Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The spreadsheet does not contain explanation with regard to application of formulae in the spreadsheet.
Issue: The CER calculation sheet shows, in all the yearly sheets, cells highlighted in yellow marked as “no operation”, “no data recorded” and “no data”. PP is requested to explain whether "no operation" refers to the meter itself or a particular equipment or system. In addition, explanation is required for cells highlighted in red for which no explanation has been provided.

2: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project.
Issue: The PDD (pg. 11) and the monitoring report (Section B.1) indicate that the installed flare is an enclosed flare and the default values, applicable for enclosed flares, are defined in the monitoring plan accordingly, however the verification report refers to an open flare instead (pg17). Clarification is required (please refer to VVS v.9 Para 271).

3: 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.
Issue 1: For parameter CODww,treated,PJ,k,y, the DOE is requested to clarify the inconsistency of the application of lower and upper values in yearly values, in particular, why the total value used for year 2013 has been the lower value in the 90/10 confidence level while for 2011, 2012 and 2014, upper values have been used.

Issue 2: The PDD (pg.42) indicates for parameter FVdigester,y that “the amount of the produced gas is applied in order to cross check with the amount of the gas to be utilized (FVelectricity) and flared (FVRG)” however the DOE has not provided information on the proposed crosscheck. By doing so, the DOE is also requested to explain:
1. several values of FVdigester,y, monitored at the biogas delivery piping system, are much lower than values of FVelectricity,y alone, monitored after FVdigester,y (for example sum of year 2012, where monitored FVdigester,y = 768,118 and FVelectricity = 1,452,036).
2. FV_RG,h indicates operation while FV_digester indicates “no operation” for the same instants (e.g. 27 Dec 2011 and 07 Jan 2012 and other dates).
3. In the CER spreadsheet provided, the parameter FV_digester records for 21-23 Dec 2011, and other records for example between 13 Jan 2012 and 21 Jan 2012, are indicated as “no operation” however FV_electricity records indicates that there is operation in the system and electricity is being generated in the same period.

4: Scope: The verification report does not contain an indication whether data were not available because activity levels or non-activity parameters were not monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan. In such cases, the verification report must detail the actions taken by the DOE to ensure that the most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been made.
Issue 1: The DOE indicates in its verification report that “the data for all the monitoring parameters have been correctly measured, recorded according to the applied monitoring methodology AMS-III.H version 15, AMS-I.D version 16 and the registered PDD. All the data are available for this monitoring period.” However the CER calculation sheet shows records in blank (zero) in highlighted cells identified as “no operation”, “no data recorded”, “no data” and cells highlights in red color, in each yearly sheet. Please clarify (VVS v.7 Para 290(a), 291(a)) and in doing so, please explain why a post-registration change has not been requested, if data is not recorded or available (VVS v7 Para 294).

Issue 2: The verification report (pg.50) indicates for parameter fvCH4,RG,h that “during the monitoring period, data recording was not found consistent. Hence, PP has applied upper value of methane fraction as recorded for biogas generated from digester (for the parameter WCH4,y)” in order to obtain values for MDy (MD approach). The DOE is requested to explain how it confirmed that this in accordance with applied methodology AMS-IIIH v.15 (VVS v7 Para 290(a), 291(a)) and why a post-registration change has not been applicable (VVS v7 Para 294).

5: Scope: The verification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved and/or determine that calculations of baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage as appropriate have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document.
Issue: The CER calculation spreadsheet indicates, in each yearly sheet, that the methane content in the biogas (WCH4) for ID10 (leaving the digester) and for ID19 (entering the electricity generators) have been monitored and an average of both meter records have been used as ‘WCH4’ in order to calculate MDy (ER_Calculation sheet, cells O44:R44). The DOE is requested to clarify how it confirmed that use of WCH4 and CERs calculations were in compliance with applied methodology AMS-IIIH v15. In doing so please refer to AMS-IIIH v15 pg.18 which states “the methane content measurement shall be carried out close to a location in the system where a biogas flow measurement takes place” and formulae in Para 33 (VVS v.7 Para 274)