08:59 27 Sep 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVS v.2 para 232)
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how it concluded that the monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 10, in particular with the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 04.0)", for parameters NCVi,y and EFCO2,i,y (and EFCO2,m,i,y). As per the Tool, the IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95 per cent confidence interval should be used, whereas the revised monitoring plan and the monitoring report are not using the values at the lower limit. As the parameters are also used to calculate EFBM, the DOE shall also explain whether the EFBM had been correctly calculated as per the Tool.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the calibration of the equipment: (a) the diesel meter. In particular how the paragraphs 283 and 285 of the VVS version 7 have been complied with, in particular as it is not clear whether the calibration after the first one on 30/08/2011 had been conducted and when it was conducted. Furthermore, in regard to the error of 13.737%, please clarify whether it was the error during the calibration on 30/08/2011, or during the next calibration which date is not clear; (b) Pressure gauges A and B. As per the Annex 1 of the revised Monitoring Report, the gauges are calibrated annually. The first calibration was done on 06/10/2011, however the second calibration was only done in 07/05/2013; (c) Top loading electronic balance. As per the Annex 1 of the revised Monitoring Report, the equipment is calibrated annually. The first calibration was done on 21/11/2011, however the second calibration was only done in 15/04/2013.
3: 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. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how the result of the delayed calibration has been correctly applied in the calculation in the spreadsheet. Please refer to the Appendix 1 of the VVS version 7 for the application of the result of the delayed calibration.
1: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVS v.2 para 232)
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how it concluded that the monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 10, in particular with the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 04.0)", for parameters NCVi,y and EFCO2,i,y (and EFCO2,m,i,y). As per the Tool, the IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95 per cent confidence interval should be used, whereas the revised monitoring plan and the monitoring report are not using the values at the lower limit. As the parameters are also used to calculate EFBM, the DOE shall also explain whether the EFBM had been correctly calculated as per the Tool.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how it has validated the calibration of the equipment: (a) the diesel meter. In particular how the paragraphs 283 and 285 of the VVS version 7 have been complied with, in particular as it is not clear whether the calibration after the first one on 30/08/2011 had been conducted and when it was conducted. Furthermore, in regard to the error of 13.737%, please clarify whether it was the error during the calibration on 30/08/2011, or during the next calibration which date is not clear; (b) Pressure gauges A and B. As per the Annex 1 of the revised Monitoring Report, the gauges are calibrated annually. The first calibration was done on 06/10/2011, however the second calibration was only done in 07/05/2013; (c) Top loading electronic balance. As per the Annex 1 of the revised Monitoring Report, the equipment is calibrated annually. The first calibration was done on 21/11/2011, however the second calibration was only done in 15/04/2013.
3: 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. (VVS v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain how the result of the delayed calibration has been correctly applied in the calculation in the spreadsheet. Please refer to the Appendix 1 of the VVS version 7 for the application of the result of the delayed calibration.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: