02:33 28 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The validation report does not describe the nature and extent of the actual changes, or determine whether this description accurately reflects the implementation, operation and monitoring of the modified project activity as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 318 and 326 (a).
The proposed revised PDD mentions that the project activity WEGs was sold to Violet Green Power Pvt. Limited and Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited and only new owner named Violet Green Power Pvt. Limited want to continue CDM verification of project activity. It also mentions that Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited is owner for remaining 34.5 MW and removed from project activity. The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified that only new owner named Violet Green Power Pvt. Limited wants to continue CDM and that the owner Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited does not want to continue CDM. Furthermore, the DOE is also requested to explain/clarify whether the owner Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited has given its consent to be excluded from the project activity.
2: 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 explanation on any significant increase, including all information (i.e. data or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 256 and 257.
Issue: The section E.5 of the monitoring report has provided comparison of actual emission reductions and the estimate in the PDD. However, the estimate mentioned in this section is not based on the estimate in the proposed revised PDD that is submitted with the issuance request.
3: 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: In regard to the implementation of the project activity, the DOE confirmed that the project activity is in compliance with registered PDD for both Rajhsthan and Tamil Nadu site (verification and certification report, page 9). However, the issuance request also includes proposed revised PDD which incorporates the change in the project design.
4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the revised monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 392.
Issue: The DOE checked the registered PDD to confirm the ex-post parameter mentioned in the current monitoring report (verification and certification report, page 14). However, the issuance request also includes proposed revised PDD which incorporates the permanent change to the monitoring plan.
1: Scope: The validation report does not describe the nature and extent of the actual changes, or determine whether this description accurately reflects the implementation, operation and monitoring of the modified project activity as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 318 and 326 (a).
The proposed revised PDD mentions that the project activity WEGs was sold to Violet Green Power Pvt. Limited and Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited and only new owner named Violet Green Power Pvt. Limited want to continue CDM verification of project activity. It also mentions that Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited is owner for remaining 34.5 MW and removed from project activity. The DOE is requested to explain how it has verified that only new owner named Violet Green Power Pvt. Limited wants to continue CDM and that the owner Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited does not want to continue CDM. Furthermore, the DOE is also requested to explain/clarify whether the owner Tulip Renewable Powertech Private Limited has given its consent to be excluded from the project activity.
2: 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 explanation on any significant increase, including all information (i.e. data or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 256 and 257.
Issue: The section E.5 of the monitoring report has provided comparison of actual emission reductions and the estimate in the PDD. However, the estimate mentioned in this section is not based on the estimate in the proposed revised PDD that is submitted with the issuance request.
3: 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: In regard to the implementation of the project activity, the DOE confirmed that the project activity is in compliance with registered PDD for both Rajhsthan and Tamil Nadu site (verification and certification report, page 9). However, the issuance request also includes proposed revised PDD which incorporates the change in the project design.
4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the revised monitoring plan as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 392.
Issue: The DOE checked the registered PDD to confirm the ex-post parameter mentioned in the current monitoring report (verification and certification report, page 14). However, the issuance request also includes proposed revised PDD which incorporates the permanent change to the monitoring plan.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: