Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The revised PDD does not provide details that the assumptions or discount factors used for GHG emission reductions calculations are not over-estimated as a result of the change ((PS v9, para 287)
Issues: i. The PP/DOE are requested to provide a monitoring plan which contains a complete line diagram showing all the other power plants connected together with the proposed CDM project activity and relevant monitoring points (PS ver. 09 para 246);
ii. The assessment opinion (pg.7) states that “electricity export and import is calculated by GEDA using the apportioning method that is detailed in Section B.7.2 of the registered PDD”. However, information of the mentioned apportioning method is not available in the submitted registered PDD (PS ver. 09 para 248 (e));
iii. The revised PDD (pg. 26) and the assessment opinion (pg. 7) indicate that the net generation is prepared from the share certificate provided by GEDA. The revised PDD (pg.25) further indicates that the net generation will be crosschecked with the monthly electricity bill. It is noted (revised PDD, appendix 6) that the monthly electricity invoice is also based on the share certificate. The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the appropriateness of data crosschecking considering that the net generation and the electricity invoice are prepared from the same document;
iv. The revised PDD (pg. 28) indicates that an O&M Team (contracted by the PP) monitors the WTG generation data and sends a generation report to the PP on monthly basis. In justifying the removal of EGgenerated and EGconsumed from the registered PDD, the assessment opinion (pg. 7) explains that GEDA only provides the apportioned value of net electricity to the PP. It is noted that the revised PDD has not provided the data values for the monitored parameters. The PP/DOE are requested to provide information on:
a. the project specific data values monitored by the O&M Team, in addition to providing the net generation reported from the share certificate (PS ver. 09 para 248 (a)),
b. why a deviation from the applied methodology (AMS-I.D ver. 15) was not requested if the PP is unable to report the monitored data values requested in (a) above.


2: Scope: The validation opinion does not contain information on how the DOE validated that the changes from the registered monitoring plan are in accordance to para 4 and 5 of the Appendix 1 of Project Standard which do not require prior approval of the Board (VVS v9, para 312)
Issues: i. The requested PRC regards removal of parameters “EGgenerated and EGconsumed”from the monitoring plan. However, the revised PDD (pg. 25) still contains the parameters EGgenerated and EGconsumed. The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency,
ii. The assessment opinion (pg. 9) states that “the monitoring of EGgenerated and EGconsumed is not required by the applied methodology (AMS I.D Version 15) and is not within the control of the Project Participant”. The DOE therefore concluded that the requested change falls under Appendix 1 (PS ver. 7 para 5(a) _ “Change of calibration frequency or practice for monitoring equipment not within the control of project participants”). The DOE is requested to provide information on:
a. why the requested PRC is considered “not within the control of the Project Participant” considering that the PP has contracted an O&M Team (revised PDD, pg 26) which is responsible for monitoring secondary generation at the project site,
b. How this PRC is related to “Change of calibration frequency or practice for monitoring equipment…….” as referred in the PS considering that the requested PRC relates to removal of EGgenerated and EGconsumed.