15:28 05 Feb 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The revised PDD does not contain a description of the nature and extent of the proposed or actual changes to the project design of a registered project activity (PS v2, para 221 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
Issue: The implementation dates on p.2 of the PDD v.5 seem inconsistent with section C.1.1 of the PDD and the validation report p.14 and p.40.
In accordance with the VVM-VVS timeline v.3 apply the latest PDD form v.4 and ensure that the impacts of the post registration changes are included in appendix 6 of the PDD in accordance with PS v3, para 222.
2: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVS v3, para 228 (a))
Issue: The DOE has not explained how it verified (eg. site visit, document review etc) the implementation status for each phase of the project.
3: Scope: The verification report does not contain an statement that identifies any changes to the registered PDD and if applicable, the date of approval by the Board. (VVS v3, para 284 (f))
Issue: The post registration change has been submitted as a 'permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan or monitoring methodology (CGMPMETH). However, other changes outside of this scope have been made such as 'corrections' (CORR) and 'changes to the project design of a registered project activity' (CGPD). See VVS v.3 para 257, 262 and 269.
4: Scope: The certification report does not indicate the monitoring period under verification and/or the corresponding number of CERs requested by the DOE.
Issue: The verification/certification opinion does not include the monitoring dates (VVS v.3 para 286).
1: Scope: The revised PDD does not contain a description of the nature and extent of the proposed or actual changes to the project design of a registered project activity (PS v2, para 221 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
Issue: The implementation dates on p.2 of the PDD v.5 seem inconsistent with section C.1.1 of the PDD and the validation report p.14 and p.40.
In accordance with the VVM-VVS timeline v.3 apply the latest PDD form v.4 and ensure that the impacts of the post registration changes are included in appendix 6 of the PDD in accordance with PS v3, para 222.
2: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVS v3, para 228 (a))
Issue: The DOE has not explained how it verified (eg. site visit, document review etc) the implementation status for each phase of the project.
3: Scope: The verification report does not contain an statement that identifies any changes to the registered PDD and if applicable, the date of approval by the Board. (VVS v3, para 284 (f))
Issue: The post registration change has been submitted as a 'permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan or monitoring methodology (CGMPMETH). However, other changes outside of this scope have been made such as 'corrections' (CORR) and 'changes to the project design of a registered project activity' (CGPD). See VVS v.3 para 257, 262 and 269.
4: Scope: The certification report does not indicate the monitoring period under verification and/or the corresponding number of CERs requested by the DOE.
Issue: The verification/certification opinion does not include the monitoring dates (VVS v.3 para 286).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: