Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Paragraphs 360 and 361(e) of VVS-PA:
The DOE is requested to explain how it concluded that the following monitored parameters have been determined in line with the monitoring plan:
(a) EGBL,y: The monitoring plan requires that the collected data be cross checked with the electricity sales receipts obtained from the grid trader/generator. However, there is no information how this has been complied with and how the DOE verified this;
(b) Energy Imports: (i) The DOE stated on page 39 of the verification report that in line with the PDD the meter is under responsibility of the EPM utility and the PP has no access to it. However, the PDD does not state that the meter is under the responsibility of the EPM utility; (ii) The monitoring plan requires that the meter be calibrated periodically, according to manufacturer’s specifications. However, there is no information regarding the meter for this parameter including the information on calibration;
(c) EGBL,y and Energy Imports: The monitoring report does not include monitoring diagram which shows the monitoring point of these two parameters.

2: Paragraph 366 of VVS-PA:
As shown in the ER sheet, an error of 0.05% is applied to the period during the period between scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration. The DOE is requested to substantiate how the maximum permissible error of the meter has been correctly applied considering the accuracy of the meter is 0.2s which has maximum permissible error of 0.2%.

3: Paragraph 339(a) of VVS-PA, and paragraph 26(b) of EB 106 meeting report:
It was mandatory for the DOE to conduct onsite inspection as this is the first verification of this project by this DOE. However, as indicated in section B.1 (footnote 1), the DOE conducted remote assessment via alternative means. The DOE is requested to provide proper justification as to why the site visits cannot be postponed as required by paragraph 26(b) of the EB 106 meeting report.