15:01 27 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to explain how it was verified that the submitted revision of the PDD provides an accurate description ot the implementation and operation of the project activity.
In particular, how it verified the calculation of emission reductions in the revised PDD. Please refer to VVS v.2 para 271.
The DOE is also requested to provide information on how it verified that the permanent changes on the project design were not known prior to registration of the project activity, given that the monitoring report indicates that the project activity was commissioned in December 2005 and the project was put into normal operation in February 2006. In doing this, the DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified that the changes occurred in July 2006 when the project construction was finished and the project underwent a trial operation (VVS v.2 para 279(b)).
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the implementation status of the project (including relevant dates of project activity e.g. date of construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) during the monitoring period under consideration. (PS v1 para 188 (a)(b)(c))
Issue: The PP is requested to provide information on the actual implementation status of the project activity. In particular, the PP is requested to specify the dates of commissioning, trial period and put into normal operation of the project activity.
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.(PS v1 10 para 192(g)).
Issue: the PP is requested to include in the MR the data and parameters fixed ex ante consistent with the information in the registered PDD.
4: Scope: The verification report does not provide a description of the actual operation of the project activity (VVS v2, para 228 (b))
Issue: the DOE is requested to explain how it validated the information related to the implementation of the project activity given that version 3 of the PDD has been submitted with post-registration changes.
5: 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: the DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified the project emissions, given that the spreadsheet of calculation reports project emissions equal to 2,947 tCO2 and the monitoring report indicates that project emissions are assumed as zero.
1: The DOE is requested to explain how it was verified that the submitted revision of the PDD provides an accurate description ot the implementation and operation of the project activity.
In particular, how it verified the calculation of emission reductions in the revised PDD. Please refer to VVS v.2 para 271.
The DOE is also requested to provide information on how it verified that the permanent changes on the project design were not known prior to registration of the project activity, given that the monitoring report indicates that the project activity was commissioned in December 2005 and the project was put into normal operation in February 2006. In doing this, the DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified that the changes occurred in July 2006 when the project construction was finished and the project underwent a trial operation (VVS v.2 para 279(b)).
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the implementation status of the project (including relevant dates of project activity e.g. date of construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) during the monitoring period under consideration. (PS v1 para 188 (a)(b)(c))
Issue: The PP is requested to provide information on the actual implementation status of the project activity. In particular, the PP is requested to specify the dates of commissioning, trial period and put into normal operation of the project activity.
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.(PS v1 10 para 192(g)).
Issue: the PP is requested to include in the MR the data and parameters fixed ex ante consistent with the information in the registered PDD.
4: Scope: The verification report does not provide a description of the actual operation of the project activity (VVS v2, para 228 (b))
Issue: the DOE is requested to explain how it validated the information related to the implementation of the project activity given that version 3 of the PDD has been submitted with post-registration changes.
5: 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: the DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified the project emissions, given that the spreadsheet of calculation reports project emissions equal to 2,947 tCO2 and the monitoring report indicates that project emissions are assumed as zero.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: