CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 1 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 Page 2 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 Page 3 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 Page 4 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 Page 5 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 Page 6 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 Page 7 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
03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
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
03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
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
03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
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
03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
6.
A review of calculations and assumptions
made in determining the GHG data and
emission reductions
Pohra and Barasmar
03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
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
03/04/2017 Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 8 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
Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
3. Devpal Dharmendra - 03/04/2017 Site location, implementation details
Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
4.. Bhatt C.P. The
Ecopreneurs 03/04/2017
CER calculation, Monitoring report and DVR resolution.
Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
5. Gupta Seema The
Ecopreneurs 03/04/2017
CER calculation, Monitoring report and DVR resolution.
Amit Anand, Amit Ranjan Mandal
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 Page 9 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 Page 10 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 Page 11 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
Means of verification DR
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 Page 12 of 35
E.6.2. Data and parameters monitored
Means of verification DR
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 Page 13 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
Means of verification DR
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 Page 14 of 35
and the registered PDD/B05/.
E.8.3. Calculation of leakage GHG emissions
Means of verification DR
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
Means of verification DR
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
Means of verification DR
Findings -
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 15 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
Means of verification DR
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 Page 16 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 Page 17 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 Page 18 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 Page 19 of 35
Appendix 2. Competence of team members and technical
reviewers
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 22 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::
22.5 MW Grid connected Wind Farm Project
by RSMML in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan
Version 02; Dated:
05/04/2017.
Version 03; dated
12/04/2014
RSMML
03
RSMML Final version of MR:
22.5 MW Grid connected Wind Farm Project
by RSMML in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan
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 Page 23 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
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 24 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
-
Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY
-
Documentation provided by project participant
-
DOE assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY
-
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.
Documentation provided by project participant
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.
Project participant response Date: 05/04/2017
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.
Documentation provided by project participant
Following calibration certificates are attached. RRB WTGs- Year 2014 Suzlon WTGs- Year 2014 & 2016
DOE assessment Date: 06/04/2017
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 25 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.
Project participant response Date: 12/04/2017
Calibration certificates for RRB WTGs (15 MW, year 2015 & 2016) are attached herewith.
Documentation provided by project participant
Calibration certificates for RRB WTGs (15 MW, year 2014, 2015 & 2016)
DOE assessment Date: 13/04/2017
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.
Project participant response Date: 05/04/2017
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.
Documentation provided by project participant
No document required.
DOE assessment Date: 06/04/2017
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.
Project participant response Date: 12/04/2017
EGcontroller has now been included in the section D.2 of MR.
Documentation provided by project participant
Controller readings for Suzlon (7.5 MW) and RRB (15 MW)
DOE assessment Date: 13/04/2017
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
-
Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY
-
Documentation provided by project participant
-
DOE assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY
-
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 26 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
Type Electronic Trivector Meter
Electronic Trivector Meter
Sr. No. TNB03312 RJU02174
Change of meter during
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
Accuracy Class 0.2s 0.2s
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 Page 27 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
monitoring equipment
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
monitoring practise?
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?
Yes. Details of calibration of main and check energy meters are provided in Annexure 2 below.
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 Page 28 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
Monitoring Parameter
Requirement
Assessment/ Observation by the DOE
Data / Parameter: EG y, export
Description: Electricity export to grid by the project activity
Unit: kWh
Measuring
frequency/Time
Interval:
The data is measured hourly and recorded monthly
Reported value: 36,773,206 (this value is before applying error factor)
Is measuring and
reporting frequency in
accordance with the
monitoring plan and
monitoring
methodology? (Yes /
No)
Yes
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 29 of 35
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
Type Electronic Trivector Meter
Electronic Trivector Meter
Sr. No. TNB03312 RJU02174
Change of meter during
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
Accuracy Class 0.2s 0.2s
The value is direct measurement as measured by the bi-directional main energy meter.
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, 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.
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 30 of 35
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?
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?
Yes. Details of calibration of main and check energy meters are provided in Annexure 2 below.
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.
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
Monitoring Parameter
Requirement
Assessment/ Observation by the DOE
Data / Parameter: EG y, import
Description: Electricity import from the grid by the project
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 31 of 35
Unit: kWh
Measuring
frequency/Time
Interval:
The data is measured hourly and recorded monthly
Reported value: 488,075 (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
Type Electronic Trivector Meter
Electronic Trivector Meter
Sr. No. TNB03312 RJU02174
Change of meter during
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
Accuracy Class 0.2s 0.2s
The value is a direct measurement as measured by the bi-directional main energy meter.
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, the accuracy of the meters is 0.2s and is in accordance with the accuracy of monitoring equipment specified in the PDD.
CDM-VCR-FORM
Version 01.0 Page 32 of 35
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
monitoring practise?
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?
Yes. Details of calibration of main and check energy meters are provided in Annexure 2 below.
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 Page 33 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
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 Page 34 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 Page 35 of 35
ANNEXURE 2: Calibration details of Main & Check Energy
Meters
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
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
Meter connected to VESTAS RRB 15 MW WEGs
Type Electronic Trivector Meter Electronic Trivector Meter
Sr. No. TNB03312 RJU02174
Change of meter during 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
- - - - -
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