Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The validation opinion does not contain a confirmation that the changes do not require prior approval of the Board and the provisions of Appendix 1 of Project Standard apply to those corrections
Issue: The DOE is required to further substantiate the following changes can be considered as changes that do not require prior approval in line with paragraph 1 of Appendix 1 of the Project Standard: (i) the inclusion of missing parameters in the monitoring plan; (ii) the change in measurement method of monitored parameter PC. Furthermore, how the aforementioned changes can be considered as corrections rather than change in the monitoring plan.

2: Scope: The validation opinion does not describe the nature and extent of the actual changes, determine whether this description accurately reflects the implementation, operation and monitoring of the modified project activity (VVS v.2 para 271)
The assessment opinion has not provided information on how the DOE validation the following: (a) newly added information in section A.3 of the PDD (chronological events); (b) the change in the gross capacity from 100 MW to 96 MW on page 7 of the registered PDD; (c) the removal of information of the load being base load in Table 2 (page 7) of the registered PDD; (d) the capacity of the steam turbine being 82 MW; (e) the value of parameter PC being 1880 MW, as the revised spreadsheet shows the value being 202 MW.

3: Scope: The validation opinion does not contain an assessment on when the changes occurred, reasons for those changes taking place, whether the changes would have been known prior to registration of the project activity, and how the changes would impact the overall operation/ability of the project activity to deliver emission reductions as stated in the PDD (VVS v.2 para 279(a)(b)(c))
Issue: The DOE has not provided information of the assessment on when the changes occurred, reasons for these changes taking place, whether the changes would have been known prior to registration of the project activity.

4: Scope: The verification report does not list each parameter required by the monitoring plan and does not provide an statement on how the DOE verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring reports (VVS v2, para 236, 284 (e)).
Issue: The DOE is requested to substantiate how it verified the following parameters: (a) HGOC, being 638,999.232 MWh corresponding to year 2007-2011 (VR page 95), as the figure as per the revised PDD is 665,922 MWh corresponding to year 2005-2007, and that as per the methodology HGOC refers to the year prior to the project start date (i.e. 27/02/2008); (b) FCHIST, being 314,594,562.9 m3 corresponding to year 2007-2011 (VR page 104), as the figure as per the revised PDD is 225,537,322, and that as per the methodology FCHIST refers to the year prior to the project start date (i.e. 27/02/2008); (c) OC, being 119.68 MW as per the monitoring plan, however it is 120 MW as per the revised PDD and that it is only determined once for the entire crediting period; (d) NCVGAS being 0.0353 GJ/m3 as per the monitoring report (parameter 3), referring to the average of NCV year 2007-2011, whereas as per the monitoring plan and the methodology, the parameter is to be measured annually; (e) EFBM,y in particular the use of data Dec 2011 to November 2012, instead of data for complete year 2012 for generation of the project activity in year 2012, considering the request for issuance was only submitted in October 2013; (f) EFOM,Distpach data, in particular: (i) the determination of EFEL,DD,h where the hourly consumption data is calculated, in line with the paragraph 61 of Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system version 3, which requires the availability of fuel consumption data. Furthermore, how the DOE validated the efficiency that is used to calculate the fuel consumption; (ii) the use of EFCO2,i,y of natural gas and diesel of 0.0561 and 0.0741 tCO2/GJ being the default value of EF from TABLE 1-4, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Volume 2), as the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system version 3 (page 29) requires the EFCO2,i,y from 2006 IPCC being the values at the lower limit; (iii) the EFOM spreadsheet is not traceable; (g) FCi,n,h, NCV,i,y, Efficiency of generation for a set of power plants n in the top 10% of grid system dispatch order, and GENn,h (to calculate the EFOM,dispatch data), as the monitoring report refers to the spreadsheet “UNFCCC Ref. No. 2761 Operating Margin
2012.xls” for the values, however the spreadsheet does not clearly show where values of the parameters are; (h) NCVHIST being 0.0353 GJ/m3 referring to average of NCV year 2007-2011 as shown in the spredsheet whereas the methodology refers to the NCV previous to the start of the project (i.e. 27/02/2008).

5: 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 v2, para 246 (c), 284 (i))
Issue: The DOE needs to further substantiate how it confirmed the ER calculation to be correct, in particular: (a) BEP,y (the calculation of OGP) as the spreadsheet shows that OGP is not calculated in line with the equation 7 of the methodology; (b) EFOC, in particular the parameter NCVHIST, being the NCV prior to the project start date as per the methodology, which refers to year 2007-2011 as per the spreadsheet.