Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE stated that for the delayed calibration, PP applied zero for quantity of electricity generated during delay period in ER calculation. The DOE is requested to explain how zero electricity generated during delay period is applied to particular months as the ER spreadsheet does not demonstrate the application of zero electricity generated during the delay period. As an example: (i) In plant no. 1 Icheon Galsan(2), the calibration of meters is valid until 10/09/2017, however the ER spreadsheet shows electricity generated in the whole month of September 2017 is zero; (ii) In plant no. 6 Gyeongsan Sadong(1), according to the verification report there is no delay in calibration, however the generation for month August and September 2016 is zero; (iii) In plant no. 8 Sacheon Yonggang(2), according to the verification report the delay period is from 10/04/2017 to 30/05/2017 for meter 4 and meter 5. However, the ER spreadsheet does not show the application of zero electricity generation during this period; (iv) In plant no. 9 Goseong Dongoe, according to the verification report the delay period is from 19/12/2016 to 21/12/2018. However, the ER spreadsheet does not show the application of zero electricity during this period.
Please refer to paragraphs 364, 366, 367 and 368 of VVS-PA.


2: The monitoring period is from 13/07/2016 to 21/12/2018. However, the ER spreadsheet only contains data from August 2016. DOE is requested to clarify why data for July 2016 are not considered in the emission reduction calculations. Please refer to paragraph 374 (a) of VVS-PA.


3: The DOE is requested to explain what is the "Final date" mentioned in the ER spreadsheet and how it verified the "Final Date" for each site. Please refer to paragraphs 374(b) of VVS-PA, version 02.