22:03 15 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain all parameters required to be monitored and/or reported at the intervals required by the monitoring plan and the applied methodology?
Issue 1: The analysis results and dates of CODuntreated and CODtreated, which were performed on monthly basis as per verification report, are not reported (showed as an average for the whole monitoring period).
Issue 2: The values of monitoring parameter CFEww applied during the monitoring period (0%, 50% or 90%) as per monitoring plan are not reported in the excel sheet and no further explanations are provided.
2: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (b) (ii)).
Issue 1: The spreadsheet does not allow to track the calculations for some reported parameters (e.g. Biogas Flared adjusted for efficiency, Total Methane destroyed (Tonnes CO2), Project Emission due to Electricity Consumption,Total Methane Produced, etc).
Issue 2: The adjustment made to the methane content of biogas measured on March 2011, due to a calibration delay as per EB 52 Annex 60, is not reflected in the CER sheet.
3: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (c) & 221 (h))
Issue: In Section 3.6, the DOE describes how the calculation of emission reductions were determined in line with the monitoring plan and AMS-III.H v09.
However, in section 3.6.2, the DOE describes that emissions due to electricity produced by fossil fuel “(EGfossil fuel) will be assumed to be 100% and the emission factor of the diesel of 0.8 kgCO2e/kWh and in addition 10% of distribution loss will be used for the project emission calculation.” Nevertheless, the formulae used does not show the addition of 10% in the calculation of EGfossil fuel.
4: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment of the compliance with EB 52 Annex 60 'Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibration frequency requirements' for the calibration delay. (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: The verification report does not indicate whether the DOE confirmed if the adjustment applied in the measurement of methane content of biogas due to the calibration delay on March 2011 was based on the delayed calibration result or in the maximum permissible error of the monitoring equipment, as per EB52.
1: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain all parameters required to be monitored and/or reported at the intervals required by the monitoring plan and the applied methodology?
Issue 1: The analysis results and dates of CODuntreated and CODtreated, which were performed on monthly basis as per verification report, are not reported (showed as an average for the whole monitoring period).
Issue 2: The values of monitoring parameter CFEww applied during the monitoring period (0%, 50% or 90%) as per monitoring plan are not reported in the excel sheet and no further explanations are provided.
2: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (b) (ii)).
Issue 1: The spreadsheet does not allow to track the calculations for some reported parameters (e.g. Biogas Flared adjusted for efficiency, Total Methane destroyed (Tonnes CO2), Project Emission due to Electricity Consumption,Total Methane Produced, etc).
Issue 2: The adjustment made to the methane content of biogas measured on March 2011, due to a calibration delay as per EB 52 Annex 60, is not reflected in the CER sheet.
3: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document. (VVM v.1.2 para 208 (c) & 221 (h))
Issue: In Section 3.6, the DOE describes how the calculation of emission reductions were determined in line with the monitoring plan and AMS-III.H v09.
However, in section 3.6.2, the DOE describes that emissions due to electricity produced by fossil fuel “(EGfossil fuel) will be assumed to be 100% and the emission factor of the diesel of 0.8 kgCO2e/kWh and in addition 10% of distribution loss will be used for the project emission calculation.” Nevertheless, the formulae used does not show the addition of 10% in the calculation of EGfossil fuel.
4: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment of the compliance with EB 52 Annex 60 'Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibration frequency requirements' for the calibration delay. (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: The verification report does not indicate whether the DOE confirmed if the adjustment applied in the measurement of methane content of biogas due to the calibration delay on March 2011 was based on the delayed calibration result or in the maximum permissible error of the monitoring equipment, as per EB52.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: