Green Markets

EWN Publishing

CDM Executive Board questions or refuses three India CDM projects: Sterlite Industries, Lafarge India and Uruba Renewable Irrigation Project

Posted by gmarkets on 2 October, 2007

The Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism rejected five India projects at its Thirty-first Meeting on 21-23 March 2007.

Common practice: The first project involved power generation from the proposed 11.2 MW waste heat recovery boiler at the ISA Smelt furnace of the Copper Smelter of Sterlite Industries India Limited (SIIL). The smelter project was rejected because:

  • the information provided by the DOE and project participant regarding barriers was not convincing since reference to barriers based on the argument using downtime data is incomplete and since it was not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed activity differs from being common practice based on the fuel use. Therefore the project activity did not meet the additionality requirements as stipulated in paragraphs 43 to 52 of the CDM modalities and procedures; and
  • ACM0004 version 2 was incorrectly applied to the proposed project activity and the DOE did not request a deviation from the methodology, and therefore the project activity did not meet the requirements stipulated in paragraph 54 of the CDM modalities and procedures.

Failed to demonstrate acceptability: The second rejected project involved a blended cement project with fly ash at Lafarge India Private Limited, submitted for registration by the DOE (DNVCert). The Board considered that the DOE and the project participant failed to substantiate significant and additional technological and market acceptability barriers to increasing the level of additives in the production of blended cement above the baseline level while also not elaborating on cost and benefits, therefore the project activity did not meet the additionality requirements as stipulated in paragraphs 43 to 52 of the CDM modalities and procedures. The Board noted with concern that project participants propose and DOEs accept PDDs which apply the same barriers facing the baseline to the proposed project activity without demonstrating any additional barriers above and beyond those faced by the baseline. This was not sufficient to demonstrate additionality.

Wrong methodology chosen: The third rejected project was the Uruba Renewable Irrigation Project submitted for registration by the DOE (DNVCert). In this case the Board considered that the PDD used the approved small scale methodology AMS-I.B, which is meant for the direct provision of mechanical energy to a user and as such is not applicable to the project activity providing electricity to multiple users, therefore the project activity did not comply with the requirements stipulated in paragraph 37 (e) of the CDM modalities and procedures.

Reference: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism, Thirtieth Meeting, 21-23 March 2007, Bonn, Germany

Erisk Net, 23/3/2007

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: