Verification and certification report form for CDM project activities. (Version 01.0)

Transcription

1 Verification and certification report form for CDM project activities (Version 01.0) Complete this form in accordance with the Attachment: Instructions for filling out the verification and certification report form for CDM project activities at the end of this form. VERICATION AND CERTIFICATION REPORT Title of the project activity Reference number of the project activity Amayo 40 MW Wind Power Project Nicaragua UNFCCC ID: 2315 TN P-No.: /109 Version number of the verification and certification report 1.1 Completion date of the verification and certification report 18/09/2015 Monitoring period number and duration of this monitoring period 7 th Monitoring Period 01/07/ /06/2015 (first and last day included) Version number of monitoring report to which this report applies 2.0 Crediting period of the project activity corresponding to this monitoring period Project participant(s) Host Party Sectoral scope(s), selected methodology(ies), and where applicable, selected standardized baseline(s) Estimated GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for this monitoring period in the registered PDD Certified GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals for this monitoring period Name of DOE Name, position and signature of the approver of the verification and certification report 7-year renewable crediting period from 12/04/2009 to 11/04/2016 Consorcio Eolico Amayo S.A. (Private Entity) Shell Trading International Limited (Private Entity) Nicaragua Sectoral Scope: 1 Energy industries Renewable/non renewable sources 120,811 t CO 2e 127,332 t CO 2e TÜV NORD CERT GmbH Evgeni Sud Final Approver Version 01.0 Page 1 of 64

2 SECTION A. Executive summary Consorcio Eolico Amayo S.A. (hereafter referred as Amayo ) has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the 7 th periodic verification of the project: Amayo 40 MW Wind Power Project - Nicaragua with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. This verification covers the period from 01/07/2014 to 30/06/2015 (first and last day included). The project reduces GHG emissions due to the use of wind power to generate renewable electricity to be delivered to the national grid of Nicaragua. The project consists of 19 Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) of 2.1 MW each, accumulating to 39.9 MW of installed capacity. Details of the project location are given in table A-1 below: Table A-1: Project Location No. Host Country Region: Project location address: Latitude: Longitude: Project Location Nicaragua Rivas 129 km south of Managua, south west coast of Lake Nicaragua N W Basic technical details of the project are summarized in table A-2. Table - A-2: Technical data of the project activity Parameter Unit Value Total Power MW 39.9 MW No. of turbines - 19 Rated Power per wind-generator MW 2.1 Number of blades 3 Rotor conus angle 5.0 Swept area m 2 6,082 Tip speed (at rated power) m/s 72.0 Rotor diameter m 88 Rotational speed rpm 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 ver.07; the installed equipment being essential for measuring parameters required for calculating emission reductions are calibrated appropriately; the monitoring system is in place and functional. And that the project has generated GHG emission reductions. Version 01.0 Page 2 of 64

3 Type of resource Desk review On-site inspection Interview(s) Verification findings CDM-VCR-FORM As a result of the 7 th periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 127,332 t CO 2 e SECTION B. Verification team, technical reviewer and approver B.1. No. Verification team member Role Last name First name Affiliation (e.g. name of central or other office of DOE or outsourced entity) Involvement in 1. Team Leader IR Quireza Oliver TN México x x x x 2. Verifier IR González Raúl TN México x X X x Mitre B.2. Technical reviewer and approver of the verification and certification report No. Role Type of resource Last name First name Affiliation (e.g. name of central or other office of DOE or outsourced entity) 1. Technical reviewer IR Stöhr Christina TN CERT GmbH 2. Approver IR Sud Evgeni TN CERT GmbH SECTION C. Application of materiality C.1. Consideration of materiality in planning the verification 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. Materiality Threshold The verification is based on the materiality threshold identified in table C-1 below: Table C-1: Applied Materiality Threshold Threshold 0.5 % 1 % Related to Emission reductions or removals for registered CDM project activities achieving a total emission reduction or removal equal to or more than 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year 1 ; Emission reductions or removals for registered CDM project activities achieving a total emission reduction or removal of between 300,000 1 A year refers to a period of 12 consecutive months. Version 01.0 Page 3 of 64

4 Threshold 2 % 5 % 10 % Related to and 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year; Emission reductions or removals for registered large-scale CDM project activities achieving a total emission reduction or removal of 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year or less; Emission reductions or removals for registered small-scale CDM project activities other than registered CDM project activities covered under next category below; Emission reductions or removals for the type of registered CDM project activities referred to in decision 3/CMP.6, paragraph 38 (referred to as microscale project activities). Justification As per registered PDD, the estimated amount of GHG emission reductions per year is 120,811 2e. Strategic Analysis At the beginning of the verification, the verification team leader has assessed the nature, scale and complexity of the verification tasks by carrying out a strategic analysis of all activities relevant to the project activity. The team leader has collected and reviewed the information relevant to assess that the designated verification team is sufficiently competent to carry out the verification and to ensure that it is able to conduct the necessary risk analysis. Risk analysis and detailed audit testing planning For the identification and assessment of potential reporting risks and to determine the necessary detailed audit testing procedures for residual risk areas the following table is used. No. Risk that could lead to material errors, omissions or misstatements 1. Omissions and misstatements in data transfer from hand written notes into digital Excel ER spreadsheet 2. Missing data due to failure of measurement equipment Risk level Medium Low Assessment of the risk Justification Ineffective quality control of data transfer due to unclear QA/QC procedure The monitoring plan defines emergency procedures in case a meter fails. Besides, a back-up meter is installed. Response to the risk in the verification plan and/or sampling plan Check QM procedure/manual. may demonstrate how to transfer data and how this is crosschecked. Conduct interview with related personnel, whether the procedure is actually conducted, but not adequately described. Check, if related meters are installed as per monitoring plan. Check, if emergency procedure is known across related personnel via interviews. Check the backup meter with regard to correct calibration. Version 01.0 Page 4 of 64

5 On the basis of the risk analysis the verification has been planned and a detailed audit/verification plan has been prepared and submitted to the project participant(s) in due time before the site visit. C.2. Consideration of materiality in conducting the verification Based on the verification planning the verification has been carried out. The concept of materiality has been considered. A breakdown of the chosen approaches is included in the following table. Parameter Approach + Errors* detected Corrected Remaining verification risk EG y CDC Not material Aggregate 0% Materiality threshold not exceeded *) incl. omissions and misstatements +) Verification Approaches: CDC: Complete data check of data including all data aggregation steps NDC: Non-complete data check omissions not material SPL: Sampling approach (all data available) ASP: Acceptance Sampling COM: Data check at higher data aggregation levels and sampling at original data levels The verification was basically carried out as per the verification plan. However, due to the insignificance no major revision of the overall plan was required. Some minor mistakes, errors, misstatements or omissions were found. The reported ER in the published MR (127,332 t CO 2e ) has not changed as, thus the materiality threshold was not exceeded. Please refer to Appendix 5 sections C and D for further details on the complete data check. SECTION D. Means of verification D.1. 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. Please refer to Appendix 3 for further details. D.2. On-site inspection Duration of on-site inspection: 13/08/2015 to 14/08/2015 No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member 1. Kick off meeting Amayo main offices 13/08/2015 Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 2. Viewing of relevant site points WTG, metering equipment room, substation, control room. 13/08/2015 Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre Version 01.0 Page 5 of 64

6 Duration of on-site inspection: 13/08/2015 to 14/08/2015 No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member 3. Evidence assessment Amayo main offices 13/08/2015 Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 4. Preparation of the DVR Amayo main offices 13/08/2015 Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 6. Findings summary to the client Amayo main offices 13/08/2015 Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 7. Working day auditor-client to ICE Power Nicaragua 14/08/2015 Oliver Quireza close findings S.A. 8. Closing meeting ICE Power Nicaragua S.A. D.3. Interviews Raul Gonzalez Mitre 14/08/2015 Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre No. Interviewee Date Subject Team member Last First name Affiliation name 1. Mariana Barrios Amayo 13/08/2015 Environmental and CDM Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre Coordinator 2. Montealeg re Eleazar Amayo 13/08/2015 Plant Manager Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 3. Saldaña Felix Amayo 13/08/2015 Plant Operator Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 4. Bismarck José Amayo 13/08/2015 Plant Operator Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre 5. Hernandez Martha Rivas County 13/08/2015 Planning Director Oliver Quireza Raul Gonzalez Mitre D.4. Sampling approach D.4.1 Sampling during monitoring No sampling approach has been used by the to determine the monitored parameters A sampling approach has been taken for the following monitored parameter(s): Parameter Sampling approach 1) Sampling Type 2) Population Sample Size PDD compliant Conf. / prec. PS: Parameter Sampling D.4.2 Sampling approaches during verification No sampling approach has been used by the VT to verify the monitored parameters A sampling approach has been applied by the VT for the following monitored parameter(s): Parameter Sampling approach 1) Sampling Type 2) Population Confid./ precision Sample Size Version 01.0 Page 6 of 64

7 D.5. Clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward action requests raised Areas of verification findings No. of CL No. of CAR No. of FAR Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form Compliance of the project implementation with the registered PDD Post-registration changes Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool and standardized baseline Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals Others: Minor issues regarding inconsistencies in PLF, hub height, monitoring period, log event, name of monitoring parameter and calibration report Other: Minor issue regarding inconsistency in official dates Other: Internal manuals and procedures Total SECTION E. Verification findings E.1. Means of verification Findings Conclusion Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form A draft monitoring report was submitted to the verification team by the project participants. The DOE has made this report publicly available prior to the start of the verification activities. No comments were received. By means of the UNFCCC website it has been checked whether the latest applicable MR template CDM-MR-FORM has been used. Further it has been checked whether the latest instructions for filling out the MR template have been followed. Every section has been checked against the respective guidance. Please refer to following checklist items in Appendix 5 Table A-2: A.1 to A.7 CL 02: The table with the contact information of Shell Trading International Limited is missing in Appendix 1. The table with the information was included in the MR. A draft monitoring report was submitted to the verification team by the project participants. The DOE has made this report publicly available prior to the start of the verification activities. No comments were received. It can be confirmed that the Monitoring report is complete and transparent and in accordance with the registered PDD, other relevant requirements as well as with the applicable monitoring report from. E.2. Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verification There were no open issues addressed in the previous verification report. Version 01.0 Page 7 of 64

8 E.3. Means verification Findings Conclusion CDM-VCR-FORM Compliance of the project implementation with the registered project design document of By means of an in-depth review of the PDD in its latest form as downloaded from the UNFCCC project site - and the checks carried out during the on-site visit an assessment has been carried out whether the project has been implemented and operated in line with the latest approved version of the PDD and whether all physical features of the project are in place. The following has been checked: implemented technology, project equipment as well as monitoring and metering equipment. Further is has been checked if relevant technical equipment of the project activity has been exchanged or modified during the monitoring period and consistent notations of key equipment (meters etc.) in PDD, MR and calculation spreadsheet are applied. Interviews with operational personnel have been carried out, QMS records, maintenance records, instrument specifications were checked in this context. Special focus has further been laid to determine whether a potential phase wise implementation has occurred within the crediting period or any delays with respect to the starting dates have occurred. Further it has been checked whether any observed deviations from the registered project design have been correctly addressed as PRCs. Please refer to following checklist items in Appendix 5 Table A-2: B.1, B.1.1 to B.1.5 No findings were identified. During the verification a site visit was carried out. 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. E.4. Post-registration changes By means of site visit, document check and interview it could be verified that the project is implemented and operated in line with the latest PDD and the applied methodology. Post registration changes have been identified and are assessed in detail in the subsequent steps E.4.1 to E.4.7. E.4.1. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, monitoring methodology or standardized baseline It has been checked whether Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan (TDfrMP) or Temporary deviations from monitoring methodology or standardized baseline (TDfMM) have been applied during this monitoring period. The result is summarized in the table below. No Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan (TDfrMP) or Temporary deviations from monitoring methodology or standardized baseline (TDfMM).have been submitted to the UNFCCC prior to the current monitoring period. The following TDfrMP or TDfMM have been approved or are under approval by the UNFCCC 1 Title Status under approval; approved (approval No.: ) Appr.date Ref. No. 2 Title Version 01.0 Page 8 of 64

9 Status under approval; approved (approval No.: ) Appr.date Ref.No. During the verification of the current MP no need for a TDfrMP or TDfMM has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA An approval of the following TDfrMP or TDfMM is to be requested from the EB for the current MP as appendix 1 of the project standard does not apply. Please refer to the related PRC report submitted along with this issuance request for further details w.r.t. the assessment of the PRC. 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The following TDfrMP or TDfMM for which appendix 1 of the PS is applicable have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: E.4.2. Corrections It has been checked whether any corrections to project information or parameters fixed at validation have been approved during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report. The result is summarized in the table below. During the verification of the current MP no need for corrections has been identified. The following corrections have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The PDD has been revised accordingly: (New) version No.: Revision date: It is confirmed that the updated / corrected information is an accurate reflection of the actual project information and that the corrected parameters are in accordance with the applied methodology and the monitoring plan. A related post registration change has been submitted prior to the issuance request. The approval has been received on DD/MM/YYYY via approval number PRC-XXXX-00Z. A related post registration change is submitted along with this issuance request. Please refer to the related PRC report submitted along with this issuance request for further details w.r.t. the assessment of the PRC. E.4.3. Changes to the start date of the crediting period N/A - as this is not the first verification within the crediting period The s do not intend to change the start date of the crediting period. As the change in the start date was below the related time period as indicated in PS 277 and Version 01.0 Page 9 of 64

10 278 no prior approval was required but only a notification. This notification has been submitted by the without involvement of the DOE. The change and new start date has been checked from the related UNFCCC project webpage. The s intend to change the start date of the crediting period. As the intended change in start date beyond the related time period as indicated in PS 279 prior approval by the Board is required. For detailed assessment of the change please refer to related PRC validation report. As per assessment in this report the DOE confirms that the change to the start date of the crediting period are in line with the related requirements of the VVS and PS. The approval to change the start date of the crediting period has been received on DD/MM/YYYY via approval number PRC-XXXX-00Z E.4.4. Inclusion of a monitoring plan to a registered project activity N/A - as this monitoring plan was part of the registered PDD In line with PS 281 or 282 the has forwarded a monitoring plan to the DOE for validation. No prior approval of the monitoring plan was required as the in line with PS 282 wished to submit the monitoring plan together with the request for issuance for the first monitoring period. Please refer to the related PRC report submitted along with this issuance request for further details w.r.t. the assessment of the PRC.. In line with 282 the submitted a monitoring plan prior to the submission of the request for issuance for validation to the DOE. A DOE has assessed the monitoring plan in line with related VVS requirements and submitted a related PRC report for prior approval. The approval has been approved on 08/09/2011. E.4.5. Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, monitoring methodology or standardized baseline It has been checked whether any permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan (PCfrMP) or applied methodologies (PCfMM) including standardized baselines (PCfSB) have been approved prior or during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report. The result is summarized in the table below. No PCfrMP, PCfMM or PCfSB have been submitted to the UNFCCC prior to the current monitoring period The following PCfrMP, PCfMM or PCfSB have been approved or are under approval by the UNFCCC 1 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref. No. 2 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref.No. During the verification of the current MP no need for a PCfrMP, PCfMM or PCfSB has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA An approval of the following PCfrMP, PCfMM or PCfSB is to be requested from the EB for the current MP as appendix 1 of the project standard does not apply. Version 01.0 Page 10 of 64

11 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The following PCfrMP, PCfMM or PCfSB for which appendix 1 of the PS is applicable have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: E.4.6. Changes to the project design of a registered project activity It has been checked whether any changes to the project design (CoPD) have been approved prior or during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report. The result is summarized in the table below. No CoPD has been submitted to the UNFCCC prior to the current monitoring period The following CoPD have been approved or are under approval by the UNFCCC 1 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref. No. 2 Title Status under approval; approved Appr.date Ref.No. During the verification of the current MP no need for a CoPD has been identified. The monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the PA An approval of the following CoPD.is to be requested from the EB for the current MP as appendix 1 of the project standard does not apply. 1 Issue: 2 Issue: The following CoPD for which appendix 1 of the PS is applicable have been applied: 1 Issue: 2 Issue: E.4.7. Types of changes specific to afforestation and reforestation project activities Not applicable. E.5. Means of verification Compliance of monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool and standardized baseline By means of comparison of the MR with (i) the applied CDM methodology (ii) all applicable CDM Meth tools and (iii) if applicable, a standardized baseline Version 01.0 Page 11 of 64

12 Findings Conclusion the verification team has checked whether the MP is in compliance with the MP related requirements of the applied methodology/tools/sb. Please refer to following checklist items in Appendix 5 Table A-2: C.1 to C.7 No findings were identified. The monitoring system and all applied procedures are completely in compliance to the registered monitoring plan. The monitoring system is in compliance with the applied monitoring methodology (ACM0002 version 07). E.6. Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan E.6.1. Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period Means of verification Findings Conclusion By means of comparison of the MR and the ER calculation with the latest version of the registered PDD the verification team has checked whether all parameters fixed ex-ante or at renewal of the crediting period have been applied correctly. Further it has been checked whether the GWP for the respective period have been correctly applied. Please refer to following checklist items in Appendix 5 Table A-2 No findings were raised on this matter. Based on the assessment as provided in related checklist items and by other sections of this report the monitoring activities comply with the registered monitoring plan and are in accordance with applicable verification requirements related to the compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan in the VVS. E.6.2. Data and parameters monitored Means of verification Findings Conclusion During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in chapter B.7.1 of the PDD) have been verified with regard to the (i) appropriateness of the applied measurement / determination method, (ii) the correctness of the values applied for ER calculation, (iii) 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 (Appendix 5). CAR 01: Raw data from May and June of the received energy (EC 230kV AMAYO,y) from the main meters ION is incorrect. During the verification all relevant monitoring parameters (as listed in chapter B.7.1 of the 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. After appropriate corrections were carried out by the project participant, it can be confirmed that the monitoring parameter has been measured without material misstatements and in line with all applicable standards and relevant requirements. E.6.3. Implementation of sampling plan Means of verification Findings Conclusion E.7. The verification team has been checked whether the s have applied a sampling approach to determine the monitored values. No sampling is applied. Please refer to section D.4 of this report. No findings were raised on this matter. No sampling was required to determine the monitored parameters. Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments Means of During the verification the relevant monitoring equipment has been checked whether the calibration requirements have been met; especially if the Version 01.0 Page 12 of 64

13 verification Findings Conclusion calibration frequency is in line with the requirements of the validated PDD and/or the applicable calibration standards. The results as well as the verification procedure are described equipment-wise in the project specific verification checklist (Appendix 6). CL 01: Dates of calibration included in section D.2 are not clear enough to be easy understand. The calibrations of all monitoring equipments installed have been verified as listed in table given in Appendix 6 to this report. All calibration certificates were provided and assessed. A delayed calibration was identified by the from the beginning of the verification process. Hence the has performed the necessary corrections in terms of application of the maximum error. Based on that the verification team can confirm that all installed monitoring equipments are now duly calibrated. E.8. Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals E.8.1. Calculation of baseline GHG emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks Means of verification During the verification the calculation of baseline GHG emissions has been checked. In detail the following has been verified: Transparency: It has been checked whether the calculation of baseline emissions is fully traceable and, where used, the Excel calculation provides all calculation formulae. Parameter consistency: It has been checked whether all internal and external parameters and data used for the calculation are applied consistently in the monitoring report and the calculation spreadsheet. Correctness: It has been checked whether the applied formulae and methods for calculating baseline emissions are in accordance with the monitoring plan and the approved methodology. Completeness: It has been checked whether all calculations are complete and without omissions. Further the baseline emissions are calculated as following: Findings Conclusion No findings were raised on this matter. No mistakes, errors, misstatements or omissions were found. The reported ER in the published MR (127,332 t CO 2e ) will remain the same, thus the materiality threshold was not exceeded. Please refer to Appendix 5 sections C and D for further details on the complete data check. Thus it is confirmed that the ER calculation is overall correct. A complete set of data for the specified monitoring period was available. The calculations of baseline GHG emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered monitoring plan, and the applied methodology. Any assumptions used in emission or removal calculations have been justified. The appropriate emission factor has been correctly applied. E.8.2. Calculation of project GHG emissions or actual net GHG removals by sinks Means of verification During the verification the calculation of project GHG emissions has been checked. In detail the following has been verified: Transparency: It has been checked whether the calculation of project emissions is fully traceable and, where used, the Excel calculation provides all calculation formulae. Parameter consistency: It has been checked whether all internal and external parameters and data used for the calculation are applied Version 01.0 Page 13 of 64

14 Findings Conclusion consistently in the monitoring report and the calculation spreadsheet. Correctness: It has been checked whether the applied formulae and methods for calculating project emissions are in accordance with the monitoring plan and the approved methodology. Completeness: It has been checked whether all calculations are complete and without omissions. Project emissions are zero PE = 0. This is in line with the registered PDD as indicated in the related methodology. The verification team has checked the reg. PDD as well as the methodology to confirm the same. No findings were raised on this matter No project emissions in this regard have to be considered as checked with related methodology and registered PDD. E.8.3. Calculation of leakage GHG emissions Means of verification Findings Conclusion During the verification it has been checked whether leakage emissions have to be considered and, in cases where leakage emissions have to be calculated, the respective calculation of leakage GHG emissions has been checked. In such cases the same verification principles have been considered as for the baseline and project emissions calculation. Please refer to E.8.1 and E.8.2. Leakage emission are zero LE = 0. This is in line with the registered PDD as indicated in the related methodology. The verification team has checked the reg. PDD as well as the methodology to confirm the same. No findings were raised on this matter. No leakage has to be considered as checked with related methodology and the registered PDD. E.8.4. Summary of calculation of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks Means verification of 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 requires 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. Findings Conclusion No findings were raised on this matter. The summary table in the MR has been filled correctly and the values are in line with the related emissions reduction spreadsheet. E.8.5. Comparison of actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks with estimates in registered PDD Means verification Findings Conclusion of The verification team has checked if the MR includes a comparison of actual values of the monitoring period with the estimations in the registered PDD. It has further checked which of the below listed cases is applicable for the calculated ER of the current monitoring period. Please refer to following checklist items in Appendix 5 Table A-2: E.4 CAR 02: Estimated ex-ante value according to the registered PDD included in section E.5 differs is incorrect The MR includes a comparison of the calculated actual emission reductions with the ex-ante calculated values in the registered PDD. An editorial mistake was identified when the value was copied. Version 01.0 Page 14 of 64

15 The ex-post determined value was found to be slightly higher than the ex-ante estimated value. This was justified by the using historical data of wind speed. The wind speed of year 2015 was found to be higher than in previous 2 years. Hence more electricity was generated due to external conditions not in control of the. Wind projects depends on wind availability. Therefore the slightly higher achieved ER was considered plausible and accepted by the audit team. E.8.6. Remarks on difference from estimated value in registered PDD Means verification Findings Conclusion of On the basis of the above comparison of actual values of the monitoring period with the estimations in the registered PDD (E.8.5) the verification team has checked whether (in case 3) an appropriate explanation is included in the MR. Please refer to following checklist items in Appendix 5 Table A-2: E.4 No findings were raised on this matter. The ex-post determined value was found to be slightly higher than the ex-ante estimated value, thus proper justification was provided in the checklist. E.8.7. Actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks during the first commitment period and the period from 1 January 2013 onwards Means of verification The MR in section E.4 includes a summary table of the ER breakdown a) ER up to and b) ER from onwards The breakdown of the ERs during the first commitment period and from onwards is as follows: The ER have completely been generated during the first commitment period The ERs have completely been generated from onwards, The ERs have partly been generated during the first commitment period and partly from onwards. The breakdown of the ERs is correct, considering the applicable guidance. until from Sum ) ) Emission reductions [tco 2e ] 0 127, ,332 1) Both days included Findings Conclusion SECTION F. No findings were raised on this matter The data provided in the MR is correct as well as the related breakdown. The prorata approach was correctly applied to the calculations of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals in accordance with the Project standard, as the monitoring period starts before 31 December 2012 and ends anytime thereafter. Internal quality control Before submission of the final verification report a technical review of the whole verification procedure was 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 have been confirmed or revised. Furthermore, reporting improvements might have been achieved. Version 01.0 Page 15 of 64

16 After the successful technical review an overall (esp. procedural) assessment of the complete verification has been carried out by a senior assessor located in the accredited premises of TÜV NORD. After this step the submission for requesting for issuance has been conducted. Version 01.0 Page 16 of 64

17 SECTION G. Verification opinion Consorcio Eólico Amayo S.A. has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program to carry out the 7 th periodic verification of the project: Amayo 40MW Wind Power Project - Nicaragua, with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. The project reduces GHG emissions due to the use of wind power to generate renewable electricity to be delivered to the national grid of Nicaragua. The project consists of 19 Wind Turbine Generator (WTG) of 2.1 MW each, accumulating to 39.9 MW of installed capacity. This verification covers the period from 01/07/2014 to 30/06/2015 (including both days). 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 ver.07; 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 7 th periodic verification, the verifier confirms that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the project has achieved emission reductions in the above mentioned reporting period as follows: Emission reductions: 127,332 t CO 2 e SECTION H. Certification statement As a duly accredited DOE, TÜV NORD CERT confirms that the project registered under UNFCCC-No. : 2315 Amayo 40MW Wind Power Project - Nicaragua has achieved emission reductions in accordance with all applicable requirements for registered CDM project activities during the current monitoring period MP-No.: 7th from: 01/07/2014 to: 30/06/2015 (including both days) as follows: Emission reductions: 127,332 t CO 2e. Sao Paulo, Oliver Quireza Team leader ] Version 01.0 Page 17 of 64

18 Appendix 1. Abbreviations Amayo Abbreviations Amawo Wind Project Full texts CA CAR CDM CEA CER CO 2 CO 2eq CL CNDC DVerR ER ENATREL FAR GHG IM MARENA MP MR N/A PA PDD QA/QC Corrective Action / Clarification Action Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Consorcio Eólico Amayo Certified Emission Reduction Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Clarification Request National Center of Dispatch of Charge Centro Nacional de Despacho de Carga Draft Verification Report Emission Reduction National Company of Transmission of Electricity Empresa Nacional de Transmisión eléctrica Forward Action Request Greenhouse gas(es) Interview Memo Ministry for the Environmental Ministerio del Ambiente y los Recursos Naturales (DNA) Monitoring Plan Monitoring Report Not Applicable Project Activity Project Design Document Project Participant Quality Assurance / Quality Control Version 01.0 Page 18 of 64

19 Abbreviations SETENA UNFCCC VVS WEC XLS Full texts Secretaría Técnica Nacional del Ambiente (Environmental Ministry) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Validation and Verification Standard Wind Energy Converter Emission Reduction Calculation Spread Sheet Version 01.0 Page 19 of 64

20 Appendix 2. Competence of team members and technical reviewers Version 01.0 Page 20 of 64

21 Appendix 3. Documents reviewed or referenced No. Author Reference Title References to the document 1 UNFCCC /ACM00 02/ ACM0002 ver.07, Consolidated baseline methodology for gridconnected electricity generation from renewable sources 2 DOE /CPM/ TÜV NORD JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms) 3 IPCC /IPCC/ 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: work book c.int/filestorage/ C/D/M/CDMWF_ AM_323M30IDF 1IH6AG3GRCJ4 PKR9CKM7P/A CM0002_ver07. pdf?t=rep8bnn 6dHE4fDC1r1ZH bw 9zu_XNSB Cezp 4 UNFCCC /KP/ Kyoto Protocol (1997) yoto_protocol/ite ms/2830.php Provider Other Other Other Other 5 UNFCCC /MA/ Decision 3/CMP. 1 (Marrakesh Accords) 6 UNFCCC /MRT/ Monitoring Report Form (CDM-MR- FORM), Version c.int/reference/ COPMOP/index. html cc.int/reference/ PDDs_Forms/in dex.html Other Other 7 UNFCCC /PDD/ Project Design Document for CDM project: Amayo 40 MW Wind Power Project - Nicaragua version 03, dated c.int/filestorage/0 /H/W/0HWUDQ 8FMYNI21R7PK XTSO569J4L3A/ PDD%20Version %203.pdf?t=Vm p8bnn6dxo3fda RIPBZlIRGw ZYQnpXpmr 8 UNFCCC /PS/ CDM Project Standard (Version 9.0) c.int/reference/ Standards/index. html Other Other 9 /VAL/ Validation Report for CDM project Other Amayo 40 MW Wind Power Project - Nicaragua version 2, dated / DOE /VER/ Documents of previous verifications Other (Monitoring report, verification report, ER calculation sheet) Version 01.0 Page 21 of 64

22 No. Author Reference Title References to the document 11 UNFCCC /VVS/ CDM Validation and Verification Standard (Version 09.0) c.int/reference/ Standards/index. html 14 UNFCCC /GOT/ Glossary CDM terms (version 08.0) cc.int/filestorage/ e/x/t/extfile glos_cdm.pdf/gl os_cdm.pdf?t= UmZ8bnFjODI3f DCW9A3vJwR0 3kQQh4sbLiYu Provider Other Other 15 ENATREL /CA/ Connection Agreement (transmission line) between ENATREL and CEA - Convenio de conexión entre ENATREL y Consorcio Eóilico Amayo S.A - number 46397, issued 2007/08/17 (without validity date). 16 General Stores /CC_IO N/ Main meter: Schneider Electric, Power Logic, ION 8600, s/n: PT-0901A531-01: Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0779, 2012/10/14 by ENATREL (valid till 2014/10/13). Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1020, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22). Back up meter: Schneider Electric, Power Logic, ION 8600, s/n: PT- 0901A Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0780, 2012/10/14 by ENATREL (valid till 2014/10/13) Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1021, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22). N/A N/A 17 General Stores /CC_ne xus/ AMAYO PHASE I Measurement point AMY-U3010 (Cell 3): N/A o Main meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1004, 2014/01/28 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/01/27) - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1012, Version 01.0 Page 22 of 64

23 No. Author Reference Title References to the document 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) Provider o Back-up meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0767, 2012/10/13 by ENATREL (valid till 2014/10/12) - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1013, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) Measurement point AMY-U3040 (Cell 6): o Main meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0772, 2012/10/13 by ENATREL (valid till 2014/10/12) - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1014, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) o Back-up meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0771, 2012/10/13 by ENATREL (valid till 2014/10/12) - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1015, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) AMAYO PHASE II Measurement point AMY-U3120 (Cell 4) o Main meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0773, 2012/10/15 by ENATREL - (valid till 2014/10/14). Version 01.0 Page 23 of 64

24 No. Author Reference Title References to the document - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1018, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) Provider 18 /downti me/ o Back-up meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0774, 2012/10/15 by ENATREL - (valid till 2014/10/14). - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1019, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) Measurement point AMY-U3110 (Cell 5) o Main meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0775, 2012/10/14 by ENATREL - (valid till 2014/10/13). - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1016, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) o Back-up meter E.I.G., type Nexus 1262, class 0.2, serial No : - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 0776, 2012/10/14 by ENATREL. - (valid till 2014/10/13). - Conformity and Verification Certificate Num. 1017, 2014/10/23 by ENATREL (valid till 2016/10/22) Downtimes excel spread sheet (evidence of all down times extracted by the SCADA system) 19 /DR/ Daily generation calculation spread sheet Amayo Daily Report (Evidence of daily energy generation). 20 CNDC /DTE/ Economic Transaction Documents covering the monitoring period. Document issued monthly by the CNDC with information of the total energy generated by every plant in the N/A N/A N/A Version 01.0 Page 24 of 64

25 No. Author Reference Title References to the document national system (extracted directly from the CNDC web site (access route: Transacciones Economicas/DTE Oficiales/Transacciones Resumen/year) 21 CNDC /DWS/ Dispatch Information Center web site: N/A Sistema de Información del Centro Nacional de Despecho de Carga Usuarios autorizados/nombre de usuario/contraseña/inicio/subida de archivos Agentes/Comercial/SIMEC/AMAYO/YE AR (Evidence of the energy data delivered and up loaded to the energy authority). 22 /ED/ Electricity data extracted from the main N/A and back up meters corresponding the monitoring period. 23 CNDC, /EEG/ Evidence of Energy Generation from N/A, Amayo Phase I covering the Energy monitoring period: Buyers Energy meter readings downloaded directly from CDNC; 24 CNDC,, Energy Buyers /EEG_A 2/ Sales invoices issued; Monthly letters from the energy buyers confirming the acceptance of the invoices. Evidence of Energy Generation from Amayo Phase II covering the monitoring period: Energy meter readings downloaded directly from CDNC; Sales invoices issued; Monthly letters from the energy buyers confirming the acceptance of the invoices. 25 ENATREL /EGL/ Energy Generation License Contrato de Licencia de Generación de energía eléctrica number 29498, issued 2008/08/05 (valid for 30 years). CDM-VCR-FORM Provider 26 /EIA/ Environmental Impact Study, issued N/A November MARENA /EL/ Environmental License Permiso N/A ambiental number , issued 2007/01/08 (without expiration date). Document part of the Environmental License Resolución Administrativa number 08-99, issued 1999/05/18. Letter stamped and signed by MARENA 2008/10/21 (Evidence that the Environmental License is still valid). Version 01.0 Page 25 of 64 N/A N/A

26 No. Author Reference Title References to the document Environmental License Resolución Administrativa DT Rivas number N, issued 2009/11/ /log_bo Logbook of Operations Amayo N/A ok/ (covering the monitoring period). 29 Suzlon /IM/ Installation Manual S MW N/A Suzlon Windkraft GmbH, Doberaner Str. 115, Rostock Germany. 30 INE /INE/ Official letter signed and stamped by N/A INE, Ref. DGE-MCV , dated 2010/03/23 (evidence of the approval by the energy authority regarding the new method to calculate the energy supplied to the grid). 31 NACE /ISO/ ISO 9001:2008 NMX- N/A 0207/2012CRE00086 and ISO 14001:2004 NMX- 0207/2012CRE00083 issued on 2012/12/21, both valid until 2015/12/21 32 /MEP/ Monitoring Environmental Plan May- N/A 2016 and 2015 Reporte de Monitoreo Ambiental for Amayo I and Amayo II and its prove of receipt by MARENA on 2015/07/14 (bird impact monitoring, water quality monitoring, residual domestic water quality monitoring, sludge quality monitoring of the water treatment system, air quality monitoring, noise and hearing monitoring). 33 /MEPR/ Monthly Energy Production calculation N/A spread sheet & Monthly Energy Production Report corresponding to the monitoring period (evidence of monthly energy generation). 34 /MoRe/ Monthly Report Amayo (Evidence of N/A the operation data such as energy generation, operation statistics, incidents, etc.) 35 /MR/ Monitoring Report 7th Amayo 40 N/A MW Wind Power Project Nicaragua, version 01, 2015/07/08. Monitoring Report 7th Amayo 40 MW Wind Power Project Nicaragua, version 02, 2015/08/ Suzlon /MS/ Turbines main specification S88, 60 Hz N/A Standard Temperature Version 80m, Tubular Tower. 37 Suzlon /O&M/ Technical documentation - N/A Maintenance Manual - S MW, number WD00114, issued 2008/04/ /OP/ AMAYO Operational Procedures N/A (relevant for the project activity): Provider Procedure for discharge the SCADA files of turbine generation (AMY1- OPE-P14). Procedure to up load data to the Version 01.0 Page 26 of 64