00:02 06 May 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 247 and 248 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f).
Issue: Parameter PEy is estimated as 0.666 tCO2e (see monitoring report, pp. 14-15). This emission has been ignored with the following justification: "However, according to VVS (version 09.0), project emissions can be ignored while the project emission is lower than 1% of the overall expected average annual emissions reductions".
The calculation spreadsheet contains a note stating that this emission is ignored according to VVS (version 02.0), which is not consistent with the above mention of VVS (version 09.0). Moreover, such a provision could not be found in the VVS. The paragraph number in which this provision is contained should be quoted.
In the data description table on the parameter "Operational hours ..." (see monitoring report, p.11), it is stated: "The annual emissions associated with the operation of the emergency backup diesel generator will be deducted from baseline emission. In case of actual emergencies the project owner will not claim emission reductions." Ignoring the emissions without a relevant justification is inconsistent with this statement.
2: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible.
Issue: In the sheet "emission reduction calculation", column K is set equal to column J (i.e. K='=J'). The column L applies the MIN() function to the columns J and K. Since K is defined as J, applying the MIN() function to (J,K) has no meaning, as the minimum of two instances of a value is the value itself, i.e. MIN(x,x) = x, by definition. Comparison can be meaningful only when two independent values are compared. In the same way, applying the function MAX() to (P,Q) has no meaning since column Q has been set equal to column P. This is inconsistent with the claim that the two sets of data were cross checked against each other and were found to be consistent.
3: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet.
Issue: A note is inserted in the sheet "emission reduction calculation" where it is stated that according to "VVS (version 02.0)" project emission resulting from operation of diesel generator has been ignored. It is not stated which paragraph of the VVS provides for this. In another place in the monitoring report (p. 15) a reference to VVS (version 09.0) is made in this connection.
4: 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: Parameter PEy is estimated as 0.666 tCO2e (see monitoring report, pp. 14-15). This emission has been ignored with the following justification: "However, according to VVS (version 09.0), project emissions can be ignored while the project emission is lower than 1% of the overall expected average annual emissions reductions". The calculation spreadsheet contains a note stating that this emission is ignored according to VVS (version 02.0), which is not consistent with the above mention of VVS (version 09.0). Moreover, such a provision could not be found in the VVS. The paragraph number in which this provision is contained should be quoted. In the data description table on the parameter "Operational hours ..." (see monitoring report, p.11), it is stated: "The annual emissions associated with the operation of the emergency backup diesel generator will be deducted from baseline emission. In case of actual emergencies the project owner will not claim emission reductions." Ignoring the emissions without a relevant justification is inconsistent with this statement.
5: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue: In the sheet "emission reduction calculation", column K is set equal to column J (i.e. K='=J'). The column L applies the MIN() function to the columns J and K. Since K is defined as J, applying the MIN() function to (J,K) has no meaning, as the minimum of two instances of a value is the value itself, i.e. MIN(x,x) = x, by definition. Comparison can be meaningful only when two independent values are compared. In the same way, applying the function MAX() to (P,Q) has no meaning since column Q has been set equal to column P. This is inconsistent with the claim that the two sets of data were cross checked against each other and were found to be consistent.
6: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 409 (j).
Issue: The last paragraph of the section "SECTION G. Verification opinion" of the verification and certification report reads as follows: "In our opinion, the project GHG emissions for Hubei Laifeng Najitan Hydropower Station for the 6th monitoring period 01/01/2013-29/02/2016 as reported in Monitoring Report, prepared on the basis of the Project’s Monitoring Plan are fairly stated." In the opinion the DOE quoted here, the "project GHG emissions" are found to be "fairly stated". Elsewhere in the report, project emissions have been assessed as zero with a justification that is neither consistent nor transparently verifiable (i.e. through a reference to the VVS, version 09.0 in one place and version 02.0 in another place, and without reference to the relevant paragraphs).
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 247 and 248 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f).
Issue: Parameter PEy is estimated as 0.666 tCO2e (see monitoring report, pp. 14-15). This emission has been ignored with the following justification: "However, according to VVS (version 09.0), project emissions can be ignored while the project emission is lower than 1% of the overall expected average annual emissions reductions".
The calculation spreadsheet contains a note stating that this emission is ignored according to VVS (version 02.0), which is not consistent with the above mention of VVS (version 09.0). Moreover, such a provision could not be found in the VVS. The paragraph number in which this provision is contained should be quoted.
In the data description table on the parameter "Operational hours ..." (see monitoring report, p.11), it is stated: "The annual emissions associated with the operation of the emergency backup diesel generator will be deducted from baseline emission. In case of actual emergencies the project owner will not claim emission reductions." Ignoring the emissions without a relevant justification is inconsistent with this statement.
2: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain the formulae of calculation that are shown in the spreadsheet cells whenever possible.
Issue: In the sheet "emission reduction calculation", column K is set equal to column J (i.e. K='=J'). The column L applies the MIN() function to the columns J and K. Since K is defined as J, applying the MIN() function to (J,K) has no meaning, as the minimum of two instances of a value is the value itself, i.e. MIN(x,x) = x, by definition. Comparison can be meaningful only when two independent values are compared. In the same way, applying the function MAX() to (P,Q) has no meaning since column Q has been set equal to column P. This is inconsistent with the claim that the two sets of data were cross checked against each other and were found to be consistent.
3: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet.
Issue: A note is inserted in the sheet "emission reduction calculation" where it is stated that according to "VVS (version 02.0)" project emission resulting from operation of diesel generator has been ignored. It is not stated which paragraph of the VVS provides for this. In another place in the monitoring report (p. 15) a reference to VVS (version 09.0) is made in this connection.
4: 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: Parameter PEy is estimated as 0.666 tCO2e (see monitoring report, pp. 14-15). This emission has been ignored with the following justification: "However, according to VVS (version 09.0), project emissions can be ignored while the project emission is lower than 1% of the overall expected average annual emissions reductions". The calculation spreadsheet contains a note stating that this emission is ignored according to VVS (version 02.0), which is not consistent with the above mention of VVS (version 09.0). Moreover, such a provision could not be found in the VVS. The paragraph number in which this provision is contained should be quoted. In the data description table on the parameter "Operational hours ..." (see monitoring report, p.11), it is stated: "The annual emissions associated with the operation of the emergency backup diesel generator will be deducted from baseline emission. In case of actual emergencies the project owner will not claim emission reductions." Ignoring the emissions without a relevant justification is inconsistent with this statement.
5: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue: In the sheet "emission reduction calculation", column K is set equal to column J (i.e. K='=J'). The column L applies the MIN() function to the columns J and K. Since K is defined as J, applying the MIN() function to (J,K) has no meaning, as the minimum of two instances of a value is the value itself, i.e. MIN(x,x) = x, by definition. Comparison can be meaningful only when two independent values are compared. In the same way, applying the function MAX() to (P,Q) has no meaning since column Q has been set equal to column P. This is inconsistent with the claim that the two sets of data were cross checked against each other and were found to be consistent.
6: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 409 (j).
Issue: The last paragraph of the section "SECTION G. Verification opinion" of the verification and certification report reads as follows: "In our opinion, the project GHG emissions for Hubei Laifeng Najitan Hydropower Station for the 6th monitoring period 01/01/2013-29/02/2016 as reported in Monitoring Report, prepared on the basis of the Project’s Monitoring Plan are fairly stated." In the opinion the DOE quoted here, the "project GHG emissions" are found to be "fairly stated". Elsewhere in the report, project emissions have been assessed as zero with a justification that is neither consistent nor transparently verifiable (i.e. through a reference to the VVS, version 09.0 in one place and version 02.0 in another place, and without reference to the relevant paragraphs).
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: