Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an opinion on the cause of any increase of the actual GHG emission reductions as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (d).
Issue: With regard to the DOE explanation on the reason of the increase in actual emission reductions, the DOE is requested the further explain how it verified that the actual passengers are only 63% of the estimate, considering that the monitoring period only covers 183 days of actual operational days, whereas the estimate passengers in the registered PDD is based on one full year. The same is also observed when explaining the actual CNG consumption being only 32% of the estimate in the registered PDD.

2: Scope: The verification and certification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 393 and 409 (e).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified the following parameters:
(a) TCPJ,C, in particular the SEC of BRT Lanzhou Buses that is used to crosscheck TCPJ,C. The average of 55.7 m3/100 km is mentioned to be based on consumption from January to October. However as per the Verification Report pages 10 and 22, no monitoring of the project was realized prior to 26 April 2014;
(b) TDC/M/T. While the reliability of the survey for parameter Si,y has been provided (i.e. 4%, for proportional value), the reliability for parameter TDC/M/T, a mean value, has not been provided and verified by the DOE as required by the Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programmes of activities, version 05.0, paragraph 24.

3: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified by the applied methodology, the standardized baseline and/or the monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 400.
Issue: As the registered monitoring plan does not have provision of calibration, the DOE is requested to explain how it concluded that the monitoring equipment for emission parameters was calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan (Verification report page 34).

4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 403 (d).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified the following parameter:
(a) EFCH4,G,C/M and EFN2O,G,C/M for motorcycle. As per the registered PDD, monitoring report and appendix A of the applied methodology, the values are 29 gCO2e/liter and 7 gCO2e/liter respectively. However when calculating the parameter "total gCO2eq per liter gasoline" in sheet "New BL EF with new GWP" (cell J11), the parameter for motorcycle is calculated using figures for passenger cars (i.e. 11 and 14 gCO2e/liter respectively);
(b) The emission per km for motorcycle (sheet "New BL EF with new GWP"), for year 2013. The power (exponent) 2 is used, while for other type of vehicle power (exponent) 3 is used. The ex-ante calculation sheet (at the time of registration) has defined that year 0 (zero) refers to 2010.