13:19 16 Aug 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The validation report states that the DOE verified that the baseline was assessed according to the tool “Assessment of the validity of the original/current baseline and update of the baseline at the renewal of the crediting period, version 03.0.1. However, the PoA-DD does not provide any information how the baseline was assessed according to the aforementioned tool. Refer to paragraph 382(c) of VVS-PoA (version 02.0).
2: The DOE/CME is requested explain how it validated the methods to determine the emission factor, in particular:
(a) To clarify whether the CPAs under the PoA will use option 1 or option 2 of EFBM. Page 18 of PoA-DD states that option 2 was chosen, i.e. ex-post data vintage, however the parameter EFgrid,BM,y is listed as a parameter fixed ex-ante. It is to be noted that the provision to calculate the EFBM ex-ante for option 2 of paragraph 72(b) of Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 07.0) is applicable for crediting period of CPA, not PoA period;
(b) As there is a change in the method to calculate the EFOM from ex-ante simple adjusted method (registered monitoring plan), to ex-post dispatch data analysis method, to explain why PRC request was not submitted to address this change. Furthermore, as per paragraph 42 of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 07.0), if the ex ante option is chosen, the emission factor is determined once at the validation stage, thus no monitoring and recalculation of the emissions factor during the crediting period is required, the DOE is requested to explain how changing the method is in line with the tool;
(c) As there is a change in the method to calculate the EFBM from option 1 (ex-ante in the registered monitoring plan) to option 2 (ex-post), to explain why PRC request was not submitted to address this change. Furthermore, as paragraph 72(a) of the tool, option 1 does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period the DOE is requested to explain how changing the method is in line with the tool
3: Page 18 of PoA-DD states that option 2, i.e. ex-post data vintage, was chosen to determine the build margin emission factor. However, the monitioring plan does not include this parameter as parameter to be monitored by CPAs. Refer to paragraph 382(b) of VVS-PoA (version 02.0).
4: It is observed that the calibration frequency is changed from once every two years, determined by ONS, as described in the registered monitoring plan (registered PoA-DD page 49) to once every five years, recommended by ONS (renewed PoA-DD page 23-24). The DOE is requested to explain why PRC request was not submitted to address the change. In addition, the DOE is also requested to describe the calibration requirement in the host country.
1: The validation report states that the DOE verified that the baseline was assessed according to the tool “Assessment of the validity of the original/current baseline and update of the baseline at the renewal of the crediting period, version 03.0.1. However, the PoA-DD does not provide any information how the baseline was assessed according to the aforementioned tool. Refer to paragraph 382(c) of VVS-PoA (version 02.0).
2: The DOE/CME is requested explain how it validated the methods to determine the emission factor, in particular:
(a) To clarify whether the CPAs under the PoA will use option 1 or option 2 of EFBM. Page 18 of PoA-DD states that option 2 was chosen, i.e. ex-post data vintage, however the parameter EFgrid,BM,y is listed as a parameter fixed ex-ante. It is to be noted that the provision to calculate the EFBM ex-ante for option 2 of paragraph 72(b) of Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 07.0) is applicable for crediting period of CPA, not PoA period;
(b) As there is a change in the method to calculate the EFOM from ex-ante simple adjusted method (registered monitoring plan), to ex-post dispatch data analysis method, to explain why PRC request was not submitted to address this change. Furthermore, as per paragraph 42 of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 07.0), if the ex ante option is chosen, the emission factor is determined once at the validation stage, thus no monitoring and recalculation of the emissions factor during the crediting period is required, the DOE is requested to explain how changing the method is in line with the tool;
(c) As there is a change in the method to calculate the EFBM from option 1 (ex-ante in the registered monitoring plan) to option 2 (ex-post), to explain why PRC request was not submitted to address this change. Furthermore, as paragraph 72(a) of the tool, option 1 does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period the DOE is requested to explain how changing the method is in line with the tool
3: Page 18 of PoA-DD states that option 2, i.e. ex-post data vintage, was chosen to determine the build margin emission factor. However, the monitioring plan does not include this parameter as parameter to be monitored by CPAs. Refer to paragraph 382(b) of VVS-PoA (version 02.0).
4: It is observed that the calibration frequency is changed from once every two years, determined by ONS, as described in the registered monitoring plan (registered PoA-DD page 49) to once every five years, recommended by ONS (renewed PoA-DD page 23-24). The DOE is requested to explain why PRC request was not submitted to address the change. In addition, the DOE is also requested to describe the calibration requirement in the host country.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: