Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a comparison of the actual CERs claimed in the monitoring period with the estimate in the PDD, and/or explanation on any significant increase. (EB48 - Annex 68 paragraph 10 (a) (viii)).
Issue: It is not clear whether the comparison presented in the MR accounts for the delay in the implementation of Phase II and III, taking into consideration the difference in the installed capacity assumed in the estimation of the CER in the registered PDD and the actual installed capacity for this monitoring period.

2: Scope: The verification report does not describe the reasons for the phased-implementation delay and/or does not present the expected implementation dates. (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: According to the verification report page 6, phase II started operation in January 2012 and phase III would start operation in 2015 and the delay "is mainly due to the lack of funds, which was informed by the project owner during the on-site interview". While the verification report indicates expected implementation dates, the reason is not clearly described. Further, it is not clear if the reason(s) and the expected implementation dates were based on credible evidence, in line with paragraphs 214-215 of VVS version 2.0.
The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it has verified the reasons and the expected implementation dates based on credible evidence and whether it is (not) likely to lead to permanent changes to the project design.