05:17 01 May 25
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: 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 v5, para 238-242)
Issue: The PP/DOE is requested to provide the date of the delayed calibrations and their results, if available, to substantiate the appropriateness of using maximum permissible error. In cases where the results of the delayed calibrations are not available, or the calibrations have not been conducted at the time of verification, the DOE, prior to finalizing verification, shall request the project participants to conduct the required calibrations and shall determine whether the project participants have calculated the emission reductions conservatively using the approach mentioned in VVS v5 paragraph 238.
2: 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, does the verification report detail the actions taken by the DOE to ensure that the most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been made (VVS v5 para 245(a))
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the validation on whether a complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available. In particular, whether the project emissions generated on 31/12/2012 have been considered.
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 v5, para 245 (c), 246 (c))
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the validation on how the leakage is calculated as per equation 14 in the monitoring plan and applied methodology. In doing so, the DOE shall justify how it has concluded that the fuel consumption in the project activity is lower than the historical fuel consumption thus the LEupstream,y is considered as zero, by comparing the fuel consumption for different durations (i.e. aggregated fuel consumption in the project activity for 8 months vs aggregated fuel consumption in the baseline scenario for 3 years). Please refer to ACM0007 version 06.1.0 page 10, where the fuel consumption in the project activity refers to year "y" and the fuel consumption in three historical years refers to year "x".
1: 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 v5, para 238-242)
Issue: The PP/DOE is requested to provide the date of the delayed calibrations and their results, if available, to substantiate the appropriateness of using maximum permissible error. In cases where the results of the delayed calibrations are not available, or the calibrations have not been conducted at the time of verification, the DOE, prior to finalizing verification, shall request the project participants to conduct the required calibrations and shall determine whether the project participants have calculated the emission reductions conservatively using the approach mentioned in VVS v5 paragraph 238.
2: 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, does the verification report detail the actions taken by the DOE to ensure that the most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been made (VVS v5 para 245(a))
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the validation on whether a complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available. In particular, whether the project emissions generated on 31/12/2012 have been considered.
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 v5, para 245 (c), 246 (c))
Issue: The DOE is requested to provide the validation on how the leakage is calculated as per equation 14 in the monitoring plan and applied methodology. In doing so, the DOE shall justify how it has concluded that the fuel consumption in the project activity is lower than the historical fuel consumption thus the LEupstream,y is considered as zero, by comparing the fuel consumption for different durations (i.e. aggregated fuel consumption in the project activity for 8 months vs aggregated fuel consumption in the baseline scenario for 3 years). Please refer to ACM0007 version 06.1.0 page 10, where the fuel consumption in the project activity refers to year "y" and the fuel consumption in three historical years refers to year "x".
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: