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 values for the quantity of rice husks (QAF) indicated on monitoring report (page 14) are different from those in the emission calculation spreadsheet (cells N26-N29). The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency.

2: Scope: The verification and certification report does not describe the implementation status of the project as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (a).
Scope: The verification report does not describe the reasons for the phased-implementation delay and/or does not present the expected implementation dates as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 385 (a).
Issue: The verification report (pg. 14) states that “The project activity consists in the partial substitution of traditional fuel (fuel oil, petcoke and tank bottom fuel) by use of biomass fuels….”. However, the registered PDD (pg. 18) indicates that the baseline fuels were fuel oil and rice husks and further states that “The activities of the present project involve the husk amounts increase”. The DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified that the project activity was implemented as per described in the registered PDD.

3: Scope: The verification and certification report does not provide a conclusion on the verified amount of emission reductions achieved nor/or confirm that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed as per VVS version 09.0 paragraphs 403 (c) and 409 (j).
Issues: In calculating the moisture penalty (ACM0003 ver. 4, step 2) the submitted ER calculation spreadsheet (cells R93 and R94) has considered the amount of fuel oil, rice husk and Tank bottom Oil (FBT) in calculating the parameter “specific fuel consumption in the baseline when only fossil fuel is used (HCFF)” for the baseline years 1998/1999. However, it is noted that rice husk is not a fossil fuel and FBT was not identified as a baseline fossil fuel (please refer to the registered PDD pg. 18). The DOE is requested to provide information on how it verified the correctness and conservativeness of the approach applied in calculating moisture penalties.


4: Scope: The verification and certification report does not determine if the assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified as per VVS version 09.0 paragraph 403 (d).
Issue: The registered PDD (pg.37) indicates that the emission factor for fossil fuel displaced (EFFF) was calculated as 77.09 tCO2/TJ (based on “the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) consumed and monitored ex-ante during the year before the validation”). However, the submitted monitoring report indicates a value of 77.27 tCO2/TJ (based on the same source). The PP/DOE are requested to address this inconsistency.