12:51 28 May 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 247 and 248 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f).
Issue: The unit of D.2. of the monitoring report provide the monitored values of EG export,y, EG import,y and EG facility, y for the whole monitoring period (04/04/2013-30/04/2016). However, the unit for the parameters (p 8-10) is "MWh/annum". Please rectify the inconsistency.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a description of the equipment used to monitor each parameter including details on accuracy class and calibration information (frequency, dates of calibration and validity) as specified by the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 248 (b).
Issue: The annexure 1 of the monitoring report (p 15) provides the dates of calibration for the main meters and the check meters as 20/12/2012, 20/12/2013, 20/02/2014, 24/02/2015, 24/02/2016. However, the calibration due date in the same table states "19/12/2015" while the last calibration was done on 24/02/2016.
3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a comparison of the actual CERs claimed in the monitoring period with the estimate in the PDD, and explanation on any significant increase, including all information (i.e. data or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 256 and 257.
Issue: The monitoring report (p 12) states that "Difference in the estimated values in registered PDD as compared to the CERs under the current monitoring period is (-11.25%)." However, the monitoring report (p 1) shows that the actual emission reduction of 106,283 tCO2 is higher than the estimate of 95,539 tCO2.
4: Scope: The verification and certification 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 as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (c).
Issue: The DOE (p 12) states that "Difference in the estimated values in registered PDD as compared to the CERs under the current monitoring period is 11.25%. The actual value is less than the estimated one and hence no further explanation is required." However, the verification report (p 1) shows that the certified emission reduction is higher than the estimated GHG emission reduction as shown below:
"Estimated GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for this monitoring period in the registered PDD" as "95,539tCO2e" and "Certified GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for this monitoring period" as "106,283 tCO2e"
1: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain the values of the monitored parameters used to calculate baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as other parameters required by the applied methodology and the registered monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 247 and 248 (a) (c) (d) (e) (f).
Issue: The unit of D.2. of the monitoring report provide the monitored values of EG export,y, EG import,y and EG facility, y for the whole monitoring period (04/04/2013-30/04/2016). However, the unit for the parameters (p 8-10) is "MWh/annum". Please rectify the inconsistency.
2: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a description of the equipment used to monitor each parameter including details on accuracy class and calibration information (frequency, dates of calibration and validity) as specified by the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan as per PS version 09.0 paragraph 248 (b).
Issue: The annexure 1 of the monitoring report (p 15) provides the dates of calibration for the main meters and the check meters as 20/12/2012, 20/12/2013, 20/02/2014, 24/02/2015, 24/02/2016. However, the calibration due date in the same table states "19/12/2015" while the last calibration was done on 24/02/2016.
3: Scope: The monitoring report does not contain a comparison of the actual CERs claimed in the monitoring period with the estimate in the PDD, and explanation on any significant increase, including all information (i.e. data or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD) as per PS version 09.0 paragraphs 256 and 257.
Issue: The monitoring report (p 12) states that "Difference in the estimated values in registered PDD as compared to the CERs under the current monitoring period is (-11.25%)." However, the monitoring report (p 1) shows that the actual emission reduction of 106,283 tCO2 is higher than the estimate of 95,539 tCO2.
4: Scope: The verification and certification 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 as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (c).
Issue: The DOE (p 12) states that "Difference in the estimated values in registered PDD as compared to the CERs under the current monitoring period is 11.25%. The actual value is less than the estimated one and hence no further explanation is required." However, the verification report (p 1) shows that the certified emission reduction is higher than the estimated GHG emission reduction as shown below:
"Estimated GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for this monitoring period in the registered PDD" as "95,539tCO2e" and "Certified GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for this monitoring period" as "106,283 tCO2e"
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: