Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the implementation status of the project (including a brief description of the installed technology and/or equipments, relevant dates of project activity e.g. date of construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) during the monitoring period under consideration. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (i) & EB 54 Annex 34).
Issue: The monitoring report (p2) states that “Head unit of Jradzor SHPP should be equipped with two-packaged hydropower equipment with 4.0 MW installed capacity.” However, the monitoring report (p4) states that “Currently only one unit with 20% of the capacity, instead of two, is operating at the Jradzor plant. The additional contract for the equipment was signed and the installation of the new generator is expected in October-November 2010. The current installed capacity of the Jradzor SHPP is 3 MW, and it will be increased to 5.93MW after the installation of the new generator.” Further clarification is required.

2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain information on calibration of monitoring instruments (frequency, relevant dates of calibration and/or validity) as specified by the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (iv) & EB 54 Annex 34)
Issue: The monitoring report does not contain the relevant dates of calibration and/or validity of the monitoring instrument. Further there is an inconsistency in calibration frequency. The monitoring report (p 5) states that "The meters are calibrated yearly" while the report (p 7) states "calibration frequency – monthly ".

3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain emission factors, IPCC default values, and/or other reference values used in the calculation of emission reductions. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (v)).
Issue: The monitoring report does not contain the NCV and carbon content for the fuels used by the power plants in the Grid during the monitoring period.

4: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: The information on project implementation is based on the monitoring report which is not complete. Please provide the implmenetation status clearly based on the site visit done on 11 – 12/10/2010.

5: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan (VVM v.1.2 para 206)
Issue: The monitoring plan requires monitoring of the identification of power source plant for the BM & Identification of power source plants for the OM. However, the verification report does not present an opinion on their absence from the monitoring report.

6: Scope: The verification report does not state how the DOE verified the information flow for the listed parameters. (VVM v.1.2 para 206)
Issue: The monitoring plan includes Identification of power source plant for the BM & Identification of power source plants for the OM. However, the DOE did not provided information flow of the verification of these two parmeters.

7: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan? (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: The Verification report does not consider the provisions of EB 61, Annex 21, para 17 (c) which requires calibration at least once in three years, and the DOE accepts the tehnical specifications of the meters which require calibration once at eight years.