Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan. (VVS v2 para 235)
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how the monitoring has been in compliance with the registered monitoring plan. The Monitoring plan requires the EFOM,y and EFBM,y to be monitored annually. The MR mentions that no calculations have been done for 2011 onwards due to the absence reliable data released by SENER. However, the monitoring plan or the methodology does not have provisions to use latest available data for ex-post EFOM,y and EFBM,y.

2: Scope: The verification 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 (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: 2. The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified the following parameters:
(a) EGy, in particular the application of the adjustment for the delayed calibration period that is applied to net generation, instead of separate adjustment for both export and import electricity. Please refer to the Appendix 1 of the VVS version 07.0.
(b) EGy, for meters of Phase II and Phase III, it is noted from the Verification Report page 46 that there was delayed calibration for the meters. Hence the DOE is also requested to explain how the adjustment of 0.2% being the maximum permissible error is appropriate in accordance with the paragraph 283 of the VVS version 07.0 applies for period in the absence of the information of the calibration (i.e. the result of the delayed calibration);
(c) EFBM,y being calculated in accordance with the ACM0002 version 2, in particular as the plants considered for Build Margin do not add up to 20% of the total generation in 2011, as evidenced from the spreadsheet.