13:34 30 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: 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 v7, para 278, 279 (a)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it concluded that the Emission Factor was calculated following the steps included in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (version 02.2.1). In particular for the calculation of build margin emission factor (EFBM) DOE shall clarify whether the power plants that are registered as CDM have been included prior to the inclusion the power plants that are more than 10 years old, as per the step (d) of page 15 of the tool.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v7, para 279 (c), 282)
Issue: In light of the reason for closing the CL3 provided by the DOE which states "As per letter provided by CAMMESA, frequency of calibration of equipment is responsibility of the PP", the DOE is requested to clarify who is responsible for the calibration of the meters. It is to be noted that on page of the monitoring report it is stated that CAMMESA (the Grid Operator) is responsible for the energy meters maintenance and calibration. If the calibration of the meters is now changed to three years (from one year as required by the monitoring plan), the DOE is also requested to explain why PRC was not requested or FAR was not raised to correct this in the subsequent verification. Even if the calibration is not under PP's control, hence as per the paragraph 5(a) of the Appendix 1 of Project Standard version 07.0, PRC request is still required.
3: Scope: The verification report does not indicate that the information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analyses. (VVS v7, para 290 (b))
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain whether the parameters EGPJ,h (PER 1 wind power plant) and EGPJ,h (PER 2 wind power plant) have been cross-checked with electricity invoices as required by the monitoring plan.
4: Scope: The verification report does not contain information on all CARs, CLs and FARs and/or provide an assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued. (VVS v7, para 330(g)(h))
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has appropriately closed CL3. The CL concerned on the change in accuracy of the meters. However the DOE closed the CL on the basis of the frequency of the calibration.
1: 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 v7, para 278, 279 (a)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it concluded that the Emission Factor was calculated following the steps included in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (version 02.2.1). In particular for the calculation of build margin emission factor (EFBM) DOE shall clarify whether the power plants that are registered as CDM have been included prior to the inclusion the power plants that are more than 10 years old, as per the step (d) of page 15 of the tool.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v7, para 279 (c), 282)
Issue: In light of the reason for closing the CL3 provided by the DOE which states "As per letter provided by CAMMESA, frequency of calibration of equipment is responsibility of the PP", the DOE is requested to clarify who is responsible for the calibration of the meters. It is to be noted that on page of the monitoring report it is stated that CAMMESA (the Grid Operator) is responsible for the energy meters maintenance and calibration. If the calibration of the meters is now changed to three years (from one year as required by the monitoring plan), the DOE is also requested to explain why PRC was not requested or FAR was not raised to correct this in the subsequent verification. Even if the calibration is not under PP's control, hence as per the paragraph 5(a) of the Appendix 1 of Project Standard version 07.0, PRC request is still required.
3: Scope: The verification report does not indicate that the information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analyses. (VVS v7, para 290 (b))
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain whether the parameters EGPJ,h (PER 1 wind power plant) and EGPJ,h (PER 2 wind power plant) have been cross-checked with electricity invoices as required by the monitoring plan.
4: Scope: The verification report does not contain information on all CARs, CLs and FARs and/or provide an assessment and close out of any CARs, CLs or FARs issued. (VVS v7, para 330(g)(h))
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it has appropriately closed CL3. The CL concerned on the change in accuracy of the meters. However the DOE closed the CL on the basis of the frequency of the calibration.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: