please describe every employment you have had

From to Details of Duties

2009-03-30 2011-01-23 GHG reduction project registry Department, KEMCO

2011-01-24 2013-01-06 GHG & Energy Target Management Department, KEMCO

2013-01-07 Present Conducting validation and verification of GHG reduction projects, GHG Certification Office, KEMCO

KEMCO

Page 88

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name PARK Date of Birth - Given name Min-Ku Sex Male Organization KEMCO Phone No. +82-31-260-4889

Position Assistance Manager Fax No. +82-31-260-4886

Address 1157, Pungdukchun 2, Suji, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 448-994, Republic of Korea E-mail mkpark@kemco.or.kr

Title Proposed Title Qualification

Full-time Validator/verifier

Sectoral Scope

Proposed Sectoral Scope Qualification 1. Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources)

1-2 Renewables

13 Waste handling and disposal

13-1 Solid waste and wastewater

Work experience

* Please describe every employment you have had

From to Details of Duties

2010-02-26 Present CDM auditing, Contract CDM project and Supporting a planning team tasks at GHG Certification Office, KEMCO