1) Refer to paragraph: VVS-PoA, version 2, paragraph 340 (a)

The baseline water source is not mentioned in the monitoring report or emission reduction sheet – The included CPA-DDs (section A.3) and the monitoring report section C.1) mentions that UltraFlo Water Purification System will be fixed and applicable for piped water while UltraTab WPS is portable in nature and applicable for un-piped water. However, it is not clear from verification report how the DOE confirmed whether the implementation of the WPS is in accordance with the description provided in the included CPA-DDs and whether the installed WPS is compatible with the available water source.

2) Refer to paragraph: Paragraph 15 of AMS-III.AV version 4 and VVS-PoA, version 2, paragraph 344

The DOE is requested to clarify how it has verified the compliance of the monitoring plan with the applied methodology, in particular for the monitoring frequency of the parameter ‘Operational units’. Noting that included CPA-DDs states that the monitoring frequency for the parameter as  ‘At least once per verification or biennially as per the monitoring requirements in the methodology’, while as per the applied methodology it should be ‘at least once every two years’.

3) Refer to paragraph: VVS-PoA ver. 02 Paragraph 304 (c).

The DOE cross-verified continuous availability of safe drinking water based on the interviews with the users and delivery notes, and further confirmed that the subsequent supplies are reported in the emission reduction spreadsheet. However, it is observed in the emission reduction spreadsheet that:

a. There is no verification opinion on the implemented water purifier capacities (Tab "Assumptions" cells D9 and D10) of 10,000 L/unit (for UltraTab WPS) and 340,000 L/unit (for UltraFlo WPS);

b. The residual capacity (i.e. Tab “Sales Database” column AC) data is not traceable. The residual capacities from previous monitoring period i.e. MP3 (i.e. column AC of tab “Sales Database”) are given without any elaboration by CME. DOE in its verification report did not provide a verification opinion on how these values are derived, and whether the residual capacity is an assumed capacity or an actual remaining capacity considering the actual volume and quality of raw water purified at CPA locations;

c. The residual capacity of some purification devices indicates system continuous running until year 2041 (e.g. cell ‘AK6283’ of tab ‘Sales Database’) or more up to 2078 (e.g. cell ‘AK7891’ of tab ‘Sales Database’), which is even beyond the device lifespan as described (i.e. 5 years) on page 13/31 of the monitoring report;

d. Out of the 8745 schools using either UltraFLO or UltraTAB in the CPAs, 6309 schools indicate zero continuous supplies during this monitoring period (i.e. column ‘AD’ of tab ‘Sales Database’).

Taking into account the above, the DOE is requested to;

a. Substantiate how it has verified and concluded the installed water purifier capacities of 10,000 L/unit (for UltraTab purifier) and 340,000 L/unit (for UltraFlo purifier);

b. Submit a traceable emission reduction spreadsheet for the calculation of the system residual capacities;

c. Elaborate how a system’s continuous running end date can be beyond its lifespan (5 years);

d. Substantiate continuous availability of safe drinking water to schools considering some water purifiers had no residual capacity from the previous monitoring period and received no supplies during the current monitoring period.

4) Refer to paragraph: VVS-PoA, version 2, paragraph 359 (d)

It is noted that the CME has used 365 days for school operation and DOE accepted this is in-line with the sample calculations shown in the registered PoA-DD (refer page 70) and CPA-DDs (refer ER calculation formulae) and it is not a ex-ante fixed or ex-post monitored parameter for applied methodology. However,  given a fact that WPS installed at the schools will not service entire population round the year, how DOE verified the appropriateness of applying the entire days covered by the monitoring period for calculation of QPWy (Quantity of purified water for drinking during the year y). Further, the DOE should also check following clarifications issued by the Meth Panel in this regard.

a. SSC_795: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/clarifications/05721; and

b. SSC_792: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/clarifications/57226