08:22 20 Dec 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The project participants shall monitor the registered CDM project activity and its GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals in accordance with the registered monitoring plan (paragraph 250 of PS for PA version2).
The DOE verified that Lines L and H were fully operational during this monitoring period and no surveys were conducted for Lines L and H and the PP does not claim emission reductions for those lines during this monitoring period. The monitoring report (p 2) states that “As of April 2012, the cable car lines J, K and L are implemented and fully operational. The cable car L has not been included in this Monitoring Report and no emission reductions are claimed for this line. The reason is that the passenger numbers on this line are too low to warrant the considerable additional monitoring costs associated with each cable car line. This is a conservative approach as no emission reductions are claimed.” The PP/DOE is required to provide further information on 1) why it did not consider the post-registration change as the project participants was unable to monitor Line L and Line H in accordance with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD as per para 231 of CDM PS for PA version 2 and paragraph 281 of VVS for PA version 2 and 2) how the PP considered that the approach taken was conservative as per paragraph 231 of PS for PA version 2 considering that lower passenger number in Line L results in lower baseline emissions.
2: The project participants shall provide the values of the monitored parameter for the purpose of calculating GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals (paragraph 260 of PS for PA version 2)
The monitoring plan requires daily monitoring and monthly aggregated data for “Passengers transported by each cable car”. However, the spreadsheet only provides the quarterly aggregated data. Please submit the monthly aggregated data as per the monitoring plan for “Passengers transported by each cable car”.
3: The DOE shall determine whether the monitoring of parameters related to GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals in the registered PDD has been implemented in accordance with the registered monitoring plan (paragraph 360 of VVS for PA version 2).
The monitoring plan requires the monitoring of occupation rate of vehicles at year 3 and year 7 based on 95% confidence interval and the applied methodology states that “The occupancy rate of different vehicle categories is monitored through representative samples.” The monitoring report (p 17-8) provides the occupation rate of vehicles at 2012 (year 3) and 2017 (year 5) of 40% and 38% respectively and the measurement information on the occupation rate of vehicles at 2012. Further, the monitoring report (p 18) states that “The occupation rate for 2017 was based on origin-destination surveys realized and thereafter using the transport modelling tool EMME.” Further information is required by the DOE how it verified the occupation rate of vehicles at year 7 as per the monitoring plan and the applied methodology considering that the monitoring report does not provide information on the monitoring of occupation rate of vehicles at 2017 including number of sample size with the requirement of 95% confidence interval as per each Lines as shown in the occupation rate of vehicles at 2012.
1: The project participants shall monitor the registered CDM project activity and its GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals in accordance with the registered monitoring plan (paragraph 250 of PS for PA version2).
The DOE verified that Lines L and H were fully operational during this monitoring period and no surveys were conducted for Lines L and H and the PP does not claim emission reductions for those lines during this monitoring period. The monitoring report (p 2) states that “As of April 2012, the cable car lines J, K and L are implemented and fully operational. The cable car L has not been included in this Monitoring Report and no emission reductions are claimed for this line. The reason is that the passenger numbers on this line are too low to warrant the considerable additional monitoring costs associated with each cable car line. This is a conservative approach as no emission reductions are claimed.” The PP/DOE is required to provide further information on 1) why it did not consider the post-registration change as the project participants was unable to monitor Line L and Line H in accordance with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD as per para 231 of CDM PS for PA version 2 and paragraph 281 of VVS for PA version 2 and 2) how the PP considered that the approach taken was conservative as per paragraph 231 of PS for PA version 2 considering that lower passenger number in Line L results in lower baseline emissions.
2: The project participants shall provide the values of the monitored parameter for the purpose of calculating GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals (paragraph 260 of PS for PA version 2)
The monitoring plan requires daily monitoring and monthly aggregated data for “Passengers transported by each cable car”. However, the spreadsheet only provides the quarterly aggregated data. Please submit the monthly aggregated data as per the monitoring plan for “Passengers transported by each cable car”.
3: The DOE shall determine whether the monitoring of parameters related to GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals in the registered PDD has been implemented in accordance with the registered monitoring plan (paragraph 360 of VVS for PA version 2).
The monitoring plan requires the monitoring of occupation rate of vehicles at year 3 and year 7 based on 95% confidence interval and the applied methodology states that “The occupancy rate of different vehicle categories is monitored through representative samples.” The monitoring report (p 17-8) provides the occupation rate of vehicles at 2012 (year 3) and 2017 (year 5) of 40% and 38% respectively and the measurement information on the occupation rate of vehicles at 2012. Further, the monitoring report (p 18) states that “The occupation rate for 2017 was based on origin-destination surveys realized and thereafter using the transport modelling tool EMME.” Further information is required by the DOE how it verified the occupation rate of vehicles at year 7 as per the monitoring plan and the applied methodology considering that the monitoring report does not provide information on the monitoring of occupation rate of vehicles at 2017 including number of sample size with the requirement of 95% confidence interval as per each Lines as shown in the occupation rate of vehicles at 2012.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: