08:05 13 Jul 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not provide information on data and variables that are different from the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD, and has caused an increase in estimates of the emission reductions in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to increase the estimates of emission reductions in the future monitoring periods (VVS v2, para 228 (c))
Issue: It is noted that the revised PDD submitted with the request for issuance has incorporated the revised monitoring plan approved on 17/04/2012. However, there are discrepancies found: (i) the revised PDD submitted with the request for issuance refers to decision 0237/2006/QD-BCN dated 16/10/2006 for the accuracy meter of 0.5s, whereas the revised monitoring plan approved on 17/04/2012 refers to decision 37/2006/QD-BCN dated 16/10/2006 for the accuracy meter of 0.5s; (ii) the revised PDD submitted with the request for issuance requires the installation of energy meter M21, M22, M23 and M24, whereas the same cannot be found in the revised monitoring plan approved on 17/04/2012.
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: For parameter EGimp,y,2, the monitoring report states "the power meter reading (M3) is the source of data, but in actual calculation the invoiced amount was applied for the reason of conservativeness". However, neither the spreadsheet, the monitoring report nor the verification report provides the values from the meter reading in order to conclude the values from the invoice are conservative.
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. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The Verification Report has not provided any explaination why there are differences in the values for exported electricity: (a) between the meter reading and the monthly protocols for the following periods: 04/12/2010, 01/07/2011-30/07/2011, 01/08/2011-14/08/2011, 14/08/2011, 14/08/2011-31/08/2011, 01/09/2011-30/09/2011, 01/10/2011-31/10/2011; (b) between the monthly protocols and the sales invoice for the following periods: 01/12/2010-04/12/2010, 04/12/2010, 04/12/2010-31/12/2010, 14/08/2011. In particular for period 04/12/2010-31/12/2010, the higher value between the two is used.
1: Scope: The verification report does not provide information on data and variables that are different from the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD, and has caused an increase in estimates of the emission reductions in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to increase the estimates of emission reductions in the future monitoring periods (VVS v2, para 228 (c))
Issue: It is noted that the revised PDD submitted with the request for issuance has incorporated the revised monitoring plan approved on 17/04/2012. However, there are discrepancies found: (i) the revised PDD submitted with the request for issuance refers to decision 0237/2006/QD-BCN dated 16/10/2006 for the accuracy meter of 0.5s, whereas the revised monitoring plan approved on 17/04/2012 refers to decision 37/2006/QD-BCN dated 16/10/2006 for the accuracy meter of 0.5s; (ii) the revised PDD submitted with the request for issuance requires the installation of energy meter M21, M22, M23 and M24, whereas the same cannot be found in the revised monitoring plan approved on 17/04/2012.
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: For parameter EGimp,y,2, the monitoring report states "the power meter reading (M3) is the source of data, but in actual calculation the invoiced amount was applied for the reason of conservativeness". However, neither the spreadsheet, the monitoring report nor the verification report provides the values from the meter reading in order to conclude the values from the invoice are conservative.
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. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The Verification Report has not provided any explaination why there are differences in the values for exported electricity: (a) between the meter reading and the monthly protocols for the following periods: 04/12/2010, 01/07/2011-30/07/2011, 01/08/2011-14/08/2011, 14/08/2011, 14/08/2011-31/08/2011, 01/09/2011-30/09/2011, 01/10/2011-31/10/2011; (b) between the monthly protocols and the sales invoice for the following periods: 01/12/2010-04/12/2010, 04/12/2010, 04/12/2010-31/12/2010, 14/08/2011. In particular for period 04/12/2010-31/12/2010, the higher value between the two is used.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: