13:06 23 Feb 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to further elaborate how the applied monitoring plan is in line with the registered monitoring plan as the MR (p.8 and relevant tables in the monitoring plan) mentions that calibration has been implemented according to National Standards and carried out once a year and the Verification Report (section G, p.17) mentions that installed equipment has been calibrated appropriately. It is not clear how the DOE verified so, as the actual calibration certificates are not available to the PP/DOE as mentioned in the MR (Appendix 1, p.15) and Verification Report (section E.7, p.14 and CAR 5, p.22).
In doing so please refer to PS paragraph 260.b.
2: The DOE is requested to further justify how the values in the monitoring report have been verified, in particular the value used (68.934,85 MWh) for the "net electricity supplied to the grid" in the ERs calculation (“ERs.xlsx”), MR (sections D.2 and E.1, p.12-13) and Verification Report (section E.8.1, p.14).
In doing so please refer to VVS paragraph 364 in relation to the verification of the information flow for the parameters listed in the monitoring plan.
3: The DOE is requested to further elaborate how it has verified that the maximum permissible error applied to the delay of calibration is appropriate and conservative considering that the PP does not have calibration records prior 14/10/2017 (the 1st meter change).
In doing so please provide the actual calculations and refer to VVS paragraphs 369-370 in relation to applying a conservative approach for delayed calibration.
4: The DOE is requested to verify and explain the values of the net electricity exported to the grid in the ER calculations.
In doing so, please refer to VVS paragraphs 374(c), 395(j).
1: The PP/DOE are requested to further elaborate how the applied monitoring plan is in line with the registered monitoring plan as the MR (p.8 and relevant tables in the monitoring plan) mentions that calibration has been implemented according to National Standards and carried out once a year and the Verification Report (section G, p.17) mentions that installed equipment has been calibrated appropriately. It is not clear how the DOE verified so, as the actual calibration certificates are not available to the PP/DOE as mentioned in the MR (Appendix 1, p.15) and Verification Report (section E.7, p.14 and CAR 5, p.22).
In doing so please refer to PS paragraph 260.b.
2: The DOE is requested to further justify how the values in the monitoring report have been verified, in particular the value used (68.934,85 MWh) for the "net electricity supplied to the grid" in the ERs calculation (“ERs.xlsx”), MR (sections D.2 and E.1, p.12-13) and Verification Report (section E.8.1, p.14).
In doing so please refer to VVS paragraph 364 in relation to the verification of the information flow for the parameters listed in the monitoring plan.
3: The DOE is requested to further elaborate how it has verified that the maximum permissible error applied to the delay of calibration is appropriate and conservative considering that the PP does not have calibration records prior 14/10/2017 (the 1st meter change).
In doing so please provide the actual calculations and refer to VVS paragraphs 369-370 in relation to applying a conservative approach for delayed calibration.
4: The DOE is requested to verify and explain the values of the net electricity exported to the grid in the ER calculations.
In doing so, please refer to VVS paragraphs 374(c), 395(j).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: