Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification and certification report does not describe the implementation status of the project as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (a).
Scope: The verification report does not describe the reasons for the phased-implementation delay and/or does not present the expected implementation dates as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (a).
Issue: The monitoring report on page 10 mentions that PGCIL evacuation lines are yet to be commissioned and are not applicable for current monitoring period. However there is no information how the DOE verified this statement.

2: Scope: The verification and certification 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 for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 393 and 409 (e).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the following parameters:
(a) NCVNG,y. As per the registered monitoring plan, gross/net calorific value of the natural gas is measured by using an online chromatograph installed by Gas supplier as well as project proponent. However, there is no data of GCV/NCV from the an online chromatograph installed by the PP and whether this has been carried out;
(b) Consumption of LNG. The spreadsheet shows that LNG was also consumed during this monitoring period. However, there is no information how the DOE verified this. Note that the monitoring plan has not included the consumption of LNG;
(c) EGPJ,y. The DOE is requested to clarify the data of EGy from check meter BS #1 on 8 and 9 March 2016 being -164991.68 MWh and 173661.64 MWh.

3: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified by the applied methodology, the standardized baseline and/or the monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 400.
Issue: With regard to delayed calibration of the PP side gas glow meter, the ER spreadsheet shows the adjustment of 0.23% which is the maximum permissible error. However, in the absence confirmation that the result of the delayed calibration was within the permissible error, the DOE is requested to explain how the provision in paragraph 395 of the VVS version 09.0 has been applied correctly.

4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issue: The DOE is requested to explain how it verified the calculation of parameter EFBL,upstream,CH4. In particular:
(i) In sheet "EFbl,upstream,ch4", there is a statement saying "There is two plant in the cohort of plants in the build margin which shows Natural gas as the first fuel and Diesel as the second fuel. The separate generation on the two fuels is not available. Thus to be conservative the entire generation for this plant has been considered on Diesel for calculation of EF,BL,upstream,CH4 as diesel has lower Fugitive Methane Emission Factor leading to lower value of EF,BL,upstream,CH4 and higher leakage emission from the project activity.". It is not clear which plants are referred here;
(ii) It is also noted that this sheet, in its cells K4 and K5, makes reference to plants in lines 144 and 186 of sheet "BM Plants" for the net electricity generated and absolute emissions from the diesel consumption of the plants. The plants in lines 144 and 186 however only consume gas with secondary fuel being "n/a".