VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT - Carbon Check

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Verification and certification report form for CDM project activities

(Version 01.0)

Complete this form in accordance with the “Attachment: Instructions for filling out the verification and certification report form for CDM project activities” at the end of this form.

VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT

Title of the project activity 22.5 MW Grid Connected Wind Farm Project by RSMML in Jaisalmer, India

Reference number of the project activity 1602

Version number of the verification and

certification report 03

Completion date of the verification and

certification report 14/04/2017

Monitoring period number and duration

of this monitoring period

Monitoring period number: 04

Monitoring period: 02/01/2015 – 05/01/2017 (including both days)

Version number of monitoring report to

which this report applies 04

Crediting period of the project activity

corresponding to this monitoring period 11/12/2008 to 10/12/2018 (fixed)

Project participant(s) Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited (RSMML) Other parties:

• Emergent Ventures India Private Limited

• Swedish Energy Agency

Host Party India

Sectoral scope(s), selected

methodology(ies), and where applicable,

selected standardized baseline(s)

Sectoral scope: 01 Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources). ACM0002, version 6.0

Estimated GHG emission reductions or

net anthropogenic GHG removals for this

monitoring period in the registered PDD 56,892 tCO2e

Certified GHG emission reductions or net

anthropogenic GHG removals for this

monitoring period 32,540 tCO2e

Name of DOE Carbon Check (India) Private Limited

Name, position and signature of the

approver of the verification and

certification report

Vikash Kumar Singh

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

SECTION A. Executive summary

The Project Participant, M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited (RSMML), has appointed the DOE, Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. (CCIPL) to perform an independent fourth (4th) periodic verification of the CDM Project Activity “22.5 MW Grid Connected Wind Farm Project by RSMML in Jaisalmer, India” in India (hereafter referred to as “Project Activity”). The project activity is installation of 6 x 1250 kW (7.5MW) Suzlon Wind Energy Generators (WEG) and 25x600 kW (15 MW), Vestas RRB WEGs, totaling to 22.5 MW at Pohra village and Baramsar/ Pohra village respectively in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan. These WEGs are interconnected to 33 KV end of 220 KV Grid Sub Station (GSS) Amarsagar at Jaisalmer. 90% of electricity generated by 6 No’s of 1250kW (7.5 MW) Suzlon make WEGs at Pohra village is sold to Ajmer DISCOM and the balance 10% is utilized for captive use. 40% electricity generated by the 25 No’s of 600 kW (15 MW) Vestas RRB WEGs at Baramsar/Pohra village is sold to Ajmer DISCOM and rest 60% would be utilized for captive use. This report summarises the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of paragraph 62 of the CDM Modalities & Procedures, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board. Verification is required for all registered CDM project activities intending to confirm their achieved emission reductions and proceed with request for issuance of CERs. This report contains the findings and resolutions from the verification and a certification statement for the certified emission reductions. Verification is the periodic independent review and ex-post determination of both quantitative and qualitative information by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions that have occurred as a result of the registered CDM project activity during a defined monitoring period. Certification is the written assurance by a DOE that, during a specific period in time, a project activity achieved the emission reductions as verified. The objective of this verification was to verify and certify emission reductions reported for the “22.5 MW Grid Connected Wind Farm Project by RSMML in Jaisalmer, India” in the host country India for the period 02/01/2015 to 05/01/2017 (including both the days). The purpose of verification is to review the monitoring results and verify that the monitoring methodology was implemented according to the monitoring plan and monitoring data and used to confirm the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources, is sufficient, definitive and presented in a concise and transparent manner. CCIPL’s objective is to perform a thorough, independent assessment of the registered project activity. In particular, the monitoring plan, monitoring report and the project’s compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria are verified in order to confirm that the component project/s has/have been implemented in accordance with the previously registered project design and conservative assumptions, as documented. It is also confirmed if the monitoring plan is in compliance with the registered PDD and the approved monitoring methodology. Scope: The scope of the verification is:

• To verify the project implementation and operation with respect to the registered PDD

• To verify the implemented monitoring plan with the registered PDD or approved revised PDD and applied baseline and monitoring methodology.

• To verify that the actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

• To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion with a reasonable level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement.

• To verify that reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence. The verification shall ensure that the reported emission reductions are complete and accurate in order to be certified. Verification process: The verification comprises a review of the monitoring report over the monitoring period from 02/01/2015 to 05/01/2017 and based on the registered PDD in part of the monitoring parameters and monitoring plan, emission reduction calculation spread-sheet, monitoring methodology and all related evidence provided by project participant. On-site visit and stakeholders’ interviews are also performed as part of the verification process. Conclusion: The verification team assigned by the DOE concludes that the registered PDD (Version 3 dated 15/12/2007) /B05/ and the monitoring report (Version 1 dated 28/02/2017 and subsequent versions of MR) /03/, meet all relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities including article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and paragraph 62 of CDM Modalities & Procedures, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions by the COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. The verification has been conducted in-line with the requirements of VVS (version 09.0) /B01-a/. The project activity was correctly implemented according to selected monitoring methodology, monitoring plan and the registered PDD. The monitoring system was installed, maintained in a proper manner, while collected monitoring data that allowed for the verification of the amount of achieved GHG emission reductions. Through the review and on site visit the verification team confirms that the project activity has resulted in the 32,540 tCO2e emission reductions during the fourth monitoring period. CCIPL as a DOE is therefore pleased to issue a positive verification opinion expressed in the attached Certification statement.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

SECTION B. Verification team, technical reviewer and approver

B.1. Verification team member

No. Role

Typ

e o

f re

so

urc

e

Last name First name Affiliation (e.g. name of

central or other office of DOE or

outsourced entity)

Involvement in

Desk r

evie

w

On

-sit

e in

sp

ecti

on

Inte

rvie

w(s

)

Veri

ficati

on

fin

din

gs

1. Team Leader / Technical Expert / Local Expert

IR Anand Amit CCIPL X X

2. Team Member / Technical Expert / Local Expert

EI Mandal Amit Ranjan CCIPL X X X X

B.2. Technical reviewer and approver of the verification and certification report

No. Role Type of

resource

Last name First name Affiliation (e.g. name of

central or other office of DOE or

outsourced entity)

1. Technical reviewer IR Agarwalla Sanjay Kumar CCIPL

2. Approver IR Singh Vikash Kumar CCIPL

SECTION C. Application of materiality

C.1. Consideration of materiality in planning the verification

No. Risk that could lead to

material errors, omissions

or misstatements

Assessment of the risk Response to the risk in the

verification plan and/or

sampling plan Risk

level

Justification

1.

Human Error:

Recording and reporting of the information in the ER spreadsheet.

Medium

All the ER spreadsheet data are transposed manually from the monitoring database. This includes all the parameters to be monitored ex-post as per the registered PDD and the monitoring plan.

The recording of the ER

spread sheet data is directly

linked to the emission

reduction calculations. The

verification audit plan for the

project included checking the

following during the on-site visit

to mitigate the risk:

a. Interview with the personnel

recording and reporting the

information in the ER

spreadsheet.

b. Review of the ER

spreadsheet.

c. Cross-check the data in the

ER spreadsheet with the

JMR and electricity sale

invoices.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Verification team based on the interviews confirms that the personnel are well familiar with the process of recording and reporting the monitored data in to the ER spreadsheet. Verification team confirms that the human error risk is appropriately mitigated.

2.

Information System:

Use of spreadsheets without adequate controls related to data changes/updates, version tracking, traceability, security

Medium

Since the emission reduction calculations are presented in the ER spreadsheet in which the monitored data are manually transposed, it needs to be checked if appropriate controls have been established. Otherwise, it could lead to material errors, omissions or misstatements.

The spreadsheets have been

used for reporting ER

calculations. To check that

adequate controls related to

data changes/updates, version

tracking, traceability security

are followed, following details

were checked in the

documents and during the site

visit:

a. Interview with the relevant

personnel to ensure that

roles and responsibilities

according to section B.7.2

of the PDD are being

followed.

b. Data and information flow

procedures to be followed

as per PDD and MR.

Verification team mitigated the risk by conducting interviews with the personnel responsible for activities as provided in PDD and MR. Interviews with the monitoring personnel were conducted to confirm the established procedures. Verification team confirms that the information system risk is appropriately mitigated.

3. Accuracy of the measuring equipment

Medium

To ensure accuracy in measurements, all the energy meters need to be regularly calibrated by an accredited entity.

In order to ensure accuracy in

measuring equipment the

verification team checked

whether calibration of energy

meters is done at intervals

specified in the registered

PDD. The verification team

performed the following tasks:

a. Review of all the calibration

certificates and taking note

of the date of calibration on

each one for every energy

meter.

b. Interviewing the relevant

personnel to ensure the

calibration procedures are

being followed as per the

registered monitoring plan.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Verification team based on the

interviews and reviews

confirms that the personnel are

well familiar with the process of

calibration of measuring

equipment as per the

monitoring plan.

Verification team confirms that the information system risk is appropriately mitigated.

C.2. Consideration of materiality in conducting the verification

>> The identified threshold for materiality is 2% in accordance with the paragraph 361(c) of VVS (version 09.0) /B01-a/. At the beginning of the verification the team leader has assessed the nature, complexity of the verification tasks by carrying out a strategic analysis of all activities relevant to the project activity. The team leader has collected and reviewed the information relevant to assess that the designated verification team is sufficiently competent to carry out the verification and to ensure that it is able to conduct the necessary risk analysis. As explained above, the potential sources of error were:

• Human error: This could be on account of erroneous recording and reporting of the information in the ER spread sheet.

• Information System: Use of spreadsheets without adequate controls related to data changes/ updates, version tracking, traceability and security.

• Accuracy of the measuring equipment: The measuring equipment does not provide accurate reading, as calibration is not conducted at regularly defined intervals as per the PDD.

The verification team performed the following checks in order to mitigate the effects of the above-identified sources of error:

• Mitigation of Human error risks: The verification team mitigated the risk by interviewing the responsible personnel during the on-site visit. Further, data was crosschecked with the ER calculation spreadsheet /04/ and the joint meter reading reports /08/ and electricity sale invoices /09/. Verification team, based on the above, confirms that the risk is appropriately mitigated.

• Mitigation due to error in Information system: Verification team by conducting interviews with the personnel responsible for such activities mitigated the risk due to error in information system. Further, the traceability and security of the spreadsheet is being maintained by keeping a protected copy of the files in the PP’s network. The data and information flow requirements are being followed as stated in the PDD /B05/ and the MR /03/. Interviews with the monitoring personnel were conducted to confirm the established procedures. Verification team confirms that the information system risk is appropriately mitigated.

Accuracy of the measuring equipment: Calibration certificates /10/ of all the energy meters at specific project locations were reviewed by the verification team to assess the risk due to inaccuracy in measurements. The verification team reviewed the dates of calibration and to check whether all equipment are being calibrated at regularly defined intervals as per the registered PDD /B05/.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

SECTION D. Means of verification

D.1. Desk review

>> List of all documents reviewed or referenced during the verification is provided in Appendix-3 below.

D.2. On-site inspection

Duration of on-site inspection: 03/04/2017 to 03/04/2017

No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member

1. An assessment of the implementation and operation of the registered project activity as per the registered PDD

Pohra and Barasmar

03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal

2. A review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting the monitoring parameters

Pohra and Barasmar


3.

Interviews with relevant personnel to determine whether the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan in the PDD

Pohra and Barasmar


4.

A cross check between information provided in the monitoring report and data from other sources such as plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records or similar data sources

Pohra and Barasmar


5.

A check of the monitoring equipment including calibration performance and observations of monitoring practices against the requirements of the PDD and the selected methodology and corresponding tool(s), where applicable

Pohra and Barasmar


6.

A review of calculations and assumptions

made in determining the GHG data and

emission reductions

Pohra and Barasmar


7.

An identification of quality control and

quality assurance procedures in place to

prevent or identify and correct any errors

or omissions in the reported monitoring

parameters

Pohra and Barasmar


CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

D.3. Interviews

No. Interviewee Date Subject Team member

Last name First name Affiliation

1. Sharma Satish SGSL 03/04/2017

Project implementation and operation, monitoring procedure, data and information flow, Calibration, Record keeping

Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal

2. Basu Kuntal RRB Energy

Ltd. 03/04/2017

Project implementation and operation, monitoring procedure, data and information flow, Calibration, Record keeping


3. Devpal Dharmendra - 03/04/2017 Site location, implementation details


4.. Bhatt C.P. The

Ecopreneurs 03/04/2017

CER calculation, Monitoring report and DVR resolution.


5. Gupta Seema The

Ecopreneurs 03/04/2017

CER calculation, Monitoring report and DVR resolution.


D.4. Sampling approach

Not Applicable

D.5. Clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward action requests raised

Areas of verification findings No. of CL No. of CAR No. of FAR

Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form

00 00 00

Compliance of the project implementation with the registered PDD

00 00 00

Post-registration changes 00 00 00

Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool and standardized baseline

00 01 00

Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan

00 00 00

Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments

00 01 00

Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals

00 01 00

Others (please specify) 00 00 00

Total 00 03 00

SECTION E. Verification findings

E.1. Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form

Means of verification DR

Findings -

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Conclusion Verification team confirms that the latest available version of monitoring report

template /B03/ has been used by the PP and the MR /03/ is in compliance of the

monitoring report form and instructions therein.

CCIPL, had made the version 01, dated 28/02/2017 of the monitoring report /01/,

covering the monitoring period from 02/01/2015 to 05/01/2017 (both days inclusive)

publicly available on 03/03/2017 through its dedicated interface on the UNFCCC

website /B06/ before the site visit by the verification team on 03/04/2017.

This confirms compliance with para 381 and 382 of VVS, Version 09.0 /B01-a/.

E.2. Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verification

>> There are no forward action requests from validation and previous verification of the project activity. The assessment team has checked the verification report of previous monitoring period and found it correct and there is no FAR raised during the previous verification.

E.3. Compliance of the project implementation with the registered project design

document

Means of

verification

DR, The verification team determined the conformity of the actual project activity and its operation with the registered PDD /B05/ and the monitoring plan contained therein. CCIPL has, by means of a desk review and on-site visit, assessed that all physical features of the project activity proposed in the PDD /B05/ are in place, and that the project participants have operated the CDM project activity as per the validated PDD /B05/.

Findings -

Conclusion CCIPL by means of an on-site inspection and document review, assessed that all the features (technology, project equipment and monitoring) of the registered PDD /B05/ are in place and that the project participants have operated the project as per the registered PDD /B05/. The verification team has reviewed the commissioning certificates /06/, Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) /07/, electricity generation records /08/. The implemented project activity’s physical features viz., MW capacity, make, model and its operation, location, Grid connectivity are as per the registered PDD /B05/, thus comply with requirement of para 383 to 384 of VVS (version 9.0). The salient features of the project activity viz., capacity, location, technology and date of commission are provided in the below table:

Details of Suzlon make WEGs

Sr.No WEG

No.(SEL)

No. of

WEGs

Capacity Date

of

commissioning

Village Khasra

Number

1 J-91 1 1250 kW 25.03.2006 Pohra 443

2 J-92 1 1250 kW 25.03.2006 Pohra 455

3 J-93 1 1250 kW 25.03.2006 Pohra 451

4 J-94 1 1250 kW 25.03.2006 Pohra 451

5 J-95 1 1250 kW 25.03.2006 Pohra 450

6 J-99 1 1250 kW 25.03.2006 Pohra 458

Details of Vestas RRB WEGs

Sr.No WEG

No.(Vestas

RRB)

No. of

WEGs

Capacity Date

of

commissioning

Village Khasra

Number

1 B1 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1103

2 B2 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1103

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

3 B3 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1104

4 B4 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1101

5 B5 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1104

6 B6 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1105

7 B7 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1106

8 B8 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1195

9 B9 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1195

10 B10 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1062

11 B11 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1062

12 B12 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1061

13 B13 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1106

14 B14 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Baramsar 1121

15 B15 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1084

16 B16 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1084

17 B17 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1084

18 B18 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1083

19 B19 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1078

20 B20 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1077

21 B21 1 600 kW 30.09.2006 Pohra 1077

22 B22 1 600 kW 14.10.2006 Pohra 1078

23 B23 1 600 kW 14.10.2006 Pohra 1078

24 B24 1 600 kW 14.10.2006 Pohra 1071

25 B25 1 600 kW 14.10.2006 Pohra 1013

The start date of the crediting period is 11/12/2008. No new technology measure or retrofits have been added during this verification period. Log book on break down maintenance and fault details are maintained by the O&M service providers in the control rooms at the project site. It was confirmed through the document review and during the site visit that the PP had operated the proposed CDM project activity as per the registered PDD during the current monitoring period. Furthermore, the verification team, through OSV, interview with representatives of the company responsible of O&M of the project and review of commissioning certificates /06/ confirms that the registered CDM project activities was implemented and monitored as per the registered PDD /B05/. This fulfills the requirement contained in §416 of the VVS (version 09.0). CCIPL’s verification team considers the project implementation to be complete and accurate. In summary, the monitoring period is reasonable and the operation of the project activity is in accordance with the registered PDD /B05/. The verification team took cognizance of §239 to §242 of the CDM Project Standard (version 09.0) /B01-b/ and §373b(i), §383, §384 and §385 of CDM VVS (version 09.0) /B01-a/.

E.4. Post-registration changes

E.4.1. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, monitoring methodology

or standardized baseline

>>Not Applicable. There is no temporary deviation for this monitoring period from the registered PDD.

E.4.2. Corrections

>>There is no corrections for this monitoring period.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

E.4.3. Changes to the start date of the crediting period

>>There is no change in the start date of crediting period.

E.4.4. Inclusion of a monitoring plan to a registered project activity

>>Not Applicable

E.4.5. Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, monitoring methodology or

standardized baseline

>>There is no permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan, monitoring methodology.

E.4.6. Changes to the project design of a registered project activity

>>No changes in the registered project activity.

E.4.7. Types of changes specific to afforestation and reforestation project activities

>>Not Applicable.

E.5. Compliance of monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including

applicable tool and standardized baseline

Means of verification DR The verification team reviewed the PDD /B05/, monitoring plan and MR /03/ to determine whether the established monitoring plan is in compliance to the monitoring methodology /B02/.

Findings -

Conclusion The verification team is able to confirm that the monitoring plan contained in the

registered PDD /B05/ is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by

the project activity, i.e. ACM0002, version 6 /B02/.

The verification team took cognizance of §386 and §388 of CDM VVS, Version 09 /B01-a/.

E.6. Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan

E.6.1. Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period


The verification team has determined whether the registered monitoring plan in the PDD /B05/ has been properly implemented and followed by the PP; whether all parameters fixed ex-ante for emission reduction calculation are as per the registered PDD /B05/.

Findings -

Conclusion The verification team’s assessment of each data and parameter fixed ex-ante is provided below:

Parameter Description Value Unit Source Assessment

EFy

Grid Emission Factor

0.8971 tCO2/MWh

Central Electricity Authority: “CO2 Baseline Database for Indian Power Sector”.

The value is consistent with registered PDD/B05/ and fixed ex-ante during the crediting period of the project activity.

The value is consistent with the registered PDD/B05/ and defined fixed ex-ante during crediting period of the project activity. The fixed ex-ante data and parameter has been listed in the monitoring report and confirmed by the verification team as correct and consistent with that stated in the registered PDD/B05/.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

E.6.2. Data and parameters monitored


The verification team has determined whether the registered monitoring plan in the PDD /B05/ has been properly implemented and followed by the PP; whether all the ex-post monitoring parameters for emission reduction calculation are as per the registered PDD /B05/.

Findings CAR 03 was raised for this section. Please refer to Appendix 4 for the detailed closure of the CAR.

Conclusion The verification team confirms that the Data and parameters monitored are in

compliance with the registered PDD /B05/.

Detailed assessment of each parameter has been provided in Annexure-1.

The verification team took cognizance of §389 and §401 of CDM VVS, Version 09

/B01-a/.

E.6.3. Implementation of sampling plan

Means of verification Not Applicable

Findings Not Applicable Conclusion Not Applicable

E.7. Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments

Means of verification DR, I

The verification team has determined whether the calibration and calibration frequency procedures undertaken by PP for all measuring instruments are in conformance to the requirements stated in the registered PDD /B05/, and as per CDM PS (version 09.0) /B01-b/.

Findings CAR 02 was raised. Please refer to Appendix 4 for the detailed closure of the CAR.

Conclusion The verification team confirms that all the energy meters have been installed in the

project activity as per the registered PDD /B05/.

In summary, the verification team is able to verify that the accuracy of the

monitoring equipment was set according to the approved monitoring plan.

Furthermore, the verification team confirms all calibration procedures were carried

at the frequency as specified by the methodology, monitoring plan of the registered

PDD /B05/. Therefore, the accuracy of the monitoring equipment is assured.

PP has applied corrections in a conservative manner due to delayed calibration for

the meters, wherever applicable in accordance to the paragraph 395 of CDM VVS,

version 09.0.

Annexure 2 may be referred below for calibration details of the monitoring

equipment.

The verification team took cognizance of §65(f) and §248 of CDM Project Standard, Version 09 /B01b/ and §394 of CDM VVS, Version 09 /B01-a/.

E.8. Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals

E.8.1. Calculation of baseline GHG emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks

Means of verification DR The verification team assessed whether the baseline GHG emissions as presented in the MR /03/ and the ER spread-sheet /05/ are in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD /B05/.

Findings CAR 01 was raised. Please refer to Appendix 4 for the detailed closure of the CAR.

Conclusion Baseline emissions is the product of the baseline emission factor (EFy) times the net electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid (EGy). BEy = EGy, net X EFy

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

The registered PDD /B05/ has selected ex-ante option for the calculation of EFy and calculation results are fixed for the crediting period. The MR has accordingly used the grid emission factor fixed ex-ante. EFy of the proposed project in the registered PDD is 0.8971 tCO2/MWh, which has been verified to be correct based on the availability of grid data. EGy is the net electricity generation supplied to the grid, which is determined by the electricity supplied to the grid minus the imported electricity from the grid. The electricity exported to and imported from the grid was derived from the main meter in monitoring period and cross-checked by the sale invoices by the verification team. As per registered PDD, 90% of electricity generated by 6 No’s of 1250kW (7.5 MW) Suzlon make WEGs at Pohra village is sold to Ajmer DISCOM and the balance 10% is utilized for captive use. 40% electricity generated by the 25 No’s of 600 kW (15 MW) Vestas RRB WEGs at Baramsar/Pohra village is sold to Ajmer DISCOM and rest 60% would be utilized for captive use and thereby displace grid electricity in the country. In India, regional electricity grids are dominated by fossil fuel fired power generation. The assessment team has discussed the same and checked the captive use/wheeling of generated electricity during the site visit. The wheeling has been done as per the PPA and the Emission reduction is calculated based on the generation from the WTGs under the project activity and there is no double counting of generated electricity. The same is also confirmed by the site in-charge during the site visit.

Sl. No. Items Description Units Values

1.

EGy, net

Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh).

MWh 36,273 (after

adjustment)

2. EFy

Emission factor for the Northern Grid which is fixed ex-ante

tCO2e/MWh 0.8971

3. BEy

Baseline emission in a year y

tCO2/yr 32,540

The verification team has checked all the monthly electricity generation statements/JMR /08/ and invoices/09/ applicable for the monitoring period and found all the parameters are monitored and recorded as per the monitoring plan in the registered PDD/B05/. Since, there is a gap in calibration in monitoring equipment for Suzlon WTGs, PP has used default correction factor in calculation of net electricity supplied to grid from December 2015 to July 2016 for Suzlon WTGs (7.5 MW). The correction factor is deducted from the electricity supplied to the grid and the correction factor is added to the electricity imported from the grid. The assessment team has checked the calculation and found it correct and conservative, hence accepted. The verification team has cross-checked the CER sheet/05/ and monitoring report data with the electricity generation statements/JMR /08/ and invoices /09/ and found all the values are matching.

The verification team took cognizance of §389 and §401 of CDM VVS, Version 09 /B01-a/.

E.8.2. Calculation of project GHG emissions or actual net GHG removals by sinks


The verification team assessed whether the calculation of project GHG emissions as presented in the monitoring report /03/ and the ER spread-sheet /05/ are in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD /B05/.

Findings -

Conclusion The project emissions are regarded as zero according to the applied methodology

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

and the registered PDD/B05/.

E.8.3. Calculation of leakage GHG emissions


Findings -

Conclusion The leakage emissions are regarded as zero according to the applied methodology and the registered PDD/B05/.

E.8.4. Summary of calculation of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG

removals by sinks

Means of verification DR The verification team assessed whether the calculation of GHG emission reductions as presented in the monitoring report /03/ and the ER spread-sheet /05/ are in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD /B05/.

Findings -

Conclusion According to the applied methodology, the emission reductions are calculated as:

ERy = BEy – PEy – LEy

Sl. No. Parameters Description Units Values

1. ERy

Emission reductions in year y

tCO2/yr 32,540

2. BEy

Baseline emission in a year y

tCO2/yr 32,540

3. PEy Project emission in a year y tCO2/yr 0

4. LEy

Leakage emission in a year y

tCO2/yr 0

The verification team confirms that all parameters are used correctly in the

calculations, all results are verifiable and transparent, all assumptions are described

and based on verifiable evidence and calculations are done in accordance with the

pre-defined formulae from registered PDD/B05-a/. The total number of CERs

achieved during the monitoring period is 32,540 tCO2e.

The verification team took cognizance of §401 of CDM VVS, Version 09 /B01-a/.

E.8.5. Comparison of actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals

by sinks with estimates in registered PDD


The verification team has compared the actual CER achieved during this monitoring period with the estimated value for the monitoring period.

Findings -

Conclusion The actual emission reductions in the monitoring period are 32,540 tCO2e which are less than the estimated emission reductions 56,892 tCO2e (for an equivalent period for the current monitoring period) as per the registered PDD.

The verification team has checked all the monthly electricity generation

statements/JMR/08/ and invoices/09/ applicable for the monitoring period confirmed

the net electricity exported to the grid is correct and consistent. Therefore, the

actual emission reductions from 02/01/2015 to 05/01/2017 (both days inclusive) are

calculated correctly and are less than the estimated emission reduction.

The verification team took cognizance of §401 of CDM VVS, Version 09 /B01-a/.

E.8.6. Remarks on difference from estimated value in registered PDD


Findings -

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Conclusion The actual Emission reduction during the monitoring period is less than the estimated emission reduction in registered PDD for the same period. The verification team has checked the monthly JMR report and confirmed the actual electricity supplied to the grid is correct and consistent. Therefore, the actual emission reductions from 02/01/2015 to 05/01/2017 (both days inclusive) are calculated correctly and the actual emission reduction are less than the estimated emission reduction.

E.8.7. Actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks

during the first commitment period and the period from 1 January 2013 onwards


Findings -

Conclusion CERs achieved from 1st January 2013 onwards – 32,540 tCO2e.

SECTION F. Internal quality control

>> The final verification report passed a technical review before being submitted to the UNFCCC

Executive Board. A technical reviewer qualified in accordance with CCIPL’s qualification scheme

for CDM validation and verification performed the technical review.

SECTION G. Verification opinion

>> Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. (CCIPL) has performed the fourth (04th) periodic verification

of the registered CDM Project Activity “22.5 MW Grid Connected Wind Farm Project by RSMML in

Jaisalmer, India” in India having UNFCCC reference number 1602.

The verification team assigned by the DOE concludes that the project activity as described in the

registered PDD (version 3; dated 15/12/2007) /B05/, and the monitoring report (Version 04 dated

14/04/2017) /03/, meets all relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities

including article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol and paragraph 62 of CDM Modalities & Procedures, the

modalities and procedures for CDM Executive Board (Marrakesh Accords) and subsequent

decisions by the COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board. The verification has been conducted in-

line with the requirements of VVS (version 09.0) /B01-a/.

Verification methodology and process

The verification team confirms the contractual relationship signed on 22/02/2017 between the

DOE, Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd. and Project Participant (M/s Rajasthan State Mines &

Minerals Ltd.). The team assigned to the verification meets the CCIPL’s internal procedures

including the UNFCCC requirements for the team composition and competence. The verification

team has conducted thorough review as per UNFCCC and CCIPL’s procedures and requirements.

The verification has been performed as per the requirements described in the VVS (version 09.0)

/B01-a/ and constitutes the review and completion of the following steps:

- Reviewing the registered PDD (version 3, Dated: 15/12/2007) /B05/

- Publication of the MR (Version 01 dated 28/02/2017) /01/ on the UNFCCC website /B06/ on

03/03/2017;

- Desk review of the MR /01/ and other relevant documents;

- Review of the applied monitoring methodology (ACM0002, Version 6.0) /B02/;

- Review of any CMP and EB decisions, clarifications and guidance;

- On-site assessment (03/04/2017)

- Resolution of CARs and CLs raised during verification

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

- Issuance of Verification Report

The project activity was correctly implemented according to the selected monitoring methodology

and registered PDD /B05/. The monitoring system was installed, maintained in a proper manner,

while collected monitoring data allowed for the verification of the amount of achieved GHG

emission reductions. Through the review an on-site visit the verification team confirms that the

project activity has resulted in 32,540 tCO2e emission reductions during the fourth monitoring

period.

The break-up of emission reduction up to 31/12/2012 and 01/01/2013 onwards as verified during

the course of verification are as below:

Item Emission reductions up to

31 December 2012

Emission reductions from

1 January 2013 onwards

Emission reductions (t CO2e) 0 32,540

CCIPL is therefore pleased to issue a positive verification opinion expressed in the attached

Certification statement.

SECTION H. Certification statement

>> Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd., the DOE, has performed the verification of the registered

project activity “22.5 MW Grid connected Wind Farm Project by RSMML in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan”

in India having UNFCCC Registration Number 1602. The project activity is installation of 6 x 1250

kW (7.5MW) Suzlon Wind Energy Generators (WEG) and 25x600 kW (15 MW), Vestas RRB

WEGs, totaling to 22.5 MW at Pohra village and Baramsar/ Pohra village respectively in Jaisalmer

district of Rajasthan. These WEGs are interconnected to 33 KV end of 220 KV Grid Sub Station

(GSS) Amarsagar at Jaisalmer.

The PP is responsible for collection of data in accordance with the monitoring plan and the

reporting of GHG emission reductions. It is DOE’s responsibility to express an independent

verification statement on the reported GHG emission reductions from the project activity. The DOE

does not express any opinion on the selected baseline scenario or on the validated and registered

PDD/B05/. The verification is carried out in-line with the VVS/B01-a/ requirements.

The verification was performed to identify the compliance with implementation and monitoring

requirements, and to verify the actual amount of achieved emission reductions, through obtaining

evidence and information on-site that included i) checking whether the provisions of the monitoring

methodology and the monitoring plan were consistently and appropriately applied and ii) the

collection of evidence supporting the reported data.

The verification is based on:

- Registered PDD (version 3; Dated 15/12/2007) and the corresponding validation report;

- Approved monitoring methodology ACM0002, version 6.0);

- Monitoring report (version 01; Dated 28/02/2017) and Final Monitoring report (version 04;

Dated 14/04/2017)

This statement covers verification period from 02/01/2015 to 05/01/2017 (including both dates).

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

The DOE had raised 03 corrective action requests, all of which have been resolved by the PP.

There are no FARs from the validation and no FARs have been raised during this periodic

verification.

The DOE considers necessary to give reasonable assurance that the reported GHG emission

reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the approved baseline and monitoring

methodology and the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD are fairly stated.

The DOE hereby certifies that the project activity achieved emission reductions by sources of GHG

equal to 32,540 tCO2 equivalent and all monitoring requirements have been fulfilled and is

substantiated by an audit trail that contains evidence and records. The break-up of emission

reduction up to 31/12/2012 and 01/01/2013 onwards as verified during the course of verification

are as below:

Item Emission reductions up to

31 December 2012

Emission reductions from

1 January 2013 onwards

Emission reductions (t CO2e) 0 32,540

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Appendix 1. Abbreviations

Abbreviations Full texts

BE Baseline Emissions

CA Corrective Action/ Clarification Action

CER Certified Emission Reduction

CAR Corrective Action Request

CCIPL Carbon Check (India) Private Ltd.

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CL Clarification Request

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

DOE Designated Operational Entity

DVR Draft Verification Report

EB CDM Executive Board

EF Emission Factor

FA Final Approval

FAR Forward Action Request

FVR Final Verification Report

GHG Greenhouse gas(es)

GWh Giga Watt Hour

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

JMR Joint Meter Reading

LE Leakage Emissions

MP Monitoring Period

MR Monitoring Report

MWh Mega Watt Hour

OSV On Site Visit

PE Project Emissions

PP(s) Project Participant(s)

PRC Post registration change

QC/QA Quality Control/ Quality Assurance

RSMML Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited

TA Technical Area

TR Technical Review

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VVS Validation and Verification Standard

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Appendix 2. Competence of team members and technical

reviewers

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Appendix 3. Documents reviewed or referenced

No. Author Title References to the

document

Provider

01 RSMML

Webhosted Monitoring Report:

22.5 MW Grid connected Wind Farm Project

by RSMML in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan

Version 01; Dated:

28/02/2017

RSMML

02

RSMML Subsequent versions of Monitoring Report::



Version 02; Dated:

05/04/2017.

Version 03; dated

12/04/2014

RSMML

03

RSMML Final version of MR:



Version 04; dated

14/04/2017

RSMML

04 RSMML Emission reduction spreadsheet

corresponding to /01/ ER Sheet _V01.xlsx

RSMML

05 RSMML Final version of Emission reduction

spreadsheet corresponding to /03/ ER Sheet _V02.1.xlsx

RSMML

06

Office of the

executive

Engineer- III

(TCC-IV),

RRVPNL

Commissioning Certificates

RSMML

6 X 1.250 MW WTGs

Commissioning

certificated dated

27/03/2006 with

commissioning dated

25/03/2006

21 X 0.600 MW WTGs

Commissioning

certificated dated

03/10/2006 with

commissioning dated

30/09/2006

4 X 0.600 MW WTGs

Commissioning

certificated dated

16/10/2006 with

commissioning dated

14/10/2006

07

RRVPNL

Power Purchase Agreement

RSMML For 15MW phase-V under the project activity PPA dated 29/09/2006

For 7.5 MW Phase-IV under the project

activity. PPA dated 24/03/2006

08

Suzlon

Energy

Limited

Joint Meter Reading

RSMML RSMML

January 2015 to December 2016 for

phase-IV

RRB Energy

Limited RSMML

January 2015 to December 2016 for

phase-V

RSMML

09

Invoices

RSMML RSMML

To The Superintending Engineer, Ajmer

Discom.

January 2015 to

December 2016

10 C and I Energy Meter Calibration Reports RSMML

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Calibrations

Pvt. Ltd.

Suzlon WEGs

Main meter- RJB01209 Dated: 24/12/2014 and

21/07/2016

Backup meter- RJU02145 Dated: 24/12/2014 and

21/07/2016

Vestas RRB WEGs

Main meter- TNB03312 Dated 09/04/2014

Backup meter- RJU02174 Dated 09/04/2014

Yadav

Measurement

Pvt. Ltd.

Main meter- TNB03312 Dated 28/03/2015 and

dated 22/03/2016

Backup meter- RJU02174 Dated 28/03/2015 and

dated 22/03/2016

11 RSMML Daily Generation Report (DGR)/ CMS Data

Daily generation Report

from January 2015 to

January 2017.

RSMML

/B01/ UNFCCC

a. CDM Validation and Verification

Standard, version 9.0

b. CDM Project Standard, version 09.0

c. CDM Project Cycle Procedure, version

09.0

- UNFCCC

/B02/ UNFCCC

Approved methodology ACM0002

“ Consolidated methodology for grid-

connected electricity generation from

renewable sources” (version 6.0)

- UNFCCC

/B03/ UNFCCC Monitoring report form and guidelines,

version 05.1 - UNFCCC

/B04/ UNFCCC Guideline on the application of Materiality in

verifications, version 02 - UNFCCC

/B05/ UNFCCC

CDM Project documents:

Registered PDD for CDM project “22.5 MW

Grid connected Wind Farm Project by

RSMML in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan” (version

3), Dated 15/12/2007 and the corresponding

validation report

- UNFCCC

/B06/ UNFCCC UNFCCC website: http://cdm.unfccc.int - UNFCCC

/B07/ CEA

Baseline Carbon Dioxide Emission

Database.

http://www.cea.nic.in/tpeandce.html

- -

/B08/ UNFCCC

Instructions for filling out the verification and

certification report form for CDM project

activities (version 01.0)

- UNFCCC

http://cdm.unfccc.int/

http://www.cea.nic.in/tpeandce.html

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Appendix 4. Clarification requests, corrective action requests

and forward action requests

Table 1. Remaining FAR from validation and/or previous verification

FAR ID Xx Section no. E.2 Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Description of FAR

-

Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY

-

Documentation provided by project participant

-

DOE assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY

-

Table 2. CL from this verification

CL ID Xx Section no. Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Description of CL

-


-


-


-

Table 3. CAR from this verification

CAR ID 01 Section no. E.8.1 Date: 03/04/2017

Description of CAR

The JMR and invoice for the month of Feb 2016 for Suzlon WTGs for 7.5 MW under the project activity is not provided. The value in ER sheet for the month of July 2016 is not matching with the main readings as available in JMR. Further there is an error identified in the calculation of electricity generation by the project activity.

Project participant response Date: 05/04/2017

JMR and Invoice for Feb-2016 are attached. PP agrees with DoEs observation. Value corrected for July2016.


JMR and Invoice for Feb-2016

DOE assessment Date: 06/04/2017

The JMR for the month of Feb-2016 has been provided by the PP. The assessment team has checked the JMR, invoice and found it consistent with the ER sheet. The value for the month of July 2016 is also corrected by the PP. The error in the ER calculation sheet for the electricity generation is corrected. The Emission reduction for the monitoring period is reduced to 32,540 tCO2 from 41,649 tCO2. The assessment team has checked the ER calculation sheet and found it correct. Hence, CAR 01 is closed out satisfactorily.

CAR ID 02 Section no. E.7 Date: 03/04/2017

Description of CAR

PP is requested to provide the calibration certificates for the monitoring equipments for the monitoring period.


Following calibration certificates are attached. RRB WTGs- Year 2014 Suzlon WTGs- Year 2014 & 2016 During site visit meters were found in good health but due to delay in calibration PP has applied error factor in conservative manner.


Following calibration certificates are attached. RRB WTGs- Year 2014 Suzlon WTGs- Year 2014 & 2016


CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

There was a delay in calibration from December 2015 to July 2016 for Suzlon WTGs (7.5 MW). PP has provided the latest calibration certificate for the Suzlon WTGs (7.5 MW) dated 21/07/2016 valid up to 20/07/2017. However, ERs for the period for which calibration certificate was not available have been calculated by applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured values. In case of RRB WTGs (15 MW), the calibration certificate provided by the PP is dated 09/04/2014 with validity up to 08/04/2015. However, no calibration certificate has been provided for to cover for the period after 08/04/2015. PP has applied the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured values as correction factor for the entire monitoring period for RRB WTGs. This approach for the applying correction factor for estimation of ERs for the entire monitoring period in absence of valid calibration certificates is not in line with the requirements stated under paragraph 397 of VVS version 9.0 The ER calculation shall be revised in according with the provision of para 395 of VVS version 9.0.

CAR 02 is open.


Calibration certificates for RRB WTGs (15 MW, year 2015 & 2016) are attached herewith.


Calibration certificates for RRB WTGs (15 MW, year 2014, 2015 & 2016)


PP has provided the calibration certificate for the RRB WTGs for the year 2014, 2015 and 2016. The assessment team has checked the calibration certificates and found correct. Thus, application of delaying factor is not applicable for RRB WTGs under the project activity. The ER calculation sheet is revised accordingly and found correct. Hence, CAR 02 is closed out satisfactorily.

CAR ID 03 Section no. E.6.2 Date: 03/04/2017

Description of CAR

Monitoring parameters as available in Monitoring report is not consistent with the registered PDD. There are four monitoring parameters in the registered PDD whereas the MR discussed three monitoring parameters. PP is requested to clarify the same.


Fourth parameter, EGcontroller is Electricity generated at the controller end, is to be used as a backup in case the main meters at the substation fail .As both meters during current monitoring period found in accurate and good health hence PP found did not mention same in MR.


No document required.


The response provided the PP is acceptable to the verification team. However, the parameter, EGcontroller has not been included in the section D.2 of MR.

CAR 03 is open.


EGcontroller has now been included in the section D.2 of MR.


Controller readings for Suzlon (7.5 MW) and RRB (15 MW)


PP has now provided the details of EGcontroller in the revised MR. The assessment team has checked the same and found it correct and consistence with the registered PDD and hence accepted. The PP has provided the controller readings. The assessment team has checked the daily Generation Report (DGR)/ CMS Data and considered to be correct. Hence accepted. CAR 03 is closed out satisfactorily.

Table 4. FAR from this verification

FAR ID Xx Section No. Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Description of FAR

-


-


-


-

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

ANNEXURE 1: Assessment of data and parameters monitored

Monitoring Parameter

Requirement

Assessment/ Observation by the DOE

Data / Parameter: EGynet (EGy,export – EGy,import)

Description: Net electricity supplied to grid by the project

Unit: kWh

Measuring

frequency/Time

Interval:

The data is measured hourly and recorded monthly

Reported value: 36,285,131 (this value is before applying error factor)

Is measuring and

reporting frequency in

accordance with the

monitoring plan and

monitoring

methodology? (Yes /

No)

Yes

Details of monitoring

equipment:

Details of monitoring equipment are as:

Meter connected to SUZLON 7.5 MW WEGs

Type Electronic Trivector Meter

Electronic Trivector Meter

Sr. No. RJB01209 RJU02145

Change of meter during

crediting period

No No

Accuracy Class 0.2s 0.2s

Annual

testing/calibration

(2014) & Validity

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

Annual

testing/calibration

(2016) & Validity

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017

Meter connected to VESTAS RRB 15 MW WEGs



Sr. No. TNB03312 RJU02174


crediting period

No No

Annual

testing/calibration

(2014) & Validity

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

Annual

testing/calibration

(2015) & Validity

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

Annual

testing/calibration

(2016) & Validity

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017


The value is calculated from the difference of the net energy exported to the grid and the net energy imported from the grid as measured by the bi-directional main energy meter.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Is accuracy of the

monitoring equipment

as stated in the PDD?

If the PDD does not

specify the accuracy

of the monitoring

equipment, does the


represent good

monitoring practise?

Yes, the accuracy of the meters is 0.2s and is in accordance with the accuracy of monitoring equipment specified in the PDD.

Calibration frequency

/interval:

Is it as per monitoring

methodology /CDM EB

guidance / local or

national standards /

manufacturers

specification

These meters are periodically tested / calibrated by officials of SEB.

Is the calibration

interval in line with the

monitoring plan of the

PDD? If the PDD does

not specify the

frequency of

calibration, does the

selected frequency

represent good


Yes.

Company performing

the calibration

(internal or external

calibration):

1. C and I Calibrations Pvt. Ltd. (external). The agency is an NABL Accredited calibration/testing laboratory (as per iso/iec 17025:2005).

2. Yadav Measurement Pvt. Ltd. (external): The agency is an NABL accredited calibration and testing agency.

Did calibration confirm

proper functioning of

monitoring

equipment? (Yes / No):

Yes. Details of calibration of main and check energy meters are provided in Annexure 2 below.

Is (are) calibration(s)

valid for the whole

reporting period?


If applicable, has the

reported data been

cross-checked with

other available data?

Yes. The reported data was cross-checked with Joint meter reading records /08/ and electricity sale invoices /09/.

How were the values

in the monitoring

report verified?

Yes, the values were verified from Joint meter reading records /08/ and electricity sale invoices /09/.

Does the data

management (from

data generation to

emission reduction

calculation) ensure

correct transfer of data

and reporting of

emission reductions

and are necessary

QA/QC processes in

place?

Yes, the data management ensures correct transfer of data and reporting of emission reductions and all necessary QA/QC processes are in place.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

In case only partial

data are available

because activity levels

or non-activity

parameters have not

been monitored in

accordance with the

registered monitoring

plan, has the most

conservative

assumption

theoretically possible

been applied or has a

request for deviation

been approved?

Not applicable


Requirement


Data / Parameter: EG y, export

Description: Electricity export to grid by the project activity

Unit: kWh

Measuring

frequency/Time

Interval:


Reported value: 36,773,206 (this value is before applying error factor)

Is measuring and


accordance with the

monitoring plan and

monitoring

methodology? (Yes /

No)

Yes

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35


equipment:







crediting period

No No


Annual

testing/calibration

(2014) & Validity

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

Annual

testing/calibration

(2016) & Validity

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017






crediting period

No No

Annual

testing/calibration

(2014) & Validity

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

Annual

testing/calibration

(2015) & Validity

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

Annual

testing/calibration

(2016) & Validity

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017


The value is direct measurement as measured by the bi-directional main energy meter.

Is accuracy of the



If the PDD does not


of the monitoring

equipment, does the


represent good




/interval:


methodology /CDM EB

guidance / local or


manufacturers

specification


CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Is the calibration




not specify the

frequency of


selected frequency

represent good


Yes.

Company performing

the calibration


calibration):





monitoring




valid for the whole

reporting period?



reported data been

cross-checked with



How were the values

in the monitoring

report verified?


Does the data

management (from

data generation to

emission reduction

calculation) ensure


and reporting of

emission reductions

and are necessary

QA/QC processes in

place?



data are available


or non-activity

parameters have not

been monitored in

accordance with the


plan, has the most

conservative

assumption




been approved?

Not applicable


Requirement


Data / Parameter: EG y, import

Description: Electricity import from the grid by the project

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

Unit: kWh

Measuring

frequency/Time

Interval:


Reported value: 488,075 (this value is before applying error factor)

Is measuring and


accordance with the

monitoring plan and

monitoring

methodology? (Yes /

No)

Yes


equipment:







crediting period

No No


Annual

testing/calibration

(2014) & Validity

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

Annual

testing/calibration

(2016) & Validity

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017






crediting period

No No

Annual

testing/calibration

(2014) & Validity

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

Annual

testing/calibration

(2015) & Validity

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

Annual

testing/calibration

(2016) & Validity

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017


The value is a direct measurement as measured by the bi-directional main energy meter.

Is accuracy of the



If the PDD does not


of the monitoring

equipment, does the


represent good



CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35


/interval:


methodology /CDM EB

guidance / local or


manufacturers

specification


Is the calibration




not specify the

frequency of


selected frequency

represent good


Yes.

Company performing

the calibration


calibration):





monitoring




valid for the whole

reporting period?



reported data been

cross-checked with



How were the values

in the monitoring

report verified?


Does the data

management (from

data generation to

emission reduction

calculation) ensure


and reporting of

emission reductions

and are necessary

QA/QC processes in

place?


CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35


data are available


or non-activity

parameters have not

been monitored in

accordance with the


plan, has the most

conservative

assumption




been approved?

Not applicable

Monitoring Parameter Requirement Assessment/ Observation by the DOE

Data / Parameter: EGcontroller

Description: Electricity export to grid by the project activity

Unit: kWh

Measuring frequency/Time Interval: Daily

Reported value: 38,522,886

Is measuring and reporting frequency in

accordance with the monitoring plan and

monitoring methodology? (Yes / No)

Yes

Details of monitoring equipment: Panel meters installed at each WEG’s

Is accuracy of the monitoring equipment

as stated in the PDD? If the PDD does not

specify the accuracy of the monitoring

equipment, does the monitoring

equipment represent good monitoring

practise?

Yes.

Calibration frequency /interval:

Is it as per monitoring methodology /CDM

EB guidance / local or national standards

/ manufacturers specification

Controller meter is a self-calibrated type meters and does not require calibrations. This is a micro- processor based intelligent controller which has been specially designed for control of wind turbines.

Is the calibration interval in line with the

monitoring plan of the PDD? If the PDD

does not specify the frequency of

calibration, does the selected frequency

represent good monitoring practise?

NA

Company performing the calibration

(internal or external calibration):

NA

Did calibration confirm proper functioning

of monitoring equipment? (Yes / No):

NA

Is (are) calibration(s) valid for the whole

reporting period?

NA

If applicable, has the reported data been

cross-checked with other available data?

NA

How were the values in the monitoring

report verified?

NA

Does the data management (from data

generation to emission reduction

calculation) ensure correct transfer of

data and reporting of emission reductions

and are necessary QA/QC processes in

place?

Yes. This data is used for apportioning purpose by state electricity utility and in case of main and check meter failure.

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

In case only partial data are available

because activity levels or non-activity

parameters have not been monitored in

accordance with the registered

monitoring plan, has the most

conservative assumption theoretically

possible been applied or has a request for

deviation been approved?

Not applicable

CDM-VCR-FORM

Version 01.0 of 35

ANNEXURE 2: Calibration details of Main & Check Energy

Meters


Type Electronic Trivector Meter Electronic Trivector Meter


Change of meter during crediting

period No No

Annual testing/calibration (2015) &

Validity

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

24/12/2014 & Valid up to 23/12/2015

Annual testing/calibration (2016) & Validity

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017

21/07/2016 & Valid up to 20/07/2017


Type Electronic Trivector Meter Electronic Trivector Meter


Change of meter during crediting

period No No


Validity

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015

09/04/2014 & Valid up to 08/04/2015


Validity

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016

28/03/2015 & Valid up to 27/03/2016


Validity

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017

22/03/2016 & Valid up to 21/03/2017

- - - - -

Document information

Version Date Description

01.0 23 March 2015 Initial publication.

Decision Class: Regulatory Document Type: Form Business Function: Issuance Keywords: project activities, verifying and certifying

VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT - Carbon Check

Documents

Transcript of VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT - Carbon Check