Verification Report

Verification Report
- 1ST PERIODIC
ORISSA POWER CONSORTIUM LTD.

20MW SAMAL GRID-CONNECTED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN ORISSA, INDIA UNFCCC REF. NO. : 0895
Monitoring Period: 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31
(incl. both days)
Report No: 8106772122 10/269 Date: 2011-12-13
S01-VA50-A1
TV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstrae, 20 45141 Essen, Germany Phone: +49-201-825-3335 Fax: +49-201-825-3290 www.tuev-nord.de www.global-warming.de
Rev.9 / 2011-10-24
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program P-No: 8106772122 10/269
Report No. Rev. No. Date of 1st issue: Date of this rev.
Verification Report: Project:
8106772122 10/269
Title:
2011-12-13
Registration date:
2011-12-13
UNFCCC-No.:
20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India

Host Country:
2007-06-01
Verification No.:
0895
India
Crediting period:
1 Fixed (10y) Small Scale
st
periodic verification
To.: 2019-05-30
From: 2009-05-31
Renewable (7y)
Project Scale:
Large Scale Project Participant(s):

Host Party:
Other involved Parties:
Orissa Power Consortium Ltd., India
PTC India Financial Services Limited. - Switzerland Macquarie Bank Limited United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Client:
Project Owner:
Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Applied methodology/ies:

Title:
Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.

No.: Scope(s) / TA(s)
Consolidated baseline methodology for gridconnected electricity generation from renewable sources
Monitoring period (MP):
ACM0002 Version 6
No. of days:
1/ 1.2
Monitoring:
MP No.
2009-05-31 to 2011-0331 Monitoring report:

Title:
(both days included)
670
Draft version:
First
Final version:
20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India Verification team / Technical Review and Final Approval Emission reductions: [t CO2e] Summary of Verification Opinion:
Verification Team:
01
Technical review:
03
Final approval:
Manojkumar Borekar (TL, TE),Dr. Atul Takarkhede (TM, TE)

Verified amount
Swapnil Thanekar (TM, TE)
Rainer Winter Katja Beyer

As per draft MR:
Rainer Winter
As per PDD:
106789 (average) t /a Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. has commissioned the TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the 1st periodic verification of the project: 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India, with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the validated project design document, the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied approved CDM methodology, the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately, the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions, and the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in
60,583 t
60929
Page 2 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program P-No: 8106772122 10/269 a conservative and appropriate manner. TV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 60,583 t CO2e
Document information:
Filename:
No. of pages:
S01-VA050-A1.doc
79
Page 3 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Abbreviations:
CA CAR CDM CEA CER CO2 CO2eq CL DG ER FAR GHG GRIDCO HT MP MR OPCL O&M OPTCL PA PDD PP PPA QA/QC SEB UNFCCC XLS
Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Central Electricity Authority Certified Emission Reduction Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Clarification Request Diesel Generator Set Emission Reduction Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited High Tension Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Operation and Management Orissa Power Transmission Corporation Limited Project Activity Project Design Document Project Participant Power Purchase Agreement Quality Assurance / Quality Control State Electricity Board United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Emission Reduction Calculation Spread Sheet
Page 4 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Table of Contents
1. 1.1. 1.2. 2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8. 3.9. 3.10. 3.11. 3.12. 4. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 5.11.
Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 7 Objective 7 Scope 7 GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................... 9 Technical Project Description 9 Project Verification History 10 Involved Parties and Project Participants 10 Project Location 11 METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE .................................. 12 Verification Steps 12 Contract review 12 Appointment of team members and technical reviewers 13 Publication of the Monitoring Report 14 Verification Planning 14 Desk review 16 On-site assessment 16 Draft verification reporting 18 Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs 18 Final reporting 18 Technical review 19 Final approval 19 VERIFICATION FINDINGS ........................................................................... 20 SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS ........................................ 34 Implementation of the project 34 Project history 35 Special events 35 Compliance with the monitoring plan 36 Compliance with the monitoring methodology 36 Monitoring parameters 36 Monitoring report 39 ER Calculation 39 Quality Management 40 Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions 41 Overall Aspects of the Verification 41
Page 5 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
5.12. 6. 7.
Hints for next periodic Verification
41
VERIFICATION OPINION ............................................................................. 42 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 43
ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL ................................................................... 50 ANNEX 2: STATEMENTS OF COMPETENCE OF ALL INVOLVED PERSONNEL.......... 78
Page 6 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
1. INTRODUCTION
Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. has commissioned the TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to carry out the 1st periodic verification of the project 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The verifiers have reviewed the implementation of the monitoring plan (MP) in the registered CDM project. GHG data for the monitoring period was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/ of the UNFCCC. This report summarizes the findings and conclusions of this 1st periodic verification of the above mentioned UNFCCC registered project activity.
1.1.
Objective
The objective of the verification is the review and ex-post determination by an independent entity of the GHG emission reductions. It includes the verification of the: implementation and operation of the project activity as given in the PDD, compliance with applied approved methodology and the provisions of the monitoring plan, data given in the monitoring report by checking the monitoring records, the emissions reduction calculation and supporting evidence, accuracy of the monitoring equipment, quality of evidence, significance of reporting risks and risks of material misstatements.
1.2.
Scope
The verification of this registered project is based on the validated project design document /PDD/, the monitoring report /MR/, emission reduction calculation spread sheet /XLS/, supporting documents made available to the verifier and information collected through performing interviews and during the on-site assessment. Furthermore publicly available information was considered as far as available and required. The verification is carried out on the basis of the following requirements, applicable for this project activity: Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol /KP/, guidelines for the implementation of Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol as presented in the Marrakech Accords under decision 3/CMP.1 /MA/, and subsequent decisions made by the Executive Board and COP/MOP, Page 7 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
other relevant rules, including the host country legislation, CDM Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/, monitoring plan as given in the registered PDD /PDD/, Approved CDM Methodology ACM0002 version 6: Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources. Change in start date of crediting period/VAL-2/
Page 8 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1. Technical Project Description
The project activity is generation of electricity for a grid system using the power generation potential available at Samal barrage in the state of Orissa. The project with an installed capacity of 20 MW (5x4000 kW) will rely on the water discharges from Samal Barrage which had been constructed at Samal, 34 km downstream of Rengali Dam, across Brahmani river in Orissa. During the site visit (dated 2011-05-24 and 2011-05-25) the verification team checked the physical installation, verified the technical details of installed equipments and compared the number plate specifications of the installed equipments with the technical description as provided under the Supply contract facility performance data/TD/ and deems the project implementation as consistent with the description made during the validation. The key parameters of the project are given in Table 2-1:
Table 2-1: Technical data of the project activity
/TD/
Equipment 1. Turbine
Parameter Make Type No. of generating units Rated net head Rated discharge Make No. of units Type Rated speed Rated output Voltage between phases Rated Power factor
2. Generator
Value VA TECH, Faridabad Horizontal S Type Kaplan Turbine 5 m 9.85 m3/sec 52 TDPS, Bangalore 05 rpm kW kV synchronous type 750 4000 11 0.8
Unit -
The project activity with a total capacity of 20 MW has generated 64989 MWh net electricity during this monitoring period. The net electricity generated is measured by the installed energy meter and recorded monthly by Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) representative in the presence of representatives of Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. (OPCL). The electricity generated in the project activity is evacuated through Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) i.e. State owned Transmission Utility to the NEWNE Grid in India. The project activity generates electricity from
Page 9 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
water resource thereby displacing, electricity generated by fossil fuel fired power plants or future capacity additions in the NEWNE grid. Based on the assessment of the verification during the site visit and subsequent document review of submitted documents, it is confirmed that during this verification, covering the period 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31 (inclusive of both days), there is no change of the capacity of turbines used under the project activity. The proposed project activity has been implemented as described in the registered PDD. Also the project complies with all relevant statutory requirements. The amount of emission reductions over the monitoring period is 60,583 tCO2e.
2.2.
Project Verification History
Essential events since the registration of the project are presented in the following Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Project verification history
#
1 2 3
Item
Date of registration Start of crediting period 1st Monitoring period
Time
2007-06-01 2009-05-31 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31 (inclusive both days)
Status
Registered Approved by UNFCCC /VAL-2/ Ongoing
2.3.
Involved Parties and Project Participants
The following parties to the Kyoto Protocol and project participants are involved in this project activity (Table 2-3).
Table 2-3: Project Parties and project participants
Characteristic Host party
Party India
Project Participant Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.1 PTC India Financial Services Limited2
Other involved party/ies Switzerland
United Kingdom of Macquarie Bank Limited3 Great Britain and Northern Ireland
http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/T/I/N/TINOUBZI0BBX8TQKD8EE57WV7GNNZ2/Samal%20Host%20country%20approval.pdf?t=TDd8bHZ2a DdifDDrKPM46Ap-K20qBYkwmJ4R 2 http://cdm.unfccc.int/ModalitiesOfCommunication/forms/HUVVP9RKJ6NOA8NBZ4YWLLV7HCRE9IXA/create_pdf_form 3 http://cdm.unfccc.int/ModalitiesOfCommunication/forms/HUVVP9RKJ6NOA8NBZ4YWLLV7HCRE9IXA/create_pdf_form
Page 10 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
2.4.
Project Location
4
The details of the project location are given in Table 2-4:

Table 2-4: Project Location
No.
Host Country Region: Project location address: Latitude: Longitude:
Project Location
India Orissa Samal Village, Angul District 21 04'44N 85 07'45 E
The verification team undertook the site visit and document review of the geographical coordinates and confirms that the above mentioned project location is correct. Please refer closure of finding A1 for more details.
Please refer closure of finding A1
Page 11 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE
3.1.
Verification Steps
Contract review Appointment of team members and technical reviewers Publication of the monitoring report A desk review of the Monitoring Report/MR/ submitted by the client and additional supporting documents with the use of customised verification protocol /CPM/ according to the Validation and Verification Manual /VVM/, Verification planning, On-Site assessment, Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project developer and its contractors, Draft verification reporting Resolution of corrective actions (if any) Final verification reporting Technical review Final approval of the verification.
The verification consisted of the following steps:
The sequence of the verification is given in the Table 3-1 below:

Table 3-1: Verification sequenceTable
Topic
Assignment of verification Publication of Monitoring Report On-site visit Draft reporting finalised Final reporting finalised Technical review finalised
Time
2010-04-26/CON/ 2011-05-09 2011-05-24 and 2011-05-25 2011-01-31 2011-12-13 2011-12-13
3.2.
Contract review
the project falls within the scopes for which accreditation is held, Page 12 of 79
To assure that
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
the necessary competences to carry out the verification can be provided, Impartiality issues are clear and in line with the CDM accreditation requirements
a contract review was carried out before the contract was signed.
3.3.
Appointment of team members and technical reviewers
On the basis of a competence analysis and individual availabilities a verification team, consisting of one team leader and 2 additional team members, was appointed. The list of involved personnel, the tasks assigned and the qualification status are summarized in the Table 3-2 below.
Table 3-2: Involved Personnel Scheme 3) competence Technical 4) competence Verification 5) competence Host country Competence Qualification 2) Status On-site visit
Name
Company
Mr. Ms.
Manojkumar Borekar Swapnil Thanekar Atul Takarkhede
TUV India Pvt. Ltd. TUV India Pvt. Ltd. TUV India Pvt. Ltd. TUV NORD Cert GmBH TUV NORD Cert GmBH
TL, TE
Function
1)
SA
1.2
Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms.
TM, TE
LA
1.2
TM
1.2
Katja Beyer
TR3)
LA
Mr. Ms.
Rainer Winter
TR/FA
3)
SA
1.2
1) 2)
TL: Team Leader; TM: Team Member, TR: Technical review; OT: Observer-Team, OR: Observer-TR; FA: Final approval GHG Auditor Status: A: Assessor; LA: Lead Assessor; SA: Senior Assessor; T: Trainee; TE: Technical Expert 3) GHG auditor status (at least Assessor) 4) As per S01-MU03 or S01-VA070-A2 (such as 1.1, 1.2, ) 5) In case of verification projects
A)
Team Member: GHG auditor (at least Assessor status), Technical Expert (incl. Host Country Expert or Verification Expert), not ETE
Page 13 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
B)
No team member
All team members contributed to the review of documents, the assessment of the project activity and to the preparation of this report under the leadership of the team leader. Technical experts contributed to the assessment of special aspects of the project activity, e.g. technical or host country aspects. In order to qualify further personnel the project team was accompanied by observers and/or trainees as indicated in the table above. They are usually not considered as team members. Statements of competence for the above mentioned team members are enclosed in annex 6 of this report.
3.4.
Publication of the Monitoring Report
In accordance with the CDM M&P ( 62) the draft monitoring report, as received from the project participants, has been made publicly available on the dedicated UNFCCC CDM website prior to the verification activity commenced. Comments received are taken into account in the course of the verification, if applicable.
3.5.
Verification Planning
In order to ensure a complete, transparent and timely execution of the verification task the team leader has planned the complete sequence of events necessary to arrive at a substantiated final verification opinion. Various tools have been established in order to ensure an effective verification planning. Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning For the identification of potential reporting risks and the necessary detailed audit testing procedures for residual risk areas table A-1 is used. The structure and content of this table is given in Table 3-3 below.
Table 3-3: Table A-1; Identification of verification risk areas Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / Detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests)
Identification of potential reporting risk
Areas of residual risks
Additional verification testing performed
Page 14 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / Detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Identification, assessment and testing of management controls The potential risks of raw data generation have been identified in the course of the monitoring system implementation. The following measures were taken in order to minimize the corresponding risks. The following measures are implemented: Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) Having investigated the residual risks, the conclusions should be noted here. Errors and uncertainties are highlighted.
Additional verification testing performed
The following potential risks were identified and divided and structured according to the possible areas of occurance.
Despite the measures implemented in order to reduce the occurrence probability the following residual risks remain and have to be addressed in the course of every verification.
The additional verification testing performed is described. Testing may include: - Sample cross checking of manual transfers of data - Recalculation - Spreadsheet walk throughs to check links and equations - Inspection of calibration and maintenance records for key equipment - Check sampling analysis results Discussions with process engineers who have detailed knowledge of process uncertainty/error bands.
The completed table A-1 is enclosed in the Annex 1 (table A-1) to this report. Project specific periodic verification checklist In order to ensure transparency and consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a project specific verification protocol has been developed. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means and results of the verification. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet for verification It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifying DOE documents how a particular requirement has been proved and the result of the verification.
The basic structure of this project specific verification protocol for the periodic verification is described in Table 3-4. Page 15 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Table 3-4: Structure of the project specific periodic verification checklist Table A-2: Periodic verification checklist Checklist Item The checklist items in Table A-2 are linked to the various requirements the monitoring of the project should meet. The checklist is organised in various sections as per the requirements of the topic and the individual project activity. It further includes guidance for the verification team. Reference Gives reference to the information source on which the assessment is based on. Verification Team Comments The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist item in detail. It includes the assessment of the verification team and how the assessment was carried out. The reporting requirements of the VVM shall be covered in this section. Draft Conclusion Assessment based on evidence provided if the criterion is fulfilled (OK), or a CAR, CL or FAR (see below) is raised. The assessment refers to the draft verification stage. Final Conclusion In case of a corrective action or a clarification the final assessment at the final verification stage is given.
The periodic verification checklist (verification protocol) is the backbone of the complete verification starting from the desk review until final assessment. Detailed assessments and findings are discussed within this checklist and not necessarily repeated in the main text of this report. The completed verification protocol is enclosed in the annex (table A-2) to this report.
3.6.
Desk review
During the desk review all documents initially provided by the client and publicly available documents relevant for the verification were reviewed. The main documents are listed below: the last revision of the PDD including the monitoring plan/PDD/, the last revision of the validation report/VAL/, documentation of previous verifications/VER/ the monitoring report, including the claimed emission reductions for the project/MR/, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet/XLS/. Other supporting documents, such as publicly available information on the UNFCCC website and background information were also reviewed.
3.7.
On-site assessment
As most essential part of the verification exercise it is indispensable to carry out an inspection on site in order to verify that the project is implemented in accordance with the applicable criteria. Furthermore the on-site assessment is necessary to check the monitoring data with respect to accuracy to ensure the calculation of emission reductions. The main tasks covered during the site visit include, but are not limited to: Page 16 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
The on-site assessment included an investigation of whether all relevant equipment is installed and works as anticipated. The operating staff was interviewed and observed in order to check the risks of inappropriate operation and data collection procedures. Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting the selected monitored parameters were reviewed. The duly calibration of all metering equipment was checked. The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were audited to check their proper application. The monitoring data were checked completely. The data aggregation trails were checked via spot sample down to the level of the meter recordings. Before and during the on-site visit the verification team performed interviews with the project participants to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. Representatives of Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. and Zenith Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. (project consultant) including the operational staff of the plant were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarised in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Interviewed persons and interview topics
Interviewed Persons / Entities

1. Projects & Operations Personnel, Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.; India /IM 01/, /IM 02/; 2. Zenith Energy Services Pvt. Ltd, /IM 03/ -
Interview topics
General aspects of the project Technical equipment and operation Changes since validation / previous verification Monitoring and measurement equipment Remaining issues from validation/ previous verification Calibration procedures Quality management system Involved personnel and responsibilities Training and practice of the operational personnel Implementation of the monitoring plan Monitoring data management Data uncertainty and residual risks GHG emission reduction calculation Procedural aspects of the verification Maintenance Environmental aspects Tariff related information
Page 17 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
3.8.
Draft verification reporting
On the basis of the desk review, the on-site visit, follow-up interviews and further background investigation the verification protocol is completed. This protocol together with a general project and procedural description of the verification and a detailed list of the verification findings form the draft verification report. This report is sent to the client for resolution of raised CARs, CLs and FARs.
3.9.
Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs
Nonconformities raised during the verification can either be seen as a non-fulfilment of criteria ensuring the proper implementation of a project or where a risk to deliver high quality emission reductions is identified. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are issued, if: Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; Issues identified in a FAR during validation or previous verifications requiring actions by the project participants to be verified during verification have not been resolved. information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met.
The verification team uses the term Clarification Request (CL), which is be issued if:
Forward Action Requests (FAR) indicate essential risks for further periodic verifications. Forward Action Requests are issued, if: the monitoring and reporting require attention and / or adjustment for the next verification period.
For a detailed list of all CARs, CLs and FARs raised in the course of the verification pl. refer to chapter 4.
3.10. Final reporting

Upon successful closure of all raised CARs and CLs the final verification report including a positive verification opinion can be issued. In case not all essential issues could finally be resolved, a final report including a negative verification opinion is issued. The final report summarizes the final assessments w.r.t. all applicable criteria.
Page 18 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
3.11. Technical review

Before submission of the final verification report a technical review of the whole verification procedure is carried out. The technical reviewer is a competent GHG auditor being appointed for the scope this project falls under. The technical reviewer is not considered to be part of the verification team and thus not involved in the decision making process up to the technical review. As a result of the technical review process the verification opinion and the topic specific assessments as prepared by the verification team leader may be confirmed or revised. Furthermore reporting improvements might be achieved.
3.12. Final approval

After successful technical review an overall (esp. procedural) assessment of the complete verification will be carried out by a senior assessor located in the accredited premises of TV NORD. After this step the request for issuance can be started.
Page 19 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
4. VERIFICATION FINDINGS
In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the monitoring report/MR/, the calculation spreadsheet/XLS/, PDD/PDD/, the Validation Report/VAL/ and other supporting documents, as well as from the on-site assessment and the interviews are summarised. The summary of CAR, CL and FAR issued are shown in Table 4-1:
Table 4-1: Summary of CAR, CL and FAR
Verification topic
A General description of the project activity B Implementation of the project activity C Description of the monitoring system D Data and parameters monitored E - Emission Reductions Calculation SUM
No. of CAR
0 1 3 0 4 8
No. of CL
1 0 0 0 0 1
No. of FAR
0 0 0 0 0 0
The following tables include all raised CARs, CLs and FARs and the assessments of the same by the verification team. For an in depth evaluation of all verification items it should be referred to the verification protocols (see Annex).
Finding:
A1
Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding The PP needs to provide traceable reference for the
Describe the finding in unambiguous style; address the context (e.g. section)
geographical co-ordinates of the project activity mentioned under section A.3 of the MR. The section A.7 of the monitoring report is unclear regarding the changes to the start date of the crediting period post registration.
Page 20 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
Corrective Action #1
This section shall be filled by the PP. It shall address the corrective action taken in details.
A1 The Geographical coordinates mentioned in the MR version 01 are based on Project Design Document which is sourced from DPR (which provided the coordinates till minute resolution). Consequent to verification site visit finding by DOE, the exact geographical coordinates up to accuracy of second is incorporated under section A.3 the MR Ver 02. Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 The verification team checked section A.3 of the monitoring report and confirms that the PP has appropriately updated the coordinates up to the resolution till seconds. The coordinates consistent with and are substantiated by publicly available traceable link (http://wikimapia.org/#lat=21.0786338&lon=85.1291084&z=16 &l=0&m=b&v=1). The verification team confirms the correctness of the updated geographical coordinates substantiated by publically traceable link. Section A.7 of the monitoring report is deficient. The clarification request raised under finding A1 has been kept OPEN.
DOE Assessment #1
The assessment shall encompass all open issues in annex A2. In case of non-closure, additional corrective action and DOE assessments (#2, #3, etc.) shall be added.
The section A.7 is updated to include the clarity on the change of the start date of the crediting period post registration under submitted MR Ver 03. Reference : Revised MR, version 3 dated 2011-12-08 The MR is updated with respect to the details on the change in the start date of the crediting period/VAL-2/. The corrections are found traceable and appropriate, thus the clarification request raised under finding A1 has been CLOSED.
To be checked during the next periodic verification Appropriate action was taken Project documentation was corrected correspondingly Additional action should be taken The project complies with the requirements
DOE Assessment #2
Conclusion
Tick the appropriate checkbox
Page 21 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
B1
FAR
Classification CAR CL Below findings are raised by the Verification Team: Description of finding
1. The sentence accept delay in project .applicability of the methodology under section B.1 of monitoring report needs correction as it is correlating two independent issues. 2. The note provided under section B.1 is mis-leading for the reader, as the description mentions Shutdown due to less water in river and TRC river bed linings. Furthermore, the details of the shutdowns due to Insufficient water flows are missing. 1. The sentence is now corrected. The revised sentence is as follows No other significant events occurred during the monitored period, which may impact the applicability of the methodology. Thus, the issues are no more mixed with each other. 2. MR revised suitably and shut down details due to insufficient water are furnished. Log sheet is attached for your reference. The PP also clarified that there was no down times of the installed metering equipment responsible for monitoring the project activity inline with monitoring plan.
Page 22 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
DOE Assessment #1
B1 Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 1. The verification team checked and confirms that the sentence under section B.1 of monitoring report is now corrected (refer corrected sentence: No other significant events occurred during the monitored period, which may impact the applicability of the methodology). The delay in implementation of project is appropriately separated from the applicability condition. 2. Revision under section B.1 of monitoring report is accepted; supportive log of shut down is reviewed and found consistent with the reporting under monitoring report. The Annex-2 of the monitoring report is also reviewed and the details of major shut downs and reasons are verified based on the log sheet records/LOG/. The corrections are thus deemed appropriate. The Verification team also reviewed the JMR issued by the GRIDCO, LOG of real-time main meter readings captured by the 132 kV meter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR and the submitted calibration reports and deems that there was no downtime/ malfunction of installed metering system. The CAR raised under finding B1 has been CLOSED.
Conclusion
Finding:
Classification CAR
C1
CL FAR
Page 23 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
Description of finding
C1 1. The metering diagram under section C of monitoring report is inconsistent with single line diagram/site visit of the verification team. Appropriate corrections along with metering locations are missing. 2. The following sentence under section C of MR the calibration of theis as per the monitoring plan is not unambiguous. Furthermore, the role of shift in charge mentions maintaining reading on daily basis which is inconsistent with monitoring plan and methodology.
a. Suitable correction made under section C of monitoring report. The line diagram is updated by providing metering location for gross and auxiliary meters which are in control of PP and the main and check meter at 132 kV substation which are sealed and in control of OPTCL. b. Appropriate changes have been incorporated under section C of revised MR.
Page 24 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
DOE Assessment #1
C1 Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 a. The section C of the monitoring report is appropriately updated and includes the line diagram providing the metering points. The verification team checked the same with the help of submitted Single Line Diagram/SLD/ issued by Chief Engineer, OPTCL, Bhubaneswar. The verification team confirms that the line diagram providing the metering points is in line with the Single Line Diagram/SLD/ and deemed appropriate. b. OK, the section C of revised monitoring report is now appropriately mentions that the Plant Manager will be responsible to carry out the calibrations as per provisions of the monitoring plan. Furthermore, the monitoring report now clearly states that the frequency of monitoring electrical readings will be hourly (in place of daily). In additional the PP has submitted the log of the real time meter readings captured by 132 kV substation main meter/LOG/ to the verification team in order to establish the conformance to the monitoring frequency. Additionally the PP has also submitted Electrical Log Sheet to confirm hourly monitoring of the gross power generation. The shift engineer is also noting the net electricity exported to the grid on daily basis and prepares the consolidated Daily/Monthly Generation/ Export details work sheet for cross verifying it with the JMR issued by the GRIDCO.
The CAR raised under finding C1 has been CLOSED.

Conclusion
Finding:
Classification CAR
C2
CL FAR
Page 25 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
C2 a. appointment of the Internal auditor b. audit report on monthly basis c. hourly monitoring records of 132 kV sub-station meter
Description of finding The PP needs to submit the following to the verification team:
DOE Assessment #1
a. Appointment letter of internal auditor is enclosed. b. Audit reports are enclosed. Furthermore, PP wishes to clarify that, the audit reports are prepared on every month and also half yearly. The monthly & half yearly reports are enclosed. c. The electronic data of Electricity Supplied to the grid received from GRIDCO Ltd., is provided to the DOE for verification. 1. Appointment Letter of Mr. K. Yogeshwar Rao dated 2009-10-03 is provided to the Verification Team. The appointment letter clearly mentions the roles and responsibilities of the Internal Auditor. The Verification Team also studied the monthly reports issued by Mr. K. Yogeshwar Rao to the management. The Verification team during the site visit interviews noted that Mr. K. Yogeshwar Rao was involved during the entire cycle of CDM validation, was responsible for CDM activities and thus possess the experience and knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, external independent agency was also appointed to support Mr. K. Yogeshwar Rao for the monthly as well as half yearly reporting and internal audits. 2. Audit reports on monthly basis are submitted to the Verification Team. The half yearly reports are also submitted. The verification team found that the audit report is drafted after adopting appropriate methods to verify the compliance to monitoring plan (ex. Periodicity, checks of data, appropriateness verification of generation Vs auxiliary consumption and the net export to grid etc). 3. Based on the above finding the PP approached the state electricity board which has provided the covering letter signed by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited/LOG/ along with the log of real time captured data from the 132 kV main meter. The CAR raised under finding C2 has been CLOSED. Page 26 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
Conclusion
C2
Finding:
C3
Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding The PPs substantiation under section C of MR regarding
Training for Samal Personnel is insufficient to demonstrate appropriate steps undertaken by PP. Furthermore, clarification is requested regarding term designated person incharge. The project proponent has executed O&M Agreement with M/s. Manihamsa Power Projects Ltd., on 2009-02-23 for operation and maintenance of the plant. As per Clause 2.2.2 of the O&M Agreement, the OPCL staff are trained and working under the functional guidance and control of O&M contractor. The O&M contractor has provided training to the following personnel of the project proponent.
Name of the employee
Designation
1. Mr.G.P.Mahapatra, 2. Mr.S.K.Mishra, 3. Mr.Suryakanta Bisi 4. Mr.Bharat Relangi 5. Mr.Rath Babu 6. Mr.Manoj Swain 7. Mr.Samantray
PPS DGM (Site) Asst.Manager Elec. Jr.Manager Mech. Asst.Manager Tech Asst.Manager Sr.Exec. Officer
Designated person in charge is Necessary correction made in the MR.
General
Manager.
Page 27 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
DOE Assessment #1
C3 Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 As per Clause 2.2.2 of the O&M Agreement//APR/, the OPCL staff are trained and working under the functional guidance and control of O&M contractor. This was also verified based on the site visit interviews. The verification team also acknowledges that the appropriate corrections are included under section C of the monitoring report and hence clarity is included by correcting the term designated person incharge to General Manager.
The CAR raised under finding C3 has been CLOSED.

Conclusion
Finding:
E1
Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding Material mis-statement is observed in the ER sheet for the
parameter Electricity Exported to grid for the month of September 2010, August 2010 and May 2010. The appropriate corrections made on monthly export readings for the month of September 2010, August 2010 and May 2010. Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 and corresponding emission reduction worksheet: The reading of i. May 2010 is consistent with JMR. ii. August 2010 is consistent with JMR. iii. September 2010 is consistent with JMR. The Verification team has checked the ER sheet with the JMR readings. The CAR raised under finding E1 has been CLOSED.
DOE Assessment #1
Page 28 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
Conclusion
E1
Finding:
E2
Classification CAR CL FAR Description of finding During site visit and document review the assessment team
DOE Assessment #1
found that the monitoring parameter Electricity supplied to the grid is recorded on daily basis the monitoring parameters are archived on paper (log books), which is not in line monitoring plan under registered PDD. PP needs to clarify. As per the monitoring plan in the registered PDD, the parameter Electricity supplied to the grid is to be measured on hourly basis and to record every month. The energy meters (main and check) installed at sub-station are having a facility to measure the said parameter at 15 minute interval and the data records electronically. The electronic data obtained from the GRIDCO Limited is furnished to the DOE for verification. The hourly data maintained by the O&M contractor is also furnished to the DOE for verification. Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 The meter is accessible for taking readings (reference: Site visit observation of Assessment Team). The submitted supportive documents in form of real time log of the 132 kV main meter readings/LOG/ for hourly monitoring is reviewed by the verification team. The CAR raised under finding E2 has been CLOSED.
Conclusion
Page 29 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
Classification Description of finding
E3
CAR CL FAR
1. Section E.1 of MR is lacks the baseline emission calculations and the stepwise approach adopted to calculate the baseline emission factor. Furthermore, the monitoring approach adopted for parameter EF_OMy is inconsistent with monitoring plan. 2. During the site visit verification team found DG installed at the project site which acts as a backup to power plant, however same is not the part of registered monitoring plan. Clarification is requested why the same is not part of monitoring plan.
1. Baseline emission calculation and stepwise approach for baseline emission factor furnished in revised MR.
2. As per the methodology ACM0002 Ver. 06 monitoring
of project emissions due to combustion of fossil fuel i.e., diesel is not required. Further the expected emissions from operation of DG set during emergency (while project plant under shut down and also grid failure at the same time which is very rare) are very negligible and much less than 1%. Even if we apply requirements of VVM footnote 78 of VVM version 01.2, inclusion of this parameter is not required though methodology also does not specifically require it. Hence monitoring of emissions due to operation of DG set is not part of the registered monitoring plan. The electricity generated by DG set during entire monitoring period (i.e., from Oct 2009 to Mar 2011) is 0.000071 GWh and percentage of emissions from DG set is 0.0001% as compared with actual emission reductions occurred during monitored period. Thus, emission reduction due to DG Set is negligible.
Page 30 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
DOE Assessment #1
E3 Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 1. The calculation for the baseline emission factor is incorrect as parameter EF_OMy is not monitored in line with the monitoring plan of registered PDD. The finding is KEPT OPEN. 2. The PP has submitted the summary of the diesel consumption to the verification team to confirm the HSD consumption, electricity generated by DG and hence confirmation on the emissions due to DG usage. To conform the unit generation from the DG the PP has submitted supportive of the Electricity Duty paid against the generation of power from the DG. Based on the submitted evidence and review of above calculation the verification team acknowledges that the contribution of the emissions due to DG are negligible and thus need not be part of the monitoring plan. Finding is CLOSED. The CAR raised under finding E3 has been KEPT OPEN.
1. Appropriate corrections are included under the section E.1 of monitoring report and emission reduction worksheet. Reference : Revised MR, version 3 dated 2011-12-08 1. The verification team noted that the PP has appropriately calculated the operating margin in line with registered PDD and appropriately included baseline emission calculation with stepwise approach for calculating baseline emission factor under section E.1. Please refer section 5.6 of the report for detailed assessment on appropriateness of the operating margin and the baseline emission factor. The CAR raised under finding E3 has been CLOSED.
DOE Assessment #2
Conclusion
Finding:
Classification CAR
E4
CL FAR
Page 31 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
E4 observed by the PP. The information regarding calibration of main and check meters were provided in detail under section- C of revised MR.
Description of finding The MR lacks information pertaining calibration schedule
The PP requests the DOE to refer EB 52 Annex 60 Guidelines for assessing compliance with the calibration frequency requirements. As per para 8 of the said guideline, in the cases where calibration frequency for measuring equipments is not specified either in the monitoring methodology or the monitoring plan, the DOE shall ensure that the equipments are calibrated either in accordance with the specifications of the local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer specification. If local/national standards or the manufacturer specification is not available, international standards may be used.
Since neither the monitoring methodology nor the monitoring plan in the registered PDD specified the calibration frequency for measuring equipments, the PP has to follow the specifications of the local / national standards or as per the manufacturer specification for calibration frequency, as per the above guideline.
As per the National Standard i.e., CEA Notification dt.17.03.2006, Para 18 - Calibration and Periodical testing of meters, all interface meters have to be tested at least once in five years.
Please appreciate that though the PP has to follow the calibration frequency for once in two tariff years as indicated in the PPA clause no. 9.2.2, the PP has carried out the calibration of energy meters on 2009-10-11 and on 2010-0211 which is meeting the PPA requirement of calibration once in two tariff years . Calibration reports already provided to the DOE.
Page 32 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Finding:
DOE Assessment #1
E4 Reference : Revised MR, version 2 dated 2011-07-28 In line with the guidance EB52 Annex 60, the approach adopted by PP can be assessed and acceptable due to following conclusions 1. The assessment team verified the technical information of the meters and the national metering guidelines/ceam/ (and hence local/regional practices) as well as the set of PPA/PPA/. 2. The PP at the time of registration of the project did not update the PDD with respect to frequency of calibration schedule as it could control the calibration of the electricity meters since it was under the purview of OPTCL/PPA/ . As per PPA the calibration frequency is two years. 3. The calibration was performed within the above accepted limit of Once in 2 years /PPA/ for applied monitoring period. 4. The error detected during the calibration check was below the accuracy class of the meters/CAL/ so the meters were concluded to be working in line with the designed accuracy limits. The CAR raised under finding E4 has been CLOSED.
Conclusion
Page 33 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
5. SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS

The following paragraphs include the summary of the final verification assessments after all CARs and CRs are closed out. For details of the assessments pl. refer to the discussion of the verification findings in chapter 4 and the verification protocol (Annex 1).
5.1.
Implementation of the project
During the current verification, a site visit was carried out on 2011-05-24 and 201105-25. The assessment team checked the installed TGs involved in the project activity during the site visit and found that the implementation of the project activity is in line with the registered PDD/PDD//IM01//IM02//TD/ (please also refer section 2.1, Table 21: Technical data of the plant). None of the equipments involved in the project activity including the monitoring equipments i.e. energy meters have been reportedly exchanged / replaced/CAL/. The equipments are subject to a well defined preventive maintenance schedule/MMS-1,2/. The assessment team also verified the same by checking the generation data during the site visit/JMR/. The project is currently operational as per the submitted records/PDD//JMR//IM01//IM02/ and the same was also verified during the site visit assessment. On the basis of this site visit and the reviewed project documentation it can be confirmed that w.r.t. the realized technology, the project equipments, as well as the monitoring and metering equipment, the project has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PDD. The verification team also identified change in the applied tariff of the project activity, therefore decided to access the impact of changed tariff on project additionality. The candidate project was registered on 2007-06-01 based on the input parameters that were available at that point of time, including tariff. However, consequent upon a steep increase in project cost, the tariff underwent revision as shown in the following table: Year I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Original Tariff (INR/kWh) 1.97 2.07 2.01 1.95 1.97 1.97 1.92 1.86 1.80 1.83 Revised tariff (INR/kWh)
3.60
Annex 67, EB 48 requires the DOE to reassess the additionality in cases where changes impact the validity of investment analysis, thus affecting the additionality of Page 34 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
the project activity. Since in this instant case, the upward revision affect additionality, DOE reassessed the additionality of the project keeping in view the guidelines given vide paragraph 8 of Annex 67, EB 48. Accordingly only the changed parameters have been modified in the original spread sheet calculations. Actual generation5 for the first two completed years of operation has been taken, as the project could not achieve the projected generation due to lower discharge and since the project additionality is being reassessed, actual generation is more appropriate. The reassessment reveals that the financial indicator will go up from 10.31% as envisaged at the time of registration to 12.47% as against the benchmark of 15.53% considered at the time of registration. Thus, the project will continue to remain additional. In this context, it is observed that though the tariff has undergone an upward revision (consequent upon the cost overrun in the project cost), it was not within the control of the Project Participant6. Moreover, DOE is also convinced that the PP could not have been aware of the impending revision in the tariff at the time of validation and registration as the tariff was revised only vide Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission order dated 2011-01-14/ADD/ based on the hearing conducted on 201101-07/ADD/, i.e., four years after registration of the project. Considering the facts that the tariff revision was not within the control of PP, PP could not have been aware of the impending revision of tariff and that even the application of revised tariff does not render the project non-additional, DOE concludes that the project is additional and no additional measures are necessary as the project is implemented in line with registered PDD.
5.2.
Project history
During the validation the validating DOE DNV Certification, International Climate Change Services has not raised issues that could not be closed or resolved during the validation stage and so no remaining issues are there in the validation report/VAL/. Furthermore as this is the 1st periodic verification, so no issues from former verifications are to be considered.
5.3.
Special events
Actual generation and the invoices raised form part of the worksheet Paragraph 5 (d) of Annex 67, EB 48 states, Different values of those actual operational parameters relevant to determination of emission reduction, which are within the control of project participant and which result in the IRR passing the benchmark as described in the registered PDD. Neither the cost overrun nor the consequent tariff revision was within the control of PP.
Page 35 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
No special events with effect on the monitoring of the project have been observed during the monitoring period. The verification team identified inconsistencies under section B.1 of the monitoring report and raised CAR under finding B1, bullet 1,2 . In reply to the finding B1, bullet 1, the PP has appropriately revised section B.1 of monitoring report and appropriately separated implementation of project activity and applicability conditions. In reply to the finding B1, bullet 2, the PP has appropriately revised section B.1 and added annex-2 to monitoring report to address details of downtimes of equipments & reasons.
5.4.
Compliance with the monitoring plan
The monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to the registered monitoring plan. All necessary monitoring instruments are installed. The measuring devices are well known and state of the art. The verification team found no inconsistencies in the MR with respect to approved monitoring plan/PDD/. During the verification process no significant lack of evidence was detected.
5.5.
Compliance with the monitoring methodology
The monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology ACM0002, Version 06: Consolidated Baseline Methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources and thus reflect the requirements of the registered monitoring plan /PDD/.
5.6.
Monitoring parameters
During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in section B.7.1 of registered PDD/PDD/) have been verified with regard to the appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation, the accuracy, and applied QA/QC measures. The results as well as the verification procedure are described parameter-wise in the project specific verification checklist. The verification team has raised finding E1 as the monitoring parameters were not appropriately reported and hence material mis-statement was identified. In reply the appropriate corrections were made by the PP and the finding was CLOSED by the Verification team. The verification team identified that the section E.1 of MR lacks the baseline emission calculations and the stepwise approach adopted to calculate the baseline emission factor. In reply the PP has arrived at the emission factor applicable for the applied monitoring period. The assessment is as below: The monitoring period for the project activity is 2009-05-31 to 2011-03-31(both days inclusive) As per the registered monitoring plan, the operating margin is determined exPage 36 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
post. The latest version of the CEA data base available during the monitoring period is utilized by the PP for determination of emission factor. The verification team checked the monitored OM values following the below method as indicated below: Period 31/05/2009 to 31/03/2010- The available version of CEA was version 5. Please refer below snapshot from CEA version057. Simple Operating Margin (tCO2/MWh) (incl. Imports) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 NEWNE 1.02 1.01 1.00 South 1.01 1.00 0.99 India 1.02 1.01 1.00
2008-09 1.01 0.97 1.01
Ex post option: If the ex post option is chosen, the emission factor is determined for the year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate the emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year y-1 may be used. If the data is usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year proceeding the previous year y-2 may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used throughout all crediting periods. The PP has appropriately selected the data vintage y-1 i.e. value expressed for 2008-09 i.e. OM = 1.006 Now for the vintage period 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011- the available version of CEA is Version 68, please refer below snapshot: Simple Operating Margin (tCO2/MWh) (incl. Imports) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 NEWNE 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 South 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.99 India 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.00
2008-09 1.01 0.97 1.01
2009-10 0.98 0.94 0.98
Ex post option: If the ex post option is chosen, the emission factor is determined for the year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate the emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year y-1 may be used.
7 8
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/planning/cdm_co2/cdm_co2.htm http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/planning/cdm_co2/cdm_co2.htm
Page 37 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
If the data is usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year proceeding the previous year y-2 may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used throughout all crediting periods. The PP has appropriately selected the data vintage y-1 i.e. value expressed for i.e. OM = 0.977 The PP has appropriately considered the ex-ante value of the build margin (880.33 tCO2/GWh )from the registered PDD. The combined margin emission factor (baseline emission factor) with the default values used for wOM (0.5) and wBM (0.5) are appropriately utilized
EFy =EF_OMy x W OM + EFBM, y x W BM Where, WOM = Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%) WBM = Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%) EFBM, y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) EF_OMy = Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) For vintage: 31/05/2009 to 31/03/2010 (inclusive both days) EFy = 1.006 0.5 + 0.88033 0.5 EFy = 0.943 t CO2/MWh For vintage: 01/04/2010 to 31/03/2011(inclusive both days) EFy = 0.9777 0.5 + 0.88033 0.5 EFy = 0.929 t CO2/MWh
Comparison of the monitored parameter with respect to the value determined at time of validation Vintage Value (t CO2/MWh) EF_OMy EFBM, y
1.006 0.9777 0.88033 0.88033 EFy Applied to monitoring period 0.943 0.929 EFy (as reported in PDD) 0.963 0.963
Assessment
31/05/2009 to 31/03/2010
01/04/2010
to
31/03/2011
The ex-post monitoring of parameter EFy yields conservative value compared to the estimated value during registration as the OM value has decreased.
Page 38 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
The monitoring report provides a list of all parameters that need to be monitored which is in line with the monitoring plan provided in the PDD of the registered project which was evaluated during the validation process. The reporting /MR2/ /XLS2/ is in line with the requirements of the validated monitoring plan as well as with the applied methodology ACM 0002, version 6 /ACM0002/. The reporting procedures reflect the requirements of the monitoring plan /PDD/. The net electricity exported is recorded once every month by GRIDCO Limited. This data form the basis of emission reduction calculation. All records needed for monitoring of net electricity exported to grid are available. All values are available for purpose of monitoring reporting. There are no delays in the calibration schedules undertaken by the PP (please refer closure of finding E4). The Verification team also acknowledges that the monitoring parameters Plant Identification for OM, GENj,k,l,y (Electricity imported to Grid.), GEN j,k,m,y (Electricity generation of the plant j,k,m.) are not separately monitored as the values of OM is directly obtained from the published CEA database. With appropriate closure of finding E1 and finding E4, it can be confirmed that all monitoring parameters have been measured / determined without material misstatements and in line with monitoring plan.
5.7.
Monitoring report
A draft monitoring report was submitted to the verification team by the project participants. The team has made this report publicly available prior to the start of the verification activities. No comments were received. During the verification, mistakes and needs for clarification were identified. The PP has carried out the requested corrections so that it can be confirmed that the Monitoring report is complete and transparent and in accordance with the registered PDD and other relevant requirements please refer section 4 of this report.
5.8.
ER Calculation
During the verification mistakes in the draft ER calculation were identified. This has been summarized in CAR E1, CAR E2, CAR E3 and CAR E4 which was eventually closed out. The baseline emission factor EFy is taken ex-post in line with the calculation method as established in line with registered PDD/PDD/. The Verification team also noted that the section 3.6 of validation report/VAL/mentions the emission factor as ex-ante which is considered as editorial mistake (further assessment of conservativeness is determined under section 5.6 table Comparison of the monitored parameter with respect to the value determined at time of validation to consolidate the conservativeness of determined value). Based on the above assessment and the detailed assessment under section 5.6 the verification team deems the calculated emission factor values as appropriate, corrected and in line with the PDD/PDD/. During the finalization of the project activity, it was confirmed that the ER calculation is overall correct. The approach of calculation was in line with the Page 39 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
registered PDD/PDD/ as well as covered in detail in the ER sheet/XLS2/. For the start and end of the crediting period, the approaches as defined under Annex 3 of the PDD/PDD/.The calculation approach was verified to be in line with the requirements. As a result the final emission reductions achieved during the monitoring period are equal to the baseline emissions 60,583 tCO2e as the project emissions and leakage emissions are zero.
5.9.
Quality Management
Quality Management procedures for measurements, collection and compilation of data, data storage and archiving/JMR/, calibration/CAL/, maintenance/IM01/, /IM02/, /MANT/ and training of personnel in the framework of this CDM project activity have been predefined being a multiple party involvement in O & M and monitoring of the project equipments. The procedures defined can be assessed as appropriate for the purpose. No significant deviations thereof have been observed during the verification. The assessment team verified the monitoring arrangements referring to the registered monitoring plan/PDD/ as well as the applicable methodology. a. The assessment team verified the technical information of the meters and the national metering guidelines/ceam/ (and hence local/regional practices) as well as the set of PPA/PPA/. b. The calibration frequency was not specified in PDD, thus the local practices adopted by the regional SEB i.e. OPTCL under its PPA/PPA/ and the CEA guidelines/ceam/ which require the HT meters need to be re-calibrated once in every 5 years. c. The calibration was performed within the above accepted limit of Once in 2 years d. The error detected during the calibration check was below the accuracy class of the meters/CAL/, so the meters were concluded to be working in line with the accuracy limits defined by the meter manufacturer. The assessment team, verified all the calibration certificates/CAL/ available for the project activity since the last calibration from the previous verification and observed it to be compliant and within two years i.e. calibration frequency.
Meter Meter Serial No. Accuracy Class Testing Date Observation
2009-10-11 Main meter APMO 2439 0.2 2010-02-11 2009-10-11 Check meter APMO 2685 0.2 2010-02-11
Error was permissible limit Error was permissible limit Error was permissible limit Error was permissible limit
within within within within
Page 40 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
5.10. Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions

The MR includes a comparison of the calculated actual emission reductions with the ex-post calculated values in the registered PDD. The calculated value was found to be lower than the ex-post determined value, thus no further justification was required.
5.11. Overall Aspects of the Verification

All necessary and requested documentation was provided by the project participants so that a complete verification of all relevant issues could be carried out. Access was granted to all installations of the plant which are relevant for the project performance and the monitoring activities. No issues have been identified indicating that the implementation of the project activity and the steps to claim emission reductions are not compliant with the UNFCCC criteria and relevant guidance provided by the COP/CMP and the CDM EB (clarifications and/or guidance).
5.12. Hints for next periodic Verification

No FARs have been raised during the course of First Periodic verification. The verification team found all systems in place and no specific violation to applicable CDM requirements were observed.
Page 41 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
6. VERIFICATION OPINION
Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. has commissioned the TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the 1st periodic verification of the project: 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India, with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The project reduces GHG emissions due to electricity generation by making use of available hydro potential at the site to meet the regional electricity demand. This verification covers the period from 200905-31 to 2011-03-31 (including both days). In the course of the verification 08 Corrective Action Requests (CAR) and 01 Clarification Requests (CL) were raised. The verification is based on the monitoring report, revised monitoring report, the monitoring plan as set out in the registered PDD, the validation report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the TV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participant. As a result of this verification, the verifier confirms that: all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the validated project design document. the monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied approved CDM methodology, i.e., ACM0002 version 6. the installed equipment essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately. the monitoring system is in place and functional. The project has generated GHG emission reductions. As the result of the 1st periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 60,583 t CO2e
Pune, 2011-12-13
Essen, 2011-12-13
Mr. Manojkumar Borekar TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program Verification Team Leader
Rainer Winter TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program Final Approval
Page 42 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
7. REFERENCES
Table 7-1: Documents provided by the project participant(s)
Reference /APR/
Document
/CAL/
Annual performance report from 2009-10-11 to 2011-03-31 regarding the monitoring period mentioning the monthly generation, generation hours, down time hours and plant load factor. Monthly internal audit report for audit undertaken by PP and supported by Third Party (Zenith Energy Services) Six monthly internal audit report for audit undertaken by PP and supported by Third Party (Zenith Energy Services) Extract of O & M contract evidencing the provision for training of PPs personnel
Calibration requirements of all the equipments installed to monitor all the data and parameter being measured in the project activity: 1. Minutes of meeting for the testing of accuracy of Main Meter (APMO 2439) and check meter (APMO 2685) dated 2010-02-11 jointly signed by representative of OPTCL, OPCL and Secured Meter 2. Installation, commissioning and testing of accuracy of Main Meter (APMO 2439) and check meter (APMO 2685) dated 2009-10-11 jointly signed by representative of OPTCL, OPCL and Secured Meter National Standard i.e., CEA Notification dated 2006-03-17, Para 18 Calibration and Periodical testing of meters, all interface meters have to be tested at least once in five years. 1. Commissioning Report for Unit No 1 dated 11-10-2009 Andritz Hydro 2. Commissioning Report for Unit No 2 dated 11-10-2009 Andritz Hydro. 3. Commissioning Report for Unit No 3 dated 11-10-2009 Andritz Hydro 4. Commissioning Report for Unit No 4 dated 11-10-2009 Andritz Hydro 5. Commissioning Report for Unit No 5 dated 11-10-2009 Andritz Hydro. 6. Synchronisation Report of Samal H.E.P dated 11-10-2009 from from from from from
/ceam/
/CR/
Page 43 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Reference
Document
7. Declaration of Commercial Operation of 20 MW Samal SHEP from GRIDCO Limited dated 30-01-2010. /ED/ Bio Data of Sri Gopal Prasad Mohapatra (B.Sc. Engg Electrical) designation Power Plant Superintendent. Bio Data of Suryakanta Bisi (Diploma in Electrical Engineering) designation Assistant Manager (Electrical). Bio Data of Appa Rao (Diploma Mechanical) designation Mechanical Supervisor. Bio Data of Yuva Nagarjuna (B Tech E.E.E) designation Shift Incharge. Joint meter reading from GRIDCO LIMITED for monitoring period 2009-10-11 to 2011-03-31(inclusive both days). Invoices raised by PP for period of 2009-10-11 to 2011-03-31 LOG of real-time main meter readings captured by the 132 kV meter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR. Machine LOG Sheet for monitoring turbine performance Log of downtime hours on daily basis in form of worksheet Proof of HSD consumption in form of electricity duty Maintenance schedule as per the O & M Contract Routine and Daily Check list of Electrical equipments Check list for Mechanical equipment 1. Monitoring Report for project activity 20MW Samal connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India dated 05-04 (Version 01) 2. Monitoring Report for project activity 20MW Samal connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India dated 07-28 (Version 02) 3. Monitoring Report for project activity 20MW Samal connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India dated 12-08 (Version 03) 1. Employees list with respect to CDM. 2. Roles and responsibilities of various officials Power Purchase Agreement Between PTC India Limited and Grid2011Grid2011Grid2011-
/JMR/
/LOG/
/MMS/
/MR/
/ORG/
/PPA/
Page 44 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Reference
Document
Orissa Power Consortium Limited dated 2004-10-21. /SC/ Consent to operate granted under section 25/26 of water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under section 21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 dated 2010-1129. Electrical Single Line Diagram of the power plant approved by the Chief Engineer, OPTCL Bhubaneshwar Technical details of turbines (S-Type, Kaplan) and generators (750 RPM, 4000 kW at 11 kV, 3 Phase, 50 Hz, 0.8 PF) in line with Supply Contract Facility Performance Data or Guaranteed Technical Particulars. 1. Emission reduction calculation sheet corresponding to monitoring report version 01 2. Emission reduction calculation sheet corresponding to monitoring report version 02 3. Emission reduction calculation sheet corresponding to monitoring report version 03
/SLD/
/TD/
/XLS/
Table 7-2: Background investigation and assessment documents
Reference
/ACM0002/
Document
CDM Methodology ACM0002, version 06: Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources CO2 Baseline Database for Indian Power Sector User Guide, Version 5.0 published by CEA CO2 Baseline Database for Indian Power Sector User Guide, Version 6.0 published by CEA (http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/planning/cdm_co2/cdm_co2.htm) TV NORD JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms) 1. 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: work book 2. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: work book
/CBD/
/CPM/ /IPCC/
Page 45 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Reference
/KP/ /MA/ /PDD/ Kyoto Protocol (1997)
Document
Decision 3/CMP. 1 (Marrakesh Accords) Registered Project Design Document for CDM project: 20MW Samal Gridconnected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India, Version 03, dated 2007-0117 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/D59XRXL7J9SJ7UPJAA 08XUA3U0Q694) 1. Validation Report for CDM project 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India version 02, dated 2007-01-24 (http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/1/U/G/1UGPJQ11EU971CLDSW86IR4 NA0TCBB/Samal%20Validation%20report.pdf?t=Q0h8bHZ4ZjV4fDBJs3 BCrMzPdMLMGb4nizq1) 2. Validation Report for change in the crediting period of project activity UNFCCC Validation and Verification Manual (Version 01.2 as per EB 51) (http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Standards/accr_man01.pdf) Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard (Version 02.0, EB-65, Annex-4) (http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Standards/accr_stan02.pdf) Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, Version 02.2.1, EB-63, Annex-19. (http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-07v2.2.1.pdf)
/VAL/
/VVM/
/VVS/
/TA/
Table 7-3: Websites used
Reference
/dna-india/
Link
Organisation
www.envfor.nic.in/cdm/index.ht The National Clean Development m Mechanism (CDM) Authority of India
http://www.cdmindia.in/appro val_process.php
/mnre/
http://www.mnre.gov.in/
www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp http://www.cea.nic.in/
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy IPCC publications Central Electricity Authority, Ministry
/ipcc/ /cea/
Page 46 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Reference
Link
of Power
Organisation
/GRIDCO/
http://www.gridco.co.in/
GRIDCO Limited Department,
/imd/
http://www.imd.gov.in/section/h India Meteorological ydro/dynamic/rfmaps/period/p3 Government of India 0092009.jpg http://www.imd.gov.in/section/h ydro/dynamic/rfmaps/period/p0 4112009.jpg
/eia/
http://www.envfor.nic.in/division s/iass/notif/eia.htm
Ministry of Environment and Forests
/optcl/
http://www.optcl.co.in/
http://cdm.unfccc.int
Orissa Power Corporation Limited UNFCCC
Transmission
/unfccc/
Table 7-4: List of interviewed persons
Reference
/IM01/
MoI1
V
Mr. Ms Mr. Ms Mr. Ms Mr. Ms Mr. Ms
Name
K. Yogeshwar Rao
Organisation / Function
GM, Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Power Plant Manager, Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Sr. Executive, Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Asst. Manager, Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Shift Incharge, K.B.S Ele-cons (For Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.) Operator,
/IM01/
G.P. Mohapatra
/IM01/
Biswanath Samaraj
/IM01/
Suryakanta Bisi
Susanta Kumar Biswal
/IM02/
/IM02/
Mr.
Antaryami Patra
Page 47 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
Reference
MoI1
Ms
Name
Organisation / Function
K.B.S Ele-cons (For Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.)
/IM02/
Mr. Ms
Bhanja Kishor Samal
Helper, K.B.S Ele-cons (For Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.) Trainee Engineer, Zenith Energy Services Pvt. Ltd.
/IM03/
1)
Mr. Ms
V. Naresh Kumar
Means of Interview: (Telephone, E-Mail, Visit)
Page 48 of 79
1st
Periodic
Verification
Report:
20MW
Samal
Grid-connected
ANNEX
A1: A2: Verification Protocol Appointment / Authorisation statements
Page 49 of 79
1st Periodic Verification Report: 20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India
TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program P-No: 8106772122 10/269
ANNEX 1: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

Table A-1: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing / detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing
Identification, assessment and testing of management controls
Additional verification testing
Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests)
Raw data generation Installation of measuring equipment Dysfunction of installed equipment Maloperation by operational personnel Downtimes of equipment Exchange of equipment Change of measurement equipment characteristic Insufficient accuracy Change of technology Installation of modern and state of the art equipment Process control automation Internal data review Regular visual inspections of installed equipment Only skilled and trained personnel operates the relevant equipment Daily raw data checks Immediate exchange of dysfunctional equipment Stand-by duty is Inadequate installation / operation of the monitoring equipment Inadequate exchange of equipment Change of personnel Undetected measurement errors Inappropriateness of Management system procedures w.r.t. monitoring plan requirements (e.g. substitute value strategies) Non-application of management system procedures Insufficient accuracy Inappropriate QA/QC Site visit Check of equipment Check of technical data sheets Check of suppliers information / guarantees Check of calibration records, if applicable Check of maintenance records Counter-check of raw data and commercial data Check of CDM management system Check of CDM related procedures See Table A-2
Page 50 of 79
Identification of potential reporting risk Accuracy of values supplied by Third Parties
Identification, assessment and testing of management controls organized Training Internal audit procedures Internal check of QA/QC measures of involved Third Parties
Additional verification testing Application of CDM management system procedures Check of trainings Check of responsibilities Check of QA/QC documentation / evidences of involved Third Parties Check of data aggregation steps Counter-calculation Data integrity checks by means of graphical data analysis and calculation of specific performance figures Check of management system certification Check of data archiving system
measures of Third Parties
Raw data collection and data aggregation Wrong data transfer from raw data to daily and monthly aggregated reporting forms IT Systems Spread sheet programming Manual data transmission Data protection Responsibilities Cross-check of data Plausibility checks of various parameters. Appropriate archiving system Clear allocation of responsibilities Application of CDM Management system procedures Usage of standard software solutions Unintended usage of old data that has been revised Incomplete documentation Ex-post corrections of records Ambiguous sources of information Non-application of management system procedures Manual data transfer mistakes See Table A-2
Page 51 of 79
Identification, assessment and testing of management controls (Spreadsheets) Limited access to IT systems Data protection procedures
Additional verification testing Check of application of Management system procedures
Unintended change of spread sheet programming or data base entries Problems caused by updating/upgrading or change of applied software Other calculation parameters Unintended or intended Modification of calculation parameters Wrong application of values Misinterpretations of the applied methodology and/ or the PDD Missing update of applicable regulatory framework (e.g. IPCC values) Calculation Methods
Emission factors, oxidation factors, coefficients
The values and data sources applied are defined in the PDD and monitoring plan
Update-check of regulatory framework Countercheck of the applied MP in the MR against the methodology and the PDD
See Table A-2
Page 52 of 79
Identification of potential reporting risk Applied formulae Miscalculation Mistakes in spreadsheet calculation
Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Advanced calculation and reporting tools A CDM coordinator is in charge of the CDM related calculations Usage of tested / counterchecked Excel spreadsheets Involvement of external consultants An experienced CDM consultant is responsible for monitoring reporting. CDM QMS procedures are defined
Additional verification testing Countercheck on the basis of own calculation. Spread sheet walktrough. Plausibility checks Check of plots
Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including Forward Action Requests) See Table A-2
The danger of miscalculation can only be minimized.
Monitoring reporting Data transfer to the author of the monitoring report Data transfer to the monitoring report Unintended use of outdated versions The danger of data transfer mistakes can only be minimized Inappropriate application of QMS procedures Counter check with evidences provided. Audit of procedure application See Table A-2
Page 53 of 79
Table A-2: (Project specific) Periodic Verification Checklist
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team)
Reference
Verification Team Comments

(Means and results of assessment)
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
A. General Description of the project activity A.1. Brief description of the project activity
(EB 54 Annex 34, A.1) Check if section A.1 of the MR includes the following: Purpose of the PA and the measures taken to reduce GHG emissions Brief description of the installed technology and equipments Relevant dates for the project activity (e.g. construction, commissioning, continued operation periods etc. Total emission reductions achieved in this monitoring period /MR/ /PDD/ The verification team has checked section A.1 of the MR and confirms that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Purpose of the PA and the measures taken to reduce GHG emissions Brief description equipments of the installed technology and OK OK
Relevant dates for the project activity (e.g. construction, commissioning, continued operation periods etc Total emission reductions achieved in this monitoring period In this context the following findings have been identified: The Verification team checked section A.1 of the monitoring report and confirms that the section included the purpose of the project activity as renewable power generation and export of power to NEWNE grid of India. The brief description of technology is also appropriately stated under section A.1 of monitoring report. The relevant dates of commissioning and synchronizing with grid are mentioned under section A.1 of the monitoring report. The section A.1 also mentions the emission reductions achieved by the project activity.
A.2. Project Participants
/MR/
The verification team has checked section A.2 of the MR and confirms that the information provided is complete and correct
OK
OK
Page 54 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) (EB 54 Annex 34, A.2) Check if section A.2 of the MR includes the following: All PPs as displayed on the UNFCCC website
Reference
/MoC/

(Means and results of assessment) with regards to the following: All PPs as displayed on the project related UNFCCC website are correctly listed In this context the following findings have been identified: The verification team identified that the section A.2 of monitoring report appropriately contains detailed information of the project participants. The verification team checked the same against the MoC.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
A.3. Location of the Project Activity

(EB 54 Annex 34, A.3) Check if section A.3 of the MR reflects correctly the following: Address of the project location Latitude and Longitude
/MR/ /PDD/ /IM01/ /IM02/
The verification team has checked section A.3 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the PDD and information gathered during the site visit that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: The address has been correctly given in the MR
finding A1
OK
Latitude and Longitude are in line with the information given in the PDD and reflects the actual location of the PA. In this context the following findings have been identified: The PP provided more accurate coordinates in the MR however the traceable reference for the geographical co-ordinates of the project activity is not appropriately mentioned under section A.3 of the MR. Accordingly finding A1 has been raised.
A.4. Technical description of the project
/MR/ /PDD/
The verification team has checked section A.4 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in
OK
OK
Page 55 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) (EB 54 Annex 34, A.4) Check if section A.4 of the MR correctly describes / includes the following: Detailed description of the technology applied Diagrams
Reference
/IM01/

(Means and results of assessment) the PDD and information gathered during the site visit that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: The description of the technology applied is complete and appropriate Appropriate description diagrams have been included in the
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
In this context the following findings have been identified: The verification team identified that the section A.4 of the MR provides details of the installed turbines operating along with the project activity. Furthermore, the section A.4 provides the schematic diagram of the project activity. The verification team identified that a process diagram and major plant equipment are appropriately updated under section A.4 of monitoring report.
A.5. Title, reference and version of the baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project
(EB 54 Annex 34, A.5) Check if section A.5 of the MR correctly describes / includes the following: Reference to the applicable version of the methodology Reference to the applicable version(s) of relevant methodological tools Relevant EB decisions, if applicable
/MR/ /PDD/ /unfccc/ /ACM000 2/
The verification team has checked section A.5 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information given in the PDD and displayed on the UNFCCC website that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Name and version of the applicable CDM Methodology Name and version of applicable CDM methodological tools Relevant EB decisions In this context the following findings have been identified: The verification team identified that the section A.5 of the MR
OK
OK
Page 56 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) provides the complete reference of methodology; the title of the methodology. The verification team also identified that the reference to any other EB decisions was not necessary for the project activity.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
A.6. Registration date of the project activity

(EB 54 Annex 34, A.6) Check if section A.6 of the MR correctly includes the following: Registration date
/MR/ /unfccc/
The verification team has checked section A.6 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information displayed on the UNFCCC website that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Registration date In this context the following findings have been identified: No findings are identified as the date of registration is appropriately mentioned.
OK
OK
A.7. Crediting period of the PA and related information

(EB 54 Annex 34, A.7) Check if section A.7 of the MR correctly includes the following: Start date of the crediting period. In this context please check, if applicable, whether post registration changes to the start date have been accepted by the EB. Length and type of the crediting period
/MR/ /unfccc/ /VAL2/
The verification team has checked section A.7 of the MR and confirms by means of comparison with the information displayed on the UNFCCC website that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Start date of the crediting period. Type and length of the crediting period In this context the following findings have been identified: The verification team identified that the section A.7 of monitoring report, mentions the choice of crediting period as fixed crediting period with start date of crediting period corresponding with approved date vide Change in start date of crediting period i.e. 2009-05-31. However the verification team identified that the
finding A1
OK
Page 57 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) monitoring report is unclear regarding the changes to the start date of the crediting period post registration. Clarification request is raised under finding A1. The verification team has checked section A.8 of the MR and confirms by means of interviews with the PP that the information provided is complete and correct with regards to the following: Contact information of the person(s) responsible for completing the MR.. / entity/(ies)
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
A.8. Name of the responsible person(s) / entity/(ies)

(EB 54 Annex 34, A.8) Check if section A.8 of the MR correctly includes the following: Contact information of the person(s)/entity(ies) responsible for completing the MR.
/MR/ /PDD/ /MoC/ /IM01/
OK
OK
In this context the following findings have been identified: The verification team identified that the section A.8, mentions the contact details of the responsible person(s)/ entity (ies) under section A.8 of monitoring report.
B. Implementation of the project activity B.1. Implementation status of the project B.1.1. Initial project implementation
/IM01/ /PDD/ /PPA/ /JMR/ /CR/ /TD/ Description: Verification team has assessed the project for its implementation and operation as per the registered PDD. During site visit all physical features of the project has been checked and found in line with registered PDD. Justification of evidences: During site visit, the project implementation has been cross verified with registered PDD. Furthermore operational parameters have been checked from submitted commissioning report, technical details, log book and JMRs. OK OK
(EB 55 Annex 1, 182, 195-201) Assess whether the project has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD and are all physical features of the project in place? Further focus on the potential phase wise implementation and check the reporting on the corresponding status and starting dates accordingly.
Page 58 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) Also, discuss if applicable any approvals of the necessary request of notification or request for approval of changes from the project activity as described in the registered PDD (EB 48 Annex 66/67).
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) Conclusion: There is no change in the project activity with respect to registered PDD.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
B.1.2.
Technical equipment changes
(EB 55 Annex 1, 187) Check if relevant technical equipment of the project activity has been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period. Further ensure that consistent notations of key equipment (meters etc.) in PDD, MR and calculation spreadsheet are applied Consider e.g. interviews with operational personnel, QMS records, maintenance records, instrument specifications. In case of changes, check whether the project is still in line with the registered PDD and assure that these changes have been considered in the monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation. Also, discuss if applicable- any approvals of the necessary request of notification or request for approval of changes from the project activity as described in the registered PDD (EB 48 Annex 66/67).
/IM01/ /PDD/ /TD/ /IM01/ /VAL/ /MR/ /MMS/
Description: No change in the technical equipment took place within the monitoring period. During the onsite visit it was observed that the project is implemented as per the registered PDD. There is no change in the installed equipments since Validation and subsequent registration. Also there is no change in the meters during the monitoring vintage period. However, the section B.1 of MR reported sentence was correlating two independent issues, note provided under section B.1 is misleading for the reader and details of the shutdowns due to Insufficient water flows are missing. Please refer finding B1, bullet 1,2. Justification of evidences: By means of instrument specifications and site visit it was evidenced, that the technical features are installed as per the PDD. Conclusion: Finding B1 has been raised. However, the Verification Team during site visit found that project is implemented as described in the PDD. Since, the technical specifications are cross checked onsite and found correct and no changes in the project activity or the legislation affecting the baseline or additionality of the project activity exist. Hence, there is no need of any request for approval for the changes in the PDD since validation as per annex 66/67 of EB48.
finding B1
OK
B.1.3.
Operation of the project activity
/IM01/ /PDD/
Description: No relevant operation modes were exchanged within the monitoring period. The joint meter reading is
OK
OK
Page 59 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) (EB 55 Annex 1, 195) Check if relevant operation modes of the project activity have been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period. Consider e.g. interviews with operational personnel, operation log sheets, data management system records. In case of changes, check whether the project is still in line with the registered PDD and assure that these changes have been considered in the monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation. Also, discuss if applicable any approvals of the necessary request of notification or request for approval of changes from the project activity as described in the registered PDD (EB 48 Annex 66/67).
Reference
/JMR/ /PPA/ /LOG/

(Means and results of assessment) undertaken by the representative of GRIDCO LIMITED. Justification of evidences: By means of interviews, inspection of maintenance records it was evidenced, that the project operation modes are implemented as per the registered PDD. All the QA/QC procedures are as per the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. Conclusion: No corrective actions / clarifications are necessary because the project is implemented as described in the PDD.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
B.1.4.
Incidents
(EB 55 Annex 1, 187, 208a) Identify if there have been any significant incidents, deviant operation modes and / or downtimes of the equipment? Consider e.g. interviews with operational personnel, operational log sheets, analysis of performance data.
/IM01/ /IM02/ /LOG/ /JMR/ /CAL/
Description: It was verified during the site visit that no significant incidents, deviant operation modes and / or downtimes of the equipment have occurred during the monitoring period. However, the note provided under section B.1 is mis-leading for the reader and details of the shutdowns due to Insufficient water flows are missing. Please refer finding B1, bullet 2. Justification of evidences: This was also backed up by the site visit interviews, inspection of logbooks, calibration certificate, JMR and plant shutdown data which clearly mentions the downtime with the corresponding reasons. Conclusion: Finding B1, bullet-2 has been raised.
finding B1
OK
Page 60 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference
/IM01/ /IM02/ /PPA/ /mnre/ /SC/

(Means and results of assessment) Description: No relevant changes in the legislation since the validation were identified. Justification of evidences: During the site and subsequent /PPA/ it was observed that the legislation has not document review changed w.r.t to hydro projects in Orissa. Conclusion: No corrective actions / clarifications are necessary because the project is implemented as described in the PDD and possess the necessary statutory clearances.
Draft Concl.
OK
Final Concl.
OK
B.1.5.
Legislation
Find out whether relevant legislation with effect on the project activity in the host country has been changed. Assess, in case of changes, whether consequences for the PA with regard to relevant CDM requirements have been accounted for. In case of changes data sources shall be referenced.
B.1.6.
Open issues from validation

st
(EB 55 Annex 1, 181-183, 188c, 190c) Check (esp. in case of 1 periodic verification) whether there are any open issues indicated in the validation report (e.g. FAR)?
/VAL/ /unfccc/
Description: This is the 1 verification and there are no open issues from the validation. Justification of evidence: The Validation report has been checked on the UNFCCC website. . Conclusion: There are no pending issues from the validation. This is checked by the verification team from the validation report.
st
OK
OK
B.1.7.
Open issues verification
from
previous
/unfccc/ /VAL/
Description: This is the 1 periodic verification. There are no open issues from the previous validation report. Justification of evidences: Not applicable as it is 1 verification.
st st
st
OK
OK
(EB 55 Annex 1, 193) Check in case of further periodic verifications whether there are any open issues indicated in previous verification reports (FAR) and take into consideration the guidance as specified in VVM.
periodic
Conclusion: Since this is the 1 periodic verification there are no open issues from previous Verification. /unfccc/ /MR/ Description: The draft monitoring report, as received from the project participants, has been made publicly available prior to the start of the verification activities. OK OK
B.1.8.
Publication of the Monitoring Report
Check if the monitoring report has been made publicly available on the UNFCCC website before the verification
Page 61 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) commenced. Check if comments have been received and if yes, how they have been addressed.
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) Justification of evidences: E-mail correspondence as per DOEs postbox and UNFCCC website has been checked during verification. Conclusion: The draft monitoring report, as received from the project participants, has been made publicly available prior to the start of the verification activities. No comments have been received.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
B.2. Requests for Revisions of MP

(EB 55 Annex 1, 201, 203, 219) Check (i) if there have been any requests for revisions of the monitoring plan in the past.and/or (ii) if there is a need for a RfRev. Make sure that the monitoring report reflects the application of the revision as approved by the EB, where applicable. Check in case of approved revisions if the date of approval has been included.
/unfccc/ No requests for revisions of the MP.have been submitted to the UNFCCC prior to the current monitoring period The following RfRev have been approved or are under approval by the UNFCCC 1 Title Status Appr.date 2 Title Status Appr.date During the verification of the current MP no need for a RfRev has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA The following revisions of the MP are to be requested under approval; approved under approval; approved
OK
OK
Page 62 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) from the EB for the current MP 1 Issue
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
No additional findings have been identified: Description: the project activity did not applied for any request
for revision in monitoring plan.

Justification of evidences: Document review of PDD, monitoring report was undertaken along with the site visit observations. Conclusion: No further findings are raised by the verification team.
B.3. Requests for Deviations applied to this MP

(EB 55 Annex 1, 203, 211-219) Check (i) if there have been any requests for deviations in the past.and/or (ii) if there is a need for a RfDev. Make sure that the monitoring report reflects the application of the deviation as approved by the EB, where applicable. Check in case of approved deviations if the approval date and reference number has been included. Further check in case of approved RfDev whether the MR appropriately reflects the application of the EB guidance.
/unfccc/ No requests for deviations have been submitted to the UNFCCC prior to the current monitoring period The following RfDev have been approved or are under approval by the UNFCCC 1 Title Status Ref. No. Appr.date 2 Title Status Ref. No. under approval; approved under approval; approved
OK
OK
Page 63 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) Appr.date In case of approved guidance of the EB: The monitoring report reflects the application of the EB guidance regarding the RfDev. During the verification of the current MP no need for a RfDev has been indentified The following deviations are to be requested from the EB for the current MP 1 Issue
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
No additional findings have been identified: Description: the project activity did not applied for any request
for deviation in monitoring plan.

Justification of evidences: Document review of PDD, monitoring report was undertaken along with the site visit observations. Conclusion: No further findings are raised by the verification team.
B.4. Initial verification

In case an initial verification has been carried out, check if all FARs, recommendations etc. can be confirmed as existent for the periodic verification.
/unfccc/ /IM01/ /MR/
Description: This is the 1 periodic verification; there has been no initial verification. Justification of evidences: The UNFCCC website has been checked. Conclusion: There has been no initial verification.
st
OK
OK
C. Description of the monitoring system
Page 64 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference
/IM01/ /MR/ /JMR/ /LOG/ /PDD/ /CAL/

(Means and results of assessment) Description: The operation & maintenance of the project is the responsibility of OPCL. The operation & maintenance personnel from OPCL are well qualified, trained and follow reproducible routines. The verification team requested submission of the appointment of the Internal auditor, monthly audit reports and further substantiation of the training of personnel. Accordingly findings C2 and C3 have been raised. Justification of evidences: All necessary monitored and measured raw data were checked during on-site verification and operational personnel have been interviewed. Qualification certificates of the personnels involved in the monitored were checked. Supporting documents like calibration certificate, JMR and corresponding invoices were reviewed. Conclusion: Refer to finding C2 and finding C3.
Draft Concl.
finding C2, finding C3
Final Concl.
OK
C.1. Management System

(EB 55 Annex 1, 184 a (iii)) Check if the GHG data monitoring system can be assessed as appropriate. In case reference is made to a (certified) company quality management system, check if all CDM related monitoring procedures have been fully integrated in the project participants quality management system. In case of a stand-alone system, check how the GHG management system has been implemented and effectiveness is ensured.
C.2. Metering diagram

(EB 54 Annex 34, C) Check first if the MR includes a metering diagram showing all relevant monitoring points.. Check further if this diagram reflects the actual situation and is in line with the registered PDD and with the requirements of the applied methodology.
/MR/ /IM01/ /IM02/ /SLD/
Description: The metering diagram under section C of monitoring report is inconsistent with single line diagram/site visit of the verification team. Appropriate corrections along with metering locations are missing. Finding C1 has been raised accordingly. Justification of evidences: The monitoring report is reviewed and the site visit observations and Single Line Diagram were considered. Conclusion: Finding C1 has been raised as the detailed metering diagram with location of meters was missing.
finding C1
OK
C.3. Roles and Responsibilities

(EB 54 Annex 34, C)
/PDD/ /VAL/ /MR/
Description: The section C of the monitoring report provides information regarding data collection procedures (information flow diagram generation, aggregation, recording, calculation and
finding C2, finding
OK
Page 65 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) Check if all roles and positions of each person in the GHG data management process are clearly defined and implemented as stated in the monitoring plan. Please consider the complete data trail from raw data generation to submission of the final data. Identify, if relevant personnel w.r.t. monitoring has been exchanged? If so, have appropriate training measures been carried out. In case of changes, assure that the implemented monitoring procedures have not been affected.
Reference
/ORG/

(Means and results of assessment) reporting), organizational structure, roles and responsibilities of personnel, QA-QC procedures and emergency procedures for the for the monitoring system. The supportive documentation pertaining to GHG management system along with complete data trail from raw data generation till submission of the final data is submitted to the DOE. The verification team requested submission of the appointment of the Internal auditor, monthly audit reports and further substantiation of the training of personnel. Accordingly findings C2 and C3 have been raised. Justification of evidences: Please refer corresponding response under checklist question C.1 Conclusion: Refer to finding C2 and finding C3.
Draft Concl.
C3
Final Concl.
C.4. Emergency procedures for the monitoring system

(EB 54 Annex 34, C) Check, as appropriate, whether relevant emergency procedures for the monitoring system have been included in the MR and assess whether these procedures have been implemented, when required
/PDD/ /MR/ /JMR/ /ORG/ /CAL/
Description: During the site visit the Assessment team found that there are main and check meter installed at interface to the grid. Thus in event of failure of main meter, the reading of check meter can be utilized. For the applied monitoring period no instance of application of the emergency procedure was encountered. Justification of evidences: The monthly joint meter readings issued by the GRIDCO LIMITED, monitoring report, calibration reports were reviewed.
OK
OK
Conclusion: Emergency procedures for the monitoring system are appropriately identified.
C.5. Data archive and data protection

Check whether all records of monitoring parameters
/LOG/
Description: All records of monitoring parameters are archived according to the monitoring plan.
OK
OK
Page 66 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) are archived according to the monitoring plan. Assess further whether appropriate measures have been taken in order to avoid unintended or intended manipulation or loss of the measured data.
Reference
/JMR/

(Means and results of assessment) Justification of evidences: JMRs, invoices as well as calculation sheets were provided to the verification team. Relevant data is available electronically and / or as hard copy. Additionally the PP has also submitted log of real-time meter readings captured by the 132 kV main meter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR. Conclusion: no further corrective actions / clarifications are necessary.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
D. Data and parameters monitored D.1. EGy

a) Measurement / Determination method (EB 55 Annex 1, 184-185, 202-203) Describe how the monitoring measured / determined. parameter was /IM01/ /PDD/ /MR/ /ACM 0002/ /JMR/ /LOG/ Description: Electricity quantity supplied to the grid by the project Description: The generated electricity is recorded by the energy meters at the project site once a month by the representatives of Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited (GRIDCO) and Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. (OPCL) as per Power Purchase Agreement. EGy was determined as the difference of the electricity exported to the grid and imported from the grid. Justification of evidences: The monthly Joint Meter Reading reports for electricity generation certified by GRIDCO covering the monitoring period, copy of Log book and the sales receipts on the monthly generated units to GRIDCO were verified during the on-site visit. Additionally the PP has also submitted log of real-time meter readings captured by the 132 kV main meter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation finding E2 OK
Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the PDD and the applied methodology.
Page 67 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR Conclusion: The measurement method on the quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid by the project activity is in accordance with the monitoring plan of the PDD and the PPA. During site visit and document review the assessment team found that the monitoring parameter Electricity supplied to the grid is recorded on daily basis the monitoring parameters are archived on paper (log books), which is not in line monitoring plan under registered PDD. Hence verification team asked for clarification on the same.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
b)
Accuracy
(EB 55 Annex 1, 205c, 206a) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs.
/CAL/ /MR/ /PPA/ /JMR/
Description: The verification team identified that the monitoring report is deficient with respect to the calibration schedules and accordingly raised finding E4. Furthermore, during the document review the verification team identified that there is inconsistency between the values reported in the ER worksheet and readings issued by GRIDCO Limited, thus finding E1 has been raised. Justification of evidences: The monitoring report, emission reduction sheet, JMR, power purchase agreement, log of realtime meter readings captured by the 132 kV main meter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR and calibration certificates were reviewed. Conclusion: The accuracy of the parameter depends upon successful closure of finding E1 and finding E4. Description: The calibrations of the energy meters have been carried out as per applied industry standard by state utilities, a Government body, as per the Power Purchase Agreement entered by the PP with the PTC India Limited. The modes
finding E1, finding E4
OK
c)
QA/QC Procedure
(EB 55 Annex 1, 184b (vii), 205c, 206) Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures
/MR/ /CAL/ /PPA/
finding E4
OK
Page 68 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance.
Reference
/ceam/

(Means and results of assessment) operation of monitoring, measurement, plant operation, reporting, recording, internal audit system, storage and archiving of data have remained unchanged. However, the MR lacks information pertaining calibration schedule observed by the PP, accordingly finding E4 has been raised. Justification of evidences: By means of interviewing with the operational personnel at the plant and by reviewing the records of calibration certificates for all the electricity meters, Joint Meter Reading reports for electricity generation certified by GRIDCO, Technical particulars of Turbines and Generators and daily generation recording register. Conclusion: The MR lacks information pertaining calibration schedule observed by the PP. Please refer to finding E4.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
d)
Correctness
(EB 55 Annex 1, 202, 206, 221e) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised.
/MR/ /JMR/ /LOG/ /SR/ /XLS/
Correct
Not correct
Description: Joint Meter Reading is being taken from the Main meter; in case of mal function of the main meter check meter readings is applied. The verification team identified that the monitoring report is deficient with respect to the calibration schedules, thus correctness of the monitored values could not be confirmed and accordingly raised finding E4. Furthermore, during the document review the verification team identified that there is inconsistency between the values reported in the ER worksheet and readings issued by GRIDCO Limited, thus finding E1 has been raised. Justification of evidences: The Joint Meter Reading reports for electricity generation certified by GRIDCO covering the monitoring period have been verified against the ER spreadsheet and the MR. The same has also been verified with the invoices of the monthly generated units to GRIDCO.
finding E1, E4
OK
Page 69 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) Additionally log of real-time meter readings captured by the 132 kV main meter authenticated with covering letter issued by GRIDCO Limited, dated 2011-07-11 issued by AGM (Electrical), Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited as supportive to JMR Conclusion: The value given in the monitoring report and emission reduction calculation sheet were assessed and found material mismatch. Please refer to finding E1. The conformance to calibration schedules is not reported under the monitoring report therefore the confirmation on correctness of the reported values cannot be determined. Please refer finding E4 for more details.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
D.2. EFy
a) Measurement / Determination method (EB 55 Annex 1, 184-185, 202-203) Describe how the monitoring measured / determined. parameter was /IM01/ /PDD/ /VAL/ /MR/ /XLS/ /cea/ /CBD/
Description: GHG emission factor of grid Description: The baseline emission factor (EFy) is calculated as a combined margin (CM), consisting of the combination of operating margin (OM) (ex-post value) and build margin (BM) factors (ex-ante determined at time of validation). The default values used for the hydro power project activity are W OM = 0.5; W BM = 0.5. Calculation of parameter GHG emission factor of grid is based on data from Central Electricity Authority (CEA), which is an official source of Government of India, Ministry of Power, which is been publicly available (for operating margin) and the registered PDD (for build margin). The verification team determined that the operating margin is not appropriately determined in line with the monitoring plan and the monitoring report lacks the stepwise approach for determination of baseline emission factor, thus CAR was raised under finding E3, bullet-1. Justification of evidences: The CEA database version 06, Validation report and registered PDD of the project activity were finding E3 OK
Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the PDD and the applied methodology.
Page 70 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) checked. Conclusion: The operating margin is incorrectly determined and section E.1 of MR is lacks the baseline emission calculations and the stepwise approach adopted to calculate the baseline emission factor, accordingly finding E3, bullet-1 has been raised.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
b)
Accuracy
(EB 55 Annex 1, 205c, 206a) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs.
/MR/ /PDD/ /cea/ /CBD/ /XLS/ /ACM000 2/ /VAL/
Description: The operating margin is incorrectly determined and the monitoring report lacks the detailed calculation of arriving at the value of EFy according to the provisions made under the registered PDD and applied methodology ACM0002. Since the MR is not demonstrating the logic of calculation of the parameter GHG emission factor of grid the confirmation on its correctness cannot be established. Accordingly finding E3, bullet-1 has been raised by the verification team. Justification of evidences: The CEA database, the PDD, the validation report and the methodology have been checked. Conclusion: The operating margin is incorrectly determined and section E.1 of MR lacks the baseline emission calculations and the stepwise approach adopted to calculate the baseline emission factor. Please refer finding E3, bullet-1. Description: Since the value of EFy is calculated and the input valued of OM is sourced from CEA database (publically available database) and BM (from registered PDD) no further QA/QC is required. The operating margin is incorrectly determined and the MR is deficient with respect to the calculation logic, thus conformance on the appropriate measures undertaken for the determination of parameter cannot be confirmed. Finding E3, bullet-1 has been raised. Justification of evidences: The CEA database, the PDD, the validation report and the methodology have been checked.
finding E3
OK
c)
QA/QC Procedure
(EB 55 Annex 1, 184b (vii), 205c, 206) Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance.
/CBD/ /cea/ /MR/ /PDD/ /XLS/
finding E3
OK
Page 71 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment)
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
Conclusion: Conformance of appropriate calculation cannot be confirmed, please refer to finding E3, bullet-1. d) Correctness (EB 55 Annex 1, 202, 206, 221e) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised. /MR/ /XLS/ /cea/ /PDD/ /CBD/ Correct Not correct Description: The monitoring report mentions the grid emission factor as 937.53 tCO2/GWh. The verification team identified that the operating margin is incorrectly determined and the monitoring report is deficient with respect to the stepwise approach along to arrive at the reported value. Thus the confirmation on correctness is not provided by the verification team. Finding E3, bullet-1 has been raised accordingly. Justification of evidences: The CEA database, the PDD, the validation report and the methodology have been checked. Conclusion: Conformance of appropriate correctness of determination cannot be confirmed, please refer to finding E3, bullet-1. finding E3 OK
D.3. EFOM,y
a) Measurement / Determination method (EB 55 Annex 1, 184-185, 202-203) Describe how the monitoring measured / determined. parameter was /IM01/ /PDD/ /MR/ /XLS/ /cea/ /CBD/ /ACM000 2/
Description: GHG emission factor of grid (Operating Margin)

Description: The Simple OM emission factor was been calculated using a three-year average, based on the most recent statistics available i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, from the version 06 of CEA database. This method of monitoring the parameter is inconsistent with the registered monitoring plan. Justification of evidences: The document review of PDD, the MR, the applied methodology ACM0002, and the CEA database was undertaken. finding E3 OK
Check if relevant equipment has been exchanged and if in cases of failures / downtimes of standard equipment other measurement / determination
Page 72 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) methods have been used. Furthermore, verify the frequency of measurements as per the requirements. Assess whether the measurement / determination method is in line with the registered monitoring plan of the PDD and the applied methodology. b) Accuracy
Reference
/TA/

(Means and results of assessment) Conclusion: The determination method to calculate EFOM, is not in line with the registered monitoring plan and methodology.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
(EB 55 Annex 1, 205c, 206a) In case of measured (or estimated) values, check whether the accuracy of equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan or if significant inaccuracies occur; in this case, make sure that the most conservative assumptions theoretically possible have been made for calculating ERs. c) QA/QC Procedure
/MR/ /PDD/ /cea/ /XLS/ /VAL/ /CBD/
Description: The parameter is not appropriately monitored, therefore confirmation on accuracy is subjected to closure of finding E3, bullet-1. Justification of evidences: The CEA database, the PDD, validation report, methodology and the MR have been checked. Conclusion: The applied value is not correct..
finding E3
OK
(EB 55 Annex 1, 184b (vii), 205c, 206) Describe whether all applicable QA/QC procedures are met. Assess further if the calibration of the monitoring equipment has been carried out in line with the latest EB guidance.
/cea/ /MR/ /PDD/ /XLS/ /VAL/ /CBD/
Description: The value is derived from an official website. However the reference to the CEA database is not covering the entire monitoring period. As the determination of the parameter is not in line with the monitoring plan, conformance to checklist criteria is subjected to closure of finding E3, bullet-1. Justification of evidences: The CEA database, the PDD, validation report, methodology and the MR have been checked. Conclusion: The applied value is not correct. The conformance to checklist criteria is subjected to closure of finding E3, bullet-1. Correct Not correct Description: EF_OMy = 994.73 tCO2/GWh. The ex-post value of EF_OMy is
finding E3
OK
d)
Correctness
(EB 55 Annex 1, 202, 206, 221e) Determine whether the value given in the monitoring
/MR/ /XLS/ /cea/
Finding E1
OK
Page 73 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) report is correct or determined in a conservative manner. In case of conservative approaches used in lieu of the monitoring as per registered MP detailed assessment of the conservativeness of the approach used should be given. In case of mistakes / deviations pl. provide details and descriptions of the CARs raised.
Reference
/PDD/ /VAL/ /CBD/

(Means and results of assessment) not in line with the monitoring plan. The reported value of parameter is not applicable for the applied monitoring period. Justification of evidences: The registered PDD, validation report and CEA database have been checked against the monitoring report and the emission reduction calculation sheet. Conclusion: The value of EF_OMy was assessed as incorrect. Please refer finding E1, bullet-3.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
E. Emission reductions calculation E.1. Traceability

(EB 55 Annex 1, 182) Assess if the calculation is fully traceable. In case of complex calculations an Excel calculation spreadsheet shall be used. All applied formulae must be visible. /XLS/ /MR/ Description: The ER calculations provided in the excel calculation spreadsheet are fully traceable. All the monitoring parameters provided as per the monitoring plan of the registered PDD. All applied correlations are traceable and the worksheet is appropriately linked. Justification of evidences: The ER calculation sheet and the PDD have been checked. Conclusion: Since the calculation in the emission reduction sheet is traceable and consistent with the registered PDD, the verification team has not raised additional findings. OK OK
E.2. Parameter consistency

(EB 55 Annex 1, 186; EB 54 Annex 34 Pt.1) Assess whether all internal and external parameters and data used for calculation are applied consistently in the monitoring report and the calculation
/XLS/ /MR/ /JMR/
Description: The PP is applying the exact tabular format as per the requirements stated under EB 54, Annex 34. Furthermore, the contents inside the table are also consistent with the registered monitoring plan. The Excel calculation sheet is completely in line with the MR. No deviant parameter values
Page 74 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) spreadsheet? Consider only the correct data exchange between the monitoring report and the calculation spreadsheet (if any). Further ensure the consistency of notations for all parameters in the PDD, MR, calculation spreadsheet.
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) have been used in the calculation sheet. Justification of evidences: the review of the PDD, MR and emission reduction sheet was undertaken. Conclusion: Since the verification team did not identified any inconsistency in the tabular format and the description of monitoring under section D of the monitoring report. Furthermore, the monitoring report and the emission reduction sheet are consistent with each other. The applied notations for parameters between the PDD, MR, calculation spreadsheet are consistent with each other.
Draft Concl.
OK
Final Concl.
OK
E.3. Parameter presentation

(EB 54 Annex 34 Pt.1) Check if all values included in the MR are presented as per international standards Format: Standard format (e.g. 1,000 representing one thousand and 1.0 representing one). Units: Values shall be directly given in SI units or additionally to original units transferred to SI. Short scale naming system: (Only) million = 10 9 and billion 10 shall be used.
6
/MR/ /XLS/
Description: All the values electricity export and electricity import are presented in kWh, MWh and GWh which are SI units. Furthermore, the format 1,000 representing one thousand is also adopted by PP wherever deemed necessary. Justification of evidences: Document review of MR, emission reduction sheet and EB 54 Annex 34 Pt.1 was undertaken. Conclusion: PP is following the provisions under EB 54 Annex 34 Pt.1, therefore additional findings are not raised.
OK
OK
E.4. Correctness of calculation

(EB 55 Annex 1, 204-206) Check if the applied formulae and methods for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage are in accordance with the monitoring plan
/XLS/ /MR/ /PDD/
Description: The verification team identified material misstatement for the monitoring parameter Electricity supplied to the grid and raised finding E1. The section E.1 of the MR lacked the stepwise approach to calculate the baseline emission factor thus finding E3, bullet 1 has been raised. During the site visit the verification team identified the backup power source as
Page 75 of 79
Checklist Item
(incl. guidance for the verification team) and / or the approved methodology. Assess whether the provided calculations complete and reflect all requirements of monitoring plan. are the
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) DG, thus finding E3, bullet 2 has been raised. The verification team identified that the MR lacked the information pertaining to calibration schedules which led to finding E4. Justification of evidences: The document review of PDD, registered monitoring plan, emission reduction sheet, JMR and monitoring report was undertaken.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
Check especially that no standard or old values have been used for calculation where calculations based on up-to-date data is required.
finding E1, finding E3, finding E4
OK
Conclusion: Since the verification team identified inconsistencies finding E1, E3, E4 have been raised.
E.5. Emission reductions table

(EB 54 Annex 34, E.4) Check if the MR includes a summary table of the emission reductions calculation specifiying separately Total baseline emissions Total project emissions: Total leakage Total emission reductions.
/XLS/ /MR/ /PDD/
The MR includes in section E.4 a summary table of the emission reductions calculation. The summary table specified the total baseline, project and leakage emissions as well as the total emission reductions separately. The values as specified in the ER summary table are correct; no issues have been identified during the verification which require changes in the ER calculation. During the verification issues with impact on the ER calculation have been identified. Thus subject to the closure of above listed findings the summary table in E.4 needs to be revised. In this context the following additional findings have been identified:
Assess whether the values are correct or need to be revised as a consequence of issues identified above.
finding E1, finding E3, finding E4
OK
Page 76 of 79
Checklist Item
Reference

(Means and results of assessment) The verification team identified material misstatement for the monitoring parameter Electricity supplied to the grid and raised finding E1. The section E.1 of the MR lacked the stepwise approach to calculate the baseline emission factor thus finding E3, bullet 1 has been raised. During the site visit the verification team identified the backup power source as DG, thus finding E3, bullet 2 has been raised. The verification team identified that the MR lacked the information pertaining to calibration schedules which led to finding E4.
Draft Concl.
Final Concl.
E.6. Comparison with ex-ante determined emission reductions

(EB 54 Annex 34, E.5; E.6) Check if the MR includes a comparison of actual values of the monitoring period with the estimations in the registered PDD. Check further whether in case of an increase an appropriate explanation is included in the MR. Assess in case of a significant increase whether this is due to technical or organisational changes within or outside the control of the PP which might require a notification / approval of changes (as per EB 48 Annex 66/67).
/IM01/ /MR/ /PDD/ /VAL/
Description: The comparison is provided with appropriate remarks for the deviation from the envisaged emission reduction. The emission reduction realized by the project activity are lower than the envisaged emission reductions. Justification of evidences: The document review of the PDD and emission reduction calculation along with the site visit findings was considered. Conclusion: Since the verification team has not identified any inconsistency no findings have been raised.
OK
OK
Page 77 of 79
ANNEX 2: STATEMENTS OF COMPETENCE OF ALL INVOLVED PERSONNEL
Page 78 of 79
Page 79 of 79

Verification Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Verification Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Verification Report

ORISSA POWER CONSORTIUM LTD.

Report No: 8106772122 10/269 Date: 2011-12-13

Verification Report: Project:

20MW Samal Grid-connected Hydroelectric Project in Orissa, India

1 Fixed (10y) Small Scale

Large Scale Project Participant(s):

Other involved Parties:

Orissa Power Consortium Ltd., India

Orissa Power Consortium Ltd. Applied methodology/ies:

Orissa Power Consortium Ltd.

2009-05-31 to 2011-0331 Monitoring report:

(both days included)

Manojkumar Borekar (TL, TE),Dr. Atul Takarkhede (TM, TE)

Swapnil Thanekar (TM, TE)

Rainer Winter Katja Beyer

Hints for next periodic Verification

VERIFICATION OPINION ............................................................................. 42 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 43

2. GHG PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1. Technical Project Description

Project Verification History

Involved Parties and Project Participants

Characteristic Host party

Other involved party/ies Switzerland

The details of the project location are given in Table 2-4:

Please refer closure of finding A1

3. METHODOLOGY AND VERIFICATION SEQUENCE

The verification consisted of the following steps:

The sequence of the verification is given in the Table 3-1 below:

Appointment of team members and technical reviewers

Manojkumar Borekar Swapnil Thanekar Atul Takarkhede

Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms.

Publication of the Monitoring Report

Identification of potential reporting risk

Areas of residual risks

Additional verification testing performed

Identification of potential reporting risk

Areas of residual risks

Additional verification testing performed

Interviewed Persons / Entities

Draft verification reporting

Resolution of CARs, CLs and FARs

3.10. Final reporting

3.11. Technical review

3.12. Final approval

The CAR raised under finding C1 has been CLOSED.

Name of the employee

Designated person in charge is Necessary correction made in the MR.

The CAR raised under finding C3 has been CLOSED.

Description of finding The MR lacks information pertaining calibration schedule

5. SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ASSESSMENTS

Implementation of the project

Compliance with the monitoring plan

Compliance with the monitoring methodology

2008-09 1.01 0.97 1.01

2008-09 1.01 0.97 1.01

2009-10 0.98 0.94 0.98

within within within within

5.10. Comparison with ex-ante estimated emission reductions

5.11. Overall Aspects of the Verification

5.12. Hints for next periodic Verification

Rainer Winter TV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program Final Approval

Table 7-2: Background investigation and assessment documents