09:22 15 Nov 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVS v2, para 228 (a))
Issue: The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it confirmed that the project has been implemented as described in the registered PDD. Even though the PDD has indicated that the corridor length may be extended during the crediting period of the project activity, the implementation of the project activity is not in accordance with the registered PDD. In particular: (i) the ending points of the three corridors having been changed, from Shahdara - Rithala to Dilshad Garden - Rithala (Service Line 1), from Vishvavidyalaya - Central Sectt. to Jahangirpuri - Huda City Center (Service Line 2), and from Indraprastha - Dwarka- Sub City to Noida City Centre - Dwarka Sec 21, Vaishali Yamuna Bank (Service Line 3); (ii) the number of the rolling stocks in corridor 1 from 25 to 27, and corridor 2 from 14 to 12, due the shift of MC#13 and MC#14 in June 2011.
2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan. (VVS v2 para 235)
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain why it has not raised any FAR to revise the monitoring plan in order to be in line with the actual monitoring practice to carry out calibration once in three years, as regular calibration has been carried out since the first monitoring period.
3: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: CAR C2 was closed by the DOE by concluding: The audit team accepted the response and concluded that the delay in the calibration does not affect the accuracy class and correction factor in accordance VVS chapter 9.4.4.2 paragraph 238 is not applicable, . However, the DOE is requested to further explain why correction factor as per the VVS paragraph 238 is not applicable considering paragraph 238 (a) states: "Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured values taken during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration, if the results of the delayed calibration do not show any errors in the measuring equipment, or if the error is smaller than the maximum permissible error".
1: Scope: The verification report does not describe the implementation status of the project. (For project activities that consist of more than one site, the report shall clearly describe the status of implementation and starting date of operation for each site. For CDM project activities with phased implementation, the report shall state the progress of the proposed CDM project activity achieved in each phase under verification). (VVS v2, para 228 (a))
Issue: The DOE is requested to further substantiate how it confirmed that the project has been implemented as described in the registered PDD. Even though the PDD has indicated that the corridor length may be extended during the crediting period of the project activity, the implementation of the project activity is not in accordance with the registered PDD. In particular: (i) the ending points of the three corridors having been changed, from Shahdara - Rithala to Dilshad Garden - Rithala (Service Line 1), from Vishvavidyalaya - Central Sectt. to Jahangirpuri - Huda City Center (Service Line 2), and from Indraprastha - Dwarka- Sub City to Noida City Centre - Dwarka Sec 21, Vaishali Yamuna Bank (Service Line 3); (ii) the number of the rolling stocks in corridor 1 from 25 to 27, and corridor 2 from 14 to 12, due the shift of MC#13 and MC#14 in June 2011.
2: Scope: The verification report does not state that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with registered or the accepted revised monitoring plan. (VVS v2 para 235)
Issue: The DOE is requested to further explain why it has not raised any FAR to revise the monitoring plan in order to be in line with the actual monitoring practice to carry out calibration once in three years, as regular calibration has been carried out since the first monitoring period.
3: Scope: The verification report does not provide an assessment on whether the calibration of measuring equipments was conducted at a frequency specified in applied monitoring methodology or EB guidance if applicable, and/or the monitoring plan (VVS v2, para 243)
Issue: CAR C2 was closed by the DOE by concluding: The audit team accepted the response and concluded that the delay in the calibration does not affect the accuracy class and correction factor in accordance VVS chapter 9.4.4.2 paragraph 238 is not applicable, . However, the DOE is requested to further explain why correction factor as per the VVS paragraph 238 is not applicable considering paragraph 238 (a) states: "Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured values taken during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration, if the results of the delayed calibration do not show any errors in the measuring equipment, or if the error is smaller than the maximum permissible error".
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: