15:07 26 Aug 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: the DOE has not reported when the project started operation and whether the project activity was implemented on phase.
2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVM v.1.2 para 200, 203 & 221(d))
Issue: The methodology requires to estimate 1) alternative fuel reserve available in the region and 2) alternative fuel used by other users on yearly basis, while these two parameters were reported on monthly basis (7,500 t/month and 4,411 t/month) in the annual biomass availability study conducted by the PP. The DOE shall 1) explain how 7,500 t/month and 4,411 t/month have been arrived and 2) shall verify how the demonstration on the availability of the alternative fuels (rice husk in this case) has been considered in line with the methodology. In addition, the DOE shall report how it has verified external reports referred by PP for its biomass residue availability study.
3: 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? (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: the calibration on weighting feeder scales was conducted based on manufacturer specification. However, it is not clear what the calibration frequency is required in the specification and whether the calibration frequency implemented during the monitoring period (monthly as stated in the verification report) has been in line with the specification. In doing so, the DOE shall refer to EB 52 Annex 60.
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVM v.1.2 para 198 (a)).
Issue: the DOE has not reported when the project started operation and whether the project activity was implemented on phase.
2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology. (VVM v.1.2 para 200, 203 & 221(d))
Issue: The methodology requires to estimate 1) alternative fuel reserve available in the region and 2) alternative fuel used by other users on yearly basis, while these two parameters were reported on monthly basis (7,500 t/month and 4,411 t/month) in the annual biomass availability study conducted by the PP. The DOE shall 1) explain how 7,500 t/month and 4,411 t/month have been arrived and 2) shall verify how the demonstration on the availability of the alternative fuels (rice husk in this case) has been considered in line with the methodology. In addition, the DOE shall report how it has verified external reports referred by PP for its biomass residue availability study.
3: 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? (VVM v.1.2 para 184 (a) (ii) & EB 52 Annex 60)
Issue: the calibration on weighting feeder scales was conducted based on manufacturer specification. However, it is not clear what the calibration frequency is required in the specification and whether the calibration frequency implemented during the monitoring period (monthly as stated in the verification report) has been in line with the specification. In doing so, the DOE shall refer to EB 52 Annex 60.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: