Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: If the DOE identifies that the project participants have deviated from the registered monitoring plan, the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines or the other applied methodological regulatory documents, the DOE shall determine whether the project participants have proposed alternative monitoring arrangements or applied the most conservative values approach referred to in the “CDM project standard for project activities” for the non-conforming monitoring period (paragraph 282 of VVS for PA).

The validation report (p 6) states that 716m3/hr for flow rate of gas sent to flame is the maximum values of flow rate monitored during this monitoring period and application of this value was found to be highly conservative. However, there were much higher values such as 1,120 m3/hr reported/verified in the 1st monitoring period (01 Jan 2013 - 31 Jul 2015). Therefore, the DOE is required to provide further information on how it has validated this value is the most conservative values approach as per the paragraph 282 of VVS for PA version 2.

2: If the DOE identifies that the project participants have made corrections to project information or parameters fixed at validation, the DOE shall determine whether:
(a) The corrected information is an accurate reflection of actual project information; and/or
(b) The corrected parameters are in accordance with the applied methodologies, the registered monitoring plan, the applied standardized baselines and the other applied methodological regulatory documents (paragraph 288 of VVS for PA).

The DOE (p 6) states that the value for EFCO2,transport, 0.326 kgCO2/km, is consistently reported throughout the revised PDD. However, the revised PDD indicates that 0.326 kgCO2/km is outcome of the equation of NCVDiesel x ρDiesel x EFCO2,diesel,y)/ Fdiesel,avg / liter x 1/1000 = (43.3*0.83*74.8)/8.25/1000 = 0.326 while the registered PDD (p 61) and the revised PDD (P 51) also define EFCO2 = 0.336 kgCO2/km based on the equation of (43.3*0.83*74.8)/8/1000 = 0.336. Therefore, the DOE is required to provide further information on how is considers this correction as per the paragraph 288(a) as the input values for the calculation of the emission factor is consistently represented across the PDD and the validation report (p 41) for the registration.

3: The paragraph 366 of the VVS for PA version 2
1) The DOE (p 22) states that "Due to late calibration of the gas meter the maximum permissible error of +0.7% has been applied to parameter ID.23 in periods without valid calibration 24/09/2015 to 21/09/2016"." However, the DOE (p 21) states that ID.23 is monitored using a gas analyser with +-1% accuracy class. The DOE is required to provide further information on how it applied the requirement of the VVS for PA by 1) providing the outcome of the delayed calibration and ...

2) thermal mass flow meter (+-1.8% of reading +0.1%, HA0 3CE02000) was calibrated on 30 October 2013 (valid until 30 October 2016) and on 17 January 2017. The DOE (p 39) states that "Error of 0.1% has been applied for the delay period."

3) flow meter (+-0.1%, HAO 3CF02000) for monitoring BGcombusted,y was calibrated on 30 October 2013 (valid until 30 October 2016). The DOE (p 25) states that "Next calibration details are not provided. Delay between period 30/10/2016-31/08/2017 was observed." The DOE (p 39-40) states that "Error factor +-0.1% has been applied for the delay period."

4: The DOE shall determine whether the calculations of baseline GHG emissions or baseline net GHG removals, project GHG emissions or actual net GHG removals, and leakage GHG emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in
the registered monitoring plan, the applied methodologies, the applied standardized baselines and the other applied methodological regulatory
documents. (paragraph 373(c) of VVS for PA)
The applied methodologies, AMS-III.AO. ver. 1(paragraph 19) and AMS-III.D ver. 18 (paragraph 18) referred in the PDD, requires the PP to compare the emission reduction determined ex post and the emission reduction calculated based on the equations defined in the methodology and to consider the lowest value as the emission reduction achieved in any year. The DOE is required to provide further information how it verified the calculation of the emission reduction as per the applied methodology considering that the comparison between two values were not done.