03:24 24 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The validation report does not contain a confirmation that the corrected information is accurate reflection of actual project information as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 304.
Issue: (i) The PP/DOE have submitted corrections in the revised PDD through post-registration changes along with the issuance request. However, it has been found that significant changes have been made in the monitoring plan of the revised PDD. Therefore, the PP/DOE are requested to clarify how this is in accordance with paragraph 284 - 287 of the Project Standard (v9). In doing so, the DOE shall clarify why the PP has applied a later version of the methodology (i.e. v17) as per paragraph 284 and 285 of the Project Standard (v9).
(ii) The DOE shall assess whether the proposed post-registration changes do not require prior approval of the Board as per Appendix 1 of Project Standard.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not indicate whether any request for prior approval by the Board of changes to the registered CDM project activity has been submitted and if applicable, the date of approval as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 245.
Issue: The DOE is requested to clarify how it has verified the information given in the section B.2.2 of the MR (page 7/15) as correct, given the fact that it states no corrections were submitted during first MP, whereas, the DOE/PP have submitted a PRC request (corrections) along with the issuance.
3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 247 and 248 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f).
Issue: The DOE is requested to clarify how it has verified the information given in the MR, given the fact that section C (page 8 of 15) states two parameters are subject to ex-post monitoring, whereas section D.2 of the MR and the revised PDD (as part of the PRC request) only requires one parameter to be monitored (i.e. EGfacility,y).
4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue:The DOE is requested to rectify a typo in the summary of ER calculation of the verification report (page 20 of 39). The outcome of the ER calculation in the equation is stated as 'xx'.
1: Scope: The validation report does not contain a confirmation that the corrected information is accurate reflection of actual project information as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 304.
Issue: (i) The PP/DOE have submitted corrections in the revised PDD through post-registration changes along with the issuance request. However, it has been found that significant changes have been made in the monitoring plan of the revised PDD. Therefore, the PP/DOE are requested to clarify how this is in accordance with paragraph 284 - 287 of the Project Standard (v9). In doing so, the DOE shall clarify why the PP has applied a later version of the methodology (i.e. v17) as per paragraph 284 and 285 of the Project Standard (v9).
(ii) The DOE shall assess whether the proposed post-registration changes do not require prior approval of the Board as per Appendix 1 of Project Standard.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not indicate whether any request for prior approval by the Board of changes to the registered CDM project activity has been submitted and if applicable, the date of approval as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 245.
Issue: The DOE is requested to clarify how it has verified the information given in the section B.2.2 of the MR (page 7/15) as correct, given the fact that it states no corrections were submitted during first MP, whereas, the DOE/PP have submitted a PRC request (corrections) along with the issuance.
3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 247 and 248 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f).
Issue: The DOE is requested to clarify how it has verified the information given in the MR, given the fact that section C (page 8 of 15) states two parameters are subject to ex-post monitoring, whereas section D.2 of the MR and the revised PDD (as part of the PRC request) only requires one parameter to be monitored (i.e. EGfacility,y).
4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue:The DOE is requested to rectify a typo in the summary of ER calculation of the verification report (page 20 of 39). The outcome of the ER calculation in the equation is stated as 'xx'.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: