Module 4.1 Project CycleAssessment of new procedures for registration and

issuance. Suggestions for improvement

Susanne.Haefeli-Hestvik@Tricorona.se

- Link to accreditation: Good but judge DOEs on ”real” issues i.e. better quality control please- Timelines: Above 15 days and workload is increasing

- Timelines of adjacent processes are high: approval of requests for deviation, monitoring plan change and design change notifications (let alone new methodology submissions)

- Scheduled reviews are re-scheduled

2

Form

2011 2012 2010

Low High Est-11 Low High Est-12

Registration 1700 2200 2000 700 1000 800 <900

Issuance 2200 2700 2400 3800 5500 4800 1200

Source: Workshop PDF-DIA February 2011 and further discussions with some DOEs and PPs

- Schedule assessment of answers to reviews from the start- Reduce time to answer reviews by DOEs/PPs to 2 weeks- Publish arguments made by the Secretariat and RIT- Reduce the RIT and Sec assessment from 2 to 1 week and the EB’s timeline to object from 3 to

1.- Chance for 30 minutes conference call with DOE within 48 hours both ways to clarify issues- Possibility to fix things quickly while still preserving the mechanism’s environmental integrity

and transparency. - Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request

for issuance procedure.

3

Form: My Wishlist

4

5

6

7

- Schedule assessment of answers to reviews from the start- Reduce time to answer reviews by DOEs/PPs to 2 weeks- Publish arguments made by the Secretariat and RIT- Reduce the RIT and Sec assessment from 2 to 1 week and the EB’s timeline to object from 3 to

1.- Chance for 30 minutes conference call with DOE within 48 hours both ways to clarify issues- Possibility to fix things quickly while still preserving the mechanism’s environmental integrity

and transparency. - Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request

for issuance procedure.

8

Form: My Wishlist

Possible?Attention: Wild thinking!!

- Have publication and CC/IRC in parallel?- Could we eventually move to registration date freely choseable?

• 467.79 instead of 467.81 MW: 0.004%!• Generation has been 15% higher last year than the previous 3

years.• Excel file: explain the calculation of some values

9

Content- Better quality control: stay within the rules/criteria- Allow for common sense and drop non-significant issues

My point is:• The DOE explained it was a typo example of blindly insisting on

procedures• Generation has been much higher only for one year, not

PERMANENT example of need for better quality control• Excel file example of scope for a quick call with the DOE.

Link to accreditation: This review should not count towards the DOE’s performance assessment

- Schedule assessment of answers to reviews from the start- Reduce time to answer reviews by DOEs/PPs to 2 weeks- Publish arguments made by the Secretariat and RIT- Reduce the RIT and Sec assessment from 2 to 1 week and the EB’s timeline to object from 3 to

1.- Chance for 30 minutes conference call with DOE within 48 hours both ways to clarify issues- Possibility to fix things quickly while still preserving the mechanism’s environmental integrity

and transparency. - Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request

for issuance procedure.

10

Discussion openers:

Attention: Wild thinking!!- Have publication and CC/IRC in parallel?- Could we eventually move to registration date freely choseable?

- Plus: workshop on step 2 of additionality tool and digitization