04:49 24 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to address the issues related to the implementation of project activity as below according to the VVS for project activity paragraphs 354 - 356:
The DOE is requested to address the issues below:
a. MP page 5 reports 42 micro hydro power plants which are included in this monitoring period; however, both the table 2 of monitoring report and spreadsheet 2016 demonstrate 43 micro hydro power plants operated in the monitoring period.
b. Table 1 of MR is to provide information about those 53 initiated projects. Further the footnote 2 describes that “The plant is in operation but not reported in this MR”. There is a lack of information to describe what are those 53 initiated projects and why those operated plants are not reported.
2: The DOE is requested to address the issues below related to meters and calibrations as per VVS for project activity section 9.2.6.
The DOE is requested to address the issues raised below:
a. The calibration information reported in the table 3 of MR is different with the information displayed in the spreadsheet Calibration. It is found that for MHP project Memushthang, the monitoring report page 12 reports due date of calibration as 19/06/2011, actual date of calibration/replacement/installation as 20/03/2012 and type of meter as analogue, whereas the spreadsheet Calibration demonstrates (1) due date of calibration as 20/03/2012, (2) actual date of calibration/replacement/installation as 19/03/2014, and (3) the meter replaced from analogue to digital on 20/03/2012 but the type of meter is still as analogue. It is noted that according to the spreadsheet Calibration, except for the plant Oveer Arkari, all plants have date of replacement from analogue to digital, however the meter type of some plants remain “analogue”. The similar issues are also found from other MPH projects such as Ahmedabad, Hushay and others. Please address all issues entirely.
b. For MHP project Oveer Arkari, there is a lack of information reported in the spreadsheet Summary of CERs about the type of meter installed. The monitoring report page 12 reports the type of meter is digital, whereas the spreadsheet Calibration mentions analogue.
c. Both PDD and monitoring report have the provision that the deduction in kWh with 2% for analogue meters will be applied in case of the delay of calibration every two years; however, it is found that the factor 1% deduction are applied for the delay calibration of analogue meters such as the spreadsheet Summary of CERs cells K19, K24, K27, K34, K43 and K44 for plants Katisho, Hango, Haltanmosa Hargosil, Wazirpoor, Ganuk and Yalbo Sabsar.
d. The PDD has the provision that the digital meter does not need calibration unless there is error reported. How there is a lack of information provided in the verification report to confirm whether there was no error in any of the digital meters.
3: The DOE is requested to address the issue and to provide the information how the calculation made and adjustment used is verified as per VVS for project activity paragraphs 373 and 374.
It is not clear how the DOE verified the emission reductions calculated and adjusted for the period 01 – 28 October 2016. The cut-off date for October 2016 is the 28th of October 2016 and adjustment for plants have been taken into account as per values listed in the column Q of the spreadsheet 2016. However, it is found that the multiplication factor for plant Ganuk, in the spreadsheet 2016 cell Q43 for Oct 2016 is “3”, whereas according to the spreadsheet Calibration cell J41, the factor is “30”. It is noted that the reference number 31 of the verification report states that the multiplying factor is “3”.
4: The DOE is requested to address the issue below in accordance with VVS for project activity (ver 2) paragraph 395.
The FAR 01 is reported in the verification report page 20 as “The capacity of MHP Ahmadabad is now 350 kW instead of 400 kW. The reason for such situation is because the old alternator was replaced due to some technical fault hence the capacity was changed to 350 kW, the change occurred on 09/09/2015. According the CDM Project Standard the replacement of the equipment is considered a “changes to the project design of a registered project activity”, thus a revised PDD shall be submitted”. The PP responded to the FAR 01 on 20 November 2018 as “This the last monitoring period falling into the first crediting period; due to that the PP decided to update the PDD during the renewal of crediting period” and subsequently, the verification team accepted the PP’s response on 21 January 2019. However, it is not clear how the closure of the FAR 01 decided by the DOE is complying with the PCP for project activity (ver 2) paragraph 291 which requires “If a post-registration change becomes effective during the crediting period prior to or after its renewal, a request for approval of such post-registration change shall not be combined with a request for renewal of crediting period.”, given that the change occurred on 09 September 2015.
1: The DOE is requested to address the issues related to the implementation of project activity as below according to the VVS for project activity paragraphs 354 - 356:
The DOE is requested to address the issues below:
a. MP page 5 reports 42 micro hydro power plants which are included in this monitoring period; however, both the table 2 of monitoring report and spreadsheet 2016 demonstrate 43 micro hydro power plants operated in the monitoring period.
b. Table 1 of MR is to provide information about those 53 initiated projects. Further the footnote 2 describes that “The plant is in operation but not reported in this MR”. There is a lack of information to describe what are those 53 initiated projects and why those operated plants are not reported.
2: The DOE is requested to address the issues below related to meters and calibrations as per VVS for project activity section 9.2.6.
The DOE is requested to address the issues raised below:
a. The calibration information reported in the table 3 of MR is different with the information displayed in the spreadsheet Calibration. It is found that for MHP project Memushthang, the monitoring report page 12 reports due date of calibration as 19/06/2011, actual date of calibration/replacement/installation as 20/03/2012 and type of meter as analogue, whereas the spreadsheet Calibration demonstrates (1) due date of calibration as 20/03/2012, (2) actual date of calibration/replacement/installation as 19/03/2014, and (3) the meter replaced from analogue to digital on 20/03/2012 but the type of meter is still as analogue. It is noted that according to the spreadsheet Calibration, except for the plant Oveer Arkari, all plants have date of replacement from analogue to digital, however the meter type of some plants remain “analogue”. The similar issues are also found from other MPH projects such as Ahmedabad, Hushay and others. Please address all issues entirely.
b. For MHP project Oveer Arkari, there is a lack of information reported in the spreadsheet Summary of CERs about the type of meter installed. The monitoring report page 12 reports the type of meter is digital, whereas the spreadsheet Calibration mentions analogue.
c. Both PDD and monitoring report have the provision that the deduction in kWh with 2% for analogue meters will be applied in case of the delay of calibration every two years; however, it is found that the factor 1% deduction are applied for the delay calibration of analogue meters such as the spreadsheet Summary of CERs cells K19, K24, K27, K34, K43 and K44 for plants Katisho, Hango, Haltanmosa Hargosil, Wazirpoor, Ganuk and Yalbo Sabsar.
d. The PDD has the provision that the digital meter does not need calibration unless there is error reported. How there is a lack of information provided in the verification report to confirm whether there was no error in any of the digital meters.
3: The DOE is requested to address the issue and to provide the information how the calculation made and adjustment used is verified as per VVS for project activity paragraphs 373 and 374.
It is not clear how the DOE verified the emission reductions calculated and adjusted for the period 01 – 28 October 2016. The cut-off date for October 2016 is the 28th of October 2016 and adjustment for plants have been taken into account as per values listed in the column Q of the spreadsheet 2016. However, it is found that the multiplication factor for plant Ganuk, in the spreadsheet 2016 cell Q43 for Oct 2016 is “3”, whereas according to the spreadsheet Calibration cell J41, the factor is “30”. It is noted that the reference number 31 of the verification report states that the multiplying factor is “3”.
4: The DOE is requested to address the issue below in accordance with VVS for project activity (ver 2) paragraph 395.
The FAR 01 is reported in the verification report page 20 as “The capacity of MHP Ahmadabad is now 350 kW instead of 400 kW. The reason for such situation is because the old alternator was replaced due to some technical fault hence the capacity was changed to 350 kW, the change occurred on 09/09/2015. According the CDM Project Standard the replacement of the equipment is considered a “changes to the project design of a registered project activity”, thus a revised PDD shall be submitted”. The PP responded to the FAR 01 on 20 November 2018 as “This the last monitoring period falling into the first crediting period; due to that the PP decided to update the PDD during the renewal of crediting period” and subsequently, the verification team accepted the PP’s response on 21 January 2019. However, it is not clear how the closure of the FAR 01 decided by the DOE is complying with the PCP for project activity (ver 2) paragraph 291 which requires “If a post-registration change becomes effective during the crediting period prior to or after its renewal, a request for approval of such post-registration change shall not be combined with a request for renewal of crediting period.”, given that the change occurred on 09 September 2015.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: