14:29 14 Jan 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not provide a description of the actual operation of the project activity (VVS v2, para 228 (b))
Issue: The DOE (p 10) states that 1) the coordinates of the dam and powerhouse are slightly different from the project location described in the PDD and 2) the rated capacities of the turbines and generators are different from the description in the PDD in 0.0059% and 0.0021% due to the rounding value of the rated capacity. Further clarification is required by the DOE on why it did not raise a concern to make corrections to project information determined at validation as per “9.5.2. corrections” of VVS.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide information on data and variables that are different from the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD, and has caused an increase in estimates of the emission reductions in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to increase the estimates of emission reductions in the future monitoring periods (VVS v2, para 228 (c))
Issue: The DOE (p 18) verified that the emission reduction achieved by the project during the last three years of the monitoring period (from 29/09/2009 to 28/09/2012) was 16.4% higher than the estimation in the PDD. It (p 19) concluded that “16.4% increase of the Annual Power Supply is not a permanent change of the project” by 1) checking the project IRR that would exceed the benchmark when the estimate annual power supply increases 17.4% and 2) reviewing “the Runoff and Power Generation Checking Calculation Report” and “meteorological data from 2009 to 2012”. Further information is required by the DOE on how it concluded that there was no permanent change by checking the information mentioned above.
1: Scope: The verification report does not provide a description of the actual operation of the project activity (VVS v2, para 228 (b))
Issue: The DOE (p 10) states that 1) the coordinates of the dam and powerhouse are slightly different from the project location described in the PDD and 2) the rated capacities of the turbines and generators are different from the description in the PDD in 0.0059% and 0.0021% due to the rounding value of the rated capacity. Further clarification is required by the DOE on why it did not raise a concern to make corrections to project information determined at validation as per “9.5.2. corrections” of VVS.
2: Scope: The verification report does not provide information on data and variables that are different from the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD, and has caused an increase in estimates of the emission reductions in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to increase the estimates of emission reductions in the future monitoring periods (VVS v2, para 228 (c))
Issue: The DOE (p 18) verified that the emission reduction achieved by the project during the last three years of the monitoring period (from 29/09/2009 to 28/09/2012) was 16.4% higher than the estimation in the PDD. It (p 19) concluded that “16.4% increase of the Annual Power Supply is not a permanent change of the project” by 1) checking the project IRR that would exceed the benchmark when the estimate annual power supply increases 17.4% and 2) reviewing “the Runoff and Power Generation Checking Calculation Report” and “meteorological data from 2009 to 2012”. Further information is required by the DOE on how it concluded that there was no permanent change by checking the information mentioned above.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: