20:42 29 Apr 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The monitoring report does not describe the equipment used to monitor each parameter, including details on accuracy class, and calibration information (frequency, date of calibration and validity), if applicable as per the registered monitoring plan.
The monitoring plan explains, on table D.2, that the value of the parameter EGfacility,y was adjusted due to caliibration delays, however the monitoring report does not indicate which were the calibration dates and the comparison between the delayed calibration and the maximum permissible error of the instruments.
2: The verification report does not contain an opinion on the cause of any increase in the actual GHG emission reductions achieved by the registered non-A/R CDM project activity in the current monitoring period that was reported in monitoring report.
The monitoring report indicates, in section E.6, that the measured ERs during the monitoring period were above the estimated in the PDD due to favorable hydrological conditions compared to the projected hydrological conditions used for the feasibility study. However, the DOE did not indicate, in the verification report, how it has assessed this statement and which evidences were verified.
1: The monitoring report does not describe the equipment used to monitor each parameter, including details on accuracy class, and calibration information (frequency, date of calibration and validity), if applicable as per the registered monitoring plan.
The monitoring plan explains, on table D.2, that the value of the parameter EGfacility,y was adjusted due to caliibration delays, however the monitoring report does not indicate which were the calibration dates and the comparison between the delayed calibration and the maximum permissible error of the instruments.
2: The verification report does not contain an opinion on the cause of any increase in the actual GHG emission reductions achieved by the registered non-A/R CDM project activity in the current monitoring period that was reported in monitoring report.
The monitoring report indicates, in section E.6, that the measured ERs during the monitoring period were above the estimated in the PDD due to favorable hydrological conditions compared to the projected hydrological conditions used for the feasibility study. However, the DOE did not indicate, in the verification report, how it has assessed this statement and which evidences were verified.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: