VERIFICATION REPORT for the GS VER Project Activity. Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION REPORT for the GS VER Project Activity Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project in Turkey Report No Version 03, TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.

2 I. Project data: Project title: Registration No.: Monitoring period: Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project GS503 16/12/ /12/2010 including both days Methodology: ACM0002, version 10 Annual average emission reductions: GHG reducing measure/technology: Verified: 33,063 tco 2 e/yr Electricity generation by renewable energy resource II. Verification data: Verification team Role Full name Team leader Mr. You CUI 1.2, 13.1 Appointed for Sectoral Scopes Affiliation TÜV Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH Local Expert Ms. Hatice Ekenler - - Technical Reviewer Mr. Ralf Kober 1.2, 7.1, 13.1 TÜV Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH III. Verification report data: Report No.: Current revision No.: Date of current revision: Date of first issue: Distribution: No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organizational unit Unrestricted distribution Final approval: Released on: Designated Operational Entity (DOE): TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. Shin Yokohama Daini Center Bldg., , Shin Yokohama Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, JAPAN Tel.: , Fax: cdm@tuv.com Page 2

3 Verification opinion summary The verification team assigned by the DOE (TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd.) concludes that the GS VER Project Activity Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project in Turkey, as described in the registered PDD (version 05, 05/12/2009) and monitoring report (version 02, 14/06/2011), meets meet all relevant requirements of the Gold Standard for VER project activities. The project activity was correctly implemented according to selected monitoring methodology and monitoring plan. The monitoring equipment was installed, calibrated and maintained in a proper manner, while collected monitoring data allowed to verify the amount of achieved GHG emission reductions. The DOE therefore is pleased to issue a positive verification opinion expressed in the attached Certification statement. Page 3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Scope 5 2 METHODOLOGY Desk review Follow-up interviews with project stakeholders Resolution of outstanding issues Internal quality control 10 3 VERIFICATION FINDINGS Project implementation Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology Compliance of monitoring with PDD and monitoring plan Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions Issues remaining from the previous verification period 16 Appendix A: Verification Protocol Appendix B: Certification statement Appendix C: Certificates of Competence Page 4

5 1. Introduction The RWE Supply & Trading Switzerland S.A. has commissioned the DOE TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd. to perform a verification of the GS VER Project Activity Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project in Turkey (hereafter project activity ). This report summarises the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of relevant Gold Standard requirements, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting and the subsequent decisions by the GS Board. Verification is required for all registered GS VER project activities intending to confirm their achieved emission reductions and proceed with request for issuance of VERs. 1.1 Objective The purpose of verification is to review the monitoring results and verify that monitoring methodology was implemented according to monitoring plan and monitoring data, used to confirm the reductions in anthropogenic emissions by sources is sufficient, definitive and presented in a concise and transparent manner. In particular, monitoring plan, monitoring report and the project s compliance with relevant GS criteria are verified in order to confirm that the project has been implemented in accordance with previously registered design and conservative assumptions, as documented. 1.2 Scope The verification comprises a review of the monitoring report over the monitoring period from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2010 including both days, based on registered PDD in part of the monitoring parameters and monitoring plan, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet, monitoring methodology and all related evidence provided by project participant. On-site visit and stakeholders interviews are also performed as part of the initial verification process. Page 5

6 2. Methodology The verification consists of the following three phases: 1. Desk review of the monitoring plan, monitoring report, project design document and other relevant documents; 2. On-site visit (including follow-up interviews with project stakeholders, when deemed necessary); 3. Resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final verification report and Certification statement. The following sections outline each step in more detail. 2.1 Desk review The following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the verification: /DOC1/ Fauna & Bird Report I/2010 /DOC2/ Fauna & Bird Report II/2010 /DOC3/ Observation Protocol for Report No. II/2010 /DOC4/ Monitoring calculations spreadsheet /DOC5/ Emission factor calculation sheet /DOC6/ Electricity meter calibration confirmation /DOC7/ Electricity meter calibration test protocol /DOC8/ Electricity meter read out protocols Dec09-Dec10 signed by BEDAS /DOC9/ PMUM account screenshots Dec09-Dec10 /DOC10/ Invoices to Teias Dec09-Dec10 /DOC11/ SCADA screenshot annual generation /DOC12/ Verified MR1 /DOC13/ Final GS 2-week verification review document /DOC14/ Final Verification Report Monitoring Period No. 1 /DOC15/ Registered PDD /DOC16/ Enercon training certificates 2010 /DOC17/ Training confirmation with participant list /DOC18/ Certificates Fire /DOC19/ Certificates Health&Safety /DOC20/ Staff list 2010 /DOC21/ Staff list January 2011 Page 6

7 /DOC22/ Contract for noise report 2011 /DOC23/ Noise report 2010 /DOC24/ Confirmation on noise measuring method /DOC25/ Explanation on noise report 2010 results /DOC26/ SCADA excerpts on wind speed during 1 st noise measuring /DOC27/ SCADA excerpts on long term average wind speed /DOC28/ Noise report 2011 /DOC29/ SCADA data on wind speed January 2011 /DOC30/ SCADA screenshots annual generation per plant /DOC31/ Soil report I/2010 /DOC32/ Soil report II/2010 /DOC33/ Mammalian Statement /DOC34/ Monitoring report (version 01, 13/03/2011) /DOC35/ Monitoring report (version 02, 14/06/2011) Page 7

8 2.2 On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders Date Name Organization Topic /I1/ /I2/ 15/04/2011 Mr. Ferhon Güven Enercon - Monitoring system of net electricity supplied to the grid - Data collection and record system of the grid company - Calibration of the electric meter - SD indicators 15/04/2011 Mr. Selim Toraman Lodos Elektrik - Information regarding actual implementation of the project activity - SD indicators /I3/ 15/04/2011 Mr. İsmail Bahçıvan Lodos Elektrik - Monitoring management - QA/QC procedure - Emergency procedure - Date of commissioning of the power plant - Receipt of ETNs from the grid company - Issuance of invoice to the grid company - QA/QC procedure of data review and transfer - SD indicators /I4/ 15/04/2011 Mr. Ozan Ali Aşan Local resident - Opinion on the project - SD indicators /I5/ 15/04/2011 Mr. İbrahim Akkuş Local resident - Opinion on the project - SD indicators /I6/ 15/04/2011 Mr. Nevzat İnce Local resident - Opinion on the project - SD indicators /I7/ 15/04/2011 Mr. İsmail Gündoğdu Local resident - Opinion on the project - SD indicators /I8/ 15/04/2011 Mr. Salim Şeker Local authority - Opinion on the project - SD indicators 2.3 Resolution of outstanding issues Page 8

9 The objective of this phase of the verification is to resolve any outstanding issues which have to be clarified prior to final DOE s conclusions on the project implementation, monitoring practices and achieved emission reductions. In order to ensure transparency a verification protocol is completed for the project activity. The protocol shows in transparent manner criteria (requirements), means of verification and resulting statements on verification actual project activity against identified criteria. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: It organises in a table form, details and clarifies the requirements, which GS VER project is expected to meet; It ensures a transparent verification process where the DOE will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the result of the verification. The verification protocol consists of two tables. Table 1 reflects the verification requirements and reference to the materials used to verify the project activity against those requirements, as well as means of verification, reference to Table 2 and preliminary and final opinion of the DOE on every particular requirement. The completed verification protocol for this project is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. Findings during the verification can be interpreted as a non-compliance with GS criteria or a risk to the compliance. Corrective action requests (CARs) are raised, in case: (a) Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient; (b) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions which will impair the estimate of emission reductions; (c) Issues identified in a FAR during validation to be verified during verification have not been resolved by the project participants. Requests for clarification (CLs) are raised, if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable GS requirements have been met. Page 9

10 2.4 Internal quality control The final verification report has passed a technical review before being submitted to the project participant. The technical review was performed by a technical reviewer qualified in accordance with TÜV Rheinland s qualification scheme for GS validation and verification. 3. Verification findings The findings of the verification are described in the following sections. The verification criteria (requirements), the means of verification and the results of verification are documented in detail in the verification protocol in Appendix A. 3.1 Project implementation The implementation of the project activity By means of desk review and on-site observation, the verification team confirms the installed physical facilities of the project activity as follows: Actual implementation of the project activity The project activity is located in Tayakadın village, Kemerburgaz municipality, Gaziosmanpaşa district, Istanbul province, Turkey. Technical specification of wind turbine: - Model: Enercon E-82 - Unit: 12 - Installed capacity: 2 MW of each wind turbine - Total installed capacity: 24 MW Installation of main meter - Location: At substation owned by TEİAŞ - Accuracy: 0.5s - Calibration frequency: Each 10 years Installation of backup meter - Location: At project site Consistency with the registered PDD Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Assessment by the verification team The project coordinate has been checked via Google Earth (version ) and by means of on-site assessment. The wind turbines were observed by the verification team during the on-site assessment. It is confirmed that the technical specification of generator is consistent with information in the registered PDD and monitoring report. The main meter was observed by the verification team during the on-site assessment that the meter belongs to the grid company and measures amount of electricity supplied to the grid and drawn from the grid. Therefore, it is confirmed that installation of the main meter is in accordance with description in the registered PDD. The backup meter was observed by the verification team during Page 10

11 Actual implementation of the project activity - Accuracy: 0.5s - Calibration frequency: Each 10 years Consistency Assessment by the verification with the team registered PDD the on-site assessment that the meter belongs to the project owner and measures amount of electricity supplied to the grid and drawn from the grid as backup meter. Therefore, it is confirmed that installation of backup meter is in accordance with description in the registered PDD. In summary, the verification team confirms that the installation of the equipments and facilities is in consistency with the registered GS PDD and no deviation from the original monitoring plan has been found The actual operation of the GS VER project activity The timeline of the project s implementation is as follow: Milestone of the project activity Timeline Assessment by the verification team Starting date of operation 20/06/2008 During the on-site assessment, plant operation log book was reviewed by the verification team, it is confirmed that the project activity started operation and supplying electricity to the grid on 20/06/2008. Registration of the project activity as GS VER 16/12/2009 Please refer to GS Registry for more details: t/myrpt.asp?r=111 Current crediting period Please refer to GS Registry for more details: t/myrpt.asp?r=111 Current monitoring period 16/12/ /12/2010 Under verification In summary, the monitoring period is reasonable and the actual implementation of the project activity is appropriate to its development. Page 11

12 3.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology By means of reviewing the monitoring methodology ACM0002 Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources (version 10), the registered monitoring plan and the monitoring report, the verification team confirms that monitoring plan applied in compliance with the monitoring methodology. 3.3 Compliance of the monitoring with PDD and monitoring plan The verification team carried out the following activities to confirm that the actual monitoring activity at site is in compliance with the monitoring plan of the registered PDD and the reductions in GHG emissions claimed for the monitoring period are conservative Monitored parameters According to registered monitoring plan as documented in the registered PDD, the following parameters need to be monitored: EG facility,y (Net electricity supplied to the grid) Item Monitoring equipment Frequency of measurement Data record Frequency of data record Description The main electric meter The backup electric meter Continued measurement PUMU data record Monthly record Assessment by the verification team The main electric meter is bi-directional meter which directly measures both electricity supplied to the grid and drawn from the grid. As described in section of this report, the main meter is installed at the substation and belongs to the grid company. The backup meter belongs to the project owner and is installed at the project site. The backup meter serves as cross checking of monitoring data by the main meter and will be used if the main meter has malfunction. By means of on-site observation, the verification team confirms that data is measured by the main meter and back up meter continuously. The amount of net electricity supplied to the grid from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2010 (including both days) was verified based on measurement record by the grid company /DOC09/. By means of reviewing invoices issued by the project owner /DOC10/ and internal record /DOC11/, the measurement record from the grid company was crosschecked by the verification team to be reliable. Monthly record of data issued by PMUM /DOC09/ and internal record by the project owner /DOC11/ have been reviewed by the verification team to be effective. Page 12

13 3.3.2 Monitoring responsibility By means of interview with Mr. İsmail Bahçıvan who is monitoring manager of LODOS ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM A. Ş. /I3/, the verification team is convinced that the project owner s management and operational procedure is in accordance with the registered monitoring plan. The project monitoring organization was established and operated from the start of the project and responsibilities of the relevant staffs have been stipulated in the operation and monitoring manual. Training on operation of the project activity and monitoring arrangement has been given to the responsible personnel prior to the start of the project operation /DOC16/, /DOC17/. Furthermore, qualification certificates of relevant operation staffs have been reviewed by the verification team during the on-site assessment to be effective Accuracy of equipment According to registered monitoring plan, monitoring equipments have been installed in the project activity. The verification team observed the monitoring equipments during the on-site assessment and summarizes their technical specifications in the table below: The main meter The backup meter Function Electric meter (bi-directional) Electric meter (bi-directional) Ownership Grid company Project owner Location Substation Project site Monitored parameter EG facility,y EG facility,y Type Tr.3.4.OP.5(0,5)-IN Tr.3.4.OP.5(0,5)-IN Serial number Accuracy 0.5s 0.5s Initial calibration 25/05/08 17/03/09 Page 13

14 The main meter The backup meter Frequency of calibration Each 10 years Each 10 years Relevant national standard TS EN fulfilled TS EN fulfilled In summary, the verification team is able to verify that the accuracy the monitoring equipments were set according to the registered monitoring plan and relevant national standard in Turkey. Furthermore, all calibration procedures were carried out according to the monitoring plan and manufacturer specifications. Therefore, accuracy of monitoring equipments is assured Deviation from and Revision of the registered monitoring plan Not applicable to the project activity 3.4 Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions According to the ACM0002 (version 10), emission reductions are calculated as follow: ER y = BE y PE y where: ER y = Emission reductions in year y (t CO 2 e/yr) BE y = Baseline emissions in year y (t CO 2 e/yr) PE y = Project emissions in year y (t CO 2 e/yr) According to the registered PDD and methodology, there isn t any leakage or project emission occurred in the project activity. Hence, ER y = BE y Assessment of BE y : As per ACM0002 (version 10) and registered PDD, baseline emissions are calculated to be amount of net electricity supplied to the grid by the proposed project activity (EG facility,y ) multiplying emission factor of the grid (EF grid,cm,y ). The verification team confirms that emission factor of Turkish Grid was ex-ante determined to be tco 2 e/mwh at validation stage. As per Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 1.1), the emission factor is valid for the crediting period and no monitoring is required. Thus, emission factor of the power grid is justified to be tco 2 e/mwh. The net electricity supplied to the grid was measured by the main meter which is a bidirectional meter. The main meter measures both electricity supplied to the grid and drawn from the grid. The difference between both figures is amount of net electricity supplied to the grid. The verification team verified baseline emission as follow: Page 14

15 Monitoring Period 16/12/ /12/ /01/ /01/ /02/ /02/ /03/ /03/ /04/ /04/ /05/ /05/ /06/ /06/ /07/ /07/ /08/ /08/ /09/ /09/ /10/ /10/ /11/ /11/ /12/ /12/2010 Measurement record issued by the grid company (MWh) EG facility,y,grid Measurement record issued by the project owner (MWh) EG facility,y,po Net electricity supplied to the grid (MWh) EG y = MIN(EG facility,y,grid ; EG facility,y,po ) 3, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Total 53, , , The emission reductions (= baseline emissions) for the monitoring period from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2010 including both days are calculated as follows: 1 Net electricity supplied from 01/12/2009 to 31/12/2009 was measured by the grid company to be 6, MWh. According to 1 st monitoring report and verification report, electricity supplied to the grid from 01/12/2009 to 15/12/2009 was 2, Hence, electricity supplied to the gird from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2009 is calculated to be difference between both figures: 6, MWh 2, MWh = 3, MWh 2 The monitoring started at 00:00 hour on 16/12/2009 and ended at 24:00 hour on 31/12/2009. The backup meter s start and end reading during this period are 1, and 2, respectively. The electricity measured by the backup meter is calculated to be 3, = (2, ,982.62) X 34,500 / 1000 Page 15

16 Monitoring period 16/12/ /12/2009 (Monitoring period in 2009) 01/01/ /12/2010 (Monitoring period in 2010) EG facility,y (MWh) EF grid,cm,y (tco2e/mwh) 3, , Total 53, ER y (tco2e) 2,306 (rounded down value) 30,757 (rounded down value) 33,063 (rounded down value) 3.5 Issues remaining from the previous verification period 1 FAR was issued by the DOE during pervious verification. Moreover, The GS association issued 5 FARs in respect of sustainable development indicators. The table below summaries the detail of FARs and assessment by the verification team: FAR P1 issued by the DOE Item FAR description Assessment by the verification team Conclusion Description The appropriateness of the read out for electricity generation of the month December 09 shall be assured during the second verification i.e. comparison of the different read outs for the month December 09 (readout from 1st to 15th, read out from 16th to 31st, read out for the whole month) and ensuring the liability of the values from the read out. Moreover avoiding of double counting of emission reductions shall be ensured. The monitoring started on 16/12/2009. By means of reviewing PMUM data record from 01/12/2009 to 31/12/2009 and verified electricity supplied to the grid from 01/12/2009 to 15/12/2009, the verification team verified that electricity supplied to the grid from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2009 is 3, MWh which is difference between both figures. Please refer to details as described in footnote No. 1 in section 3.4. The electricity supplied to the grid from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2009 is verified based reliable and verifiable evidences /DOC09/, /DOC12/, /DOC14/. No double counting occurred during the monitoring period and the FAR P1 is closed. FAR 1 issued by the GS Item FAR description Description PP undertakes that additional health and safety trainings will be provided to all staff members. These trainings will be subjected to verification during the third monitoring period the latest. The DOE shall please check that these trainings have been conducted in line with the above timeline. Page 16

17 Assessment by the verification team Conclusion By means of interview with the operation staff /I1/, /I2/, /I3/ and reviewing training certificate issued by a accredited third party /DOC19/, the verification team confirms that health and safety training was conducted on 09/11/2010 and all operation staff member (12 people) participated the training course. The health and safety training was conducted in line with requirement of GS and checked by the verification team to be appropriate. The FAR 1 is closed. FAR 2 issued by the GS Item FAR description Assessment by the verification team Conclusion Description The PP shall please ensure that they comply with the registered monitoring plan going forward with regards to the monitoring of Soil Condition. The PP shall please provide more details in future monitoring reports on what measurements were made and what mitigation measures were implemented based on the recommendations of the expert report. The DOE shall please check during the next verification that the PP has carried out mitigation measures recommended in the current expert report. Section F.3 and F.4 of monitoring report sufficiently describe measurement and implementation of mitigation carried out by the project owner based on recommendations of the independent expert. Soil report I/2010 /DOC31/ and soil report II/2010 /DOC32/ substantiate that the PP commissioned an independent expert company named ZEMAR to measure soil conditions at the project site. The soil reports contain measurement result; conclude further monitoring arrangement and mitigation measures. The activities carried out by the PP are in accordance with GS requirements and the verification team deems that FAR 2 is closed. FAR 3 issued by the GS Item FAR description Assessment by the verification team Conclusion Description We note FAR P1 raised by the DOE. The PP and DOE shall please ensure that this is addressed during the second verification. Please refer to assessment of FAR P1 as described in the section above The FAR 3 raised by the GS is same as FAR P1 raised by the DOE. FAR 3 is closed. FAR 4 issued by the GS Page 17

18 Item FAR description Assessment by the verification team Conclusion Description With reference to the fauna observation report prepared by Doga, it is concluded that Tayakadin and Bakali villages are on bird migration routes. The PP shall please continue monitoring the impact of the project activity on local birds and bird migration with the approach and at the frequency suggested by the aforementioned report until enough data is available to conclude what level of monitoring and what mitigation measures are needed over the whole crediting period. The DOE shall please note this for the next verification. The PP shall also monitor during the next monitoring period the impact of the project activity on mammals due to sound and magnetic effects of the wind turbines, as recommended by Doga. By means of reviewing Monitoring Report of Fauna and Bird /DOC2/, observation protocol /DOC3/ and Mammalian Statement /DOC33/, the verification team confirms that impacts of the proposed project activity on local birds and bird migration have been monitored by a zoologist Prof. Dr. Levent Turan in the manner of periodic on-site observations at the project site between August and December As a result of independent on-site observation and assessment by Prof. Dr. Levent Turan, no negative interaction between local bird species, migratory bird species, bat species and wind power turbines is identified. Impact of the proposed project activity on mammals was independently assessed by the zoologist - Prof. Dr. Levent Turan. No negative interaction between local mammalian species and turbines or interaction between animal behaviour and turbines is identified in consequence of project s implementation. The project owner s activities comply with GS requirements and checked by the verification team to be appropriate. The FAR 4 is closed. FAR 5 issued by the GS Item FAR description Assessment by the verification team Description The PP shall please conduct noise measurement tests at the closest settlements again during the 2 nd monitoring period to ascertain the findings derived from the noise measurement report conducted during the first monitoring period. The noise measurement was conducted by an independent expert - Haliç Çevre Teknolojileri Ltd. Şti. in 02/2010. By means of reviewing noise measurement report 2010, the verification team confirms that measurement records and detailed presentation of measurement as well as a conclusion are well documented by the expert. The measurement was conducted at the closest settlement: Tayakadın village and Türkköşe village. During the on-site assessment, several local residents /I4/ - /I7/ were Page 18

19 interviewed by the verification team that there isn t any negative impact on residents daily life due to noise of wind turbines. Conclusion The project owner s activities comply with GS requirements and checked by the verification team to be appropriate. The FAR 5 is closed. 3.6 Contribution to sustainable development The project activity contributes to the sustainable development of Turkey mainly by the means of job creation for local residents, technology and knowledge transfer and environmental technology of electricity generation. The project activity s implementation was assessed in terms of its contribution to SD taking into account the validated SD Matrix and SD indicator monitoring plan. It was observed by the verification team that the project activity is in compliance with the SD Matrix and monitoring of relevant SD parameters was performed appropriately and adequately. No negative impact on the SD indicators was identified during the verification. The project fulfils the SD requirements of GS standard. Page 19

20 Verification protocol Appendix A Verification protocol Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project in Turkey to Report No Page 20

21 Verification protocol Table 1: Verification requirements (based on 56, 57 and 62 of the CDM Modalities and Procedures and on CDM Verification and Verification Manual, Annex 1 of EB55) Checklist question Ref. MoV 3 Findings, comments, references, data sources 1. Implementation Draft Final conclusion conclusion 1.1 Have all physical features proposed in the registered PDD been implemented at the project site? PDD MR I By means of on-site observation, the verification team checked actual implementation of the project and confirms all physical features have been implemented in accordance with the registered PDD. 1.2 Has the project activity been operated in accordance with the project scenario described in the registered PDD and relevant guidance? PDD MR I Project s implementation fully complies with the registered PDD. 1.3 If the project activity is implemented on a number of different locations, has the Monitoring report provided the verifiable starting dates for each site? PDD I Not applicable 2. Monitoring plan and methodology 2.1 Is the monitoring plan established in accordance with the monitoring methodology? PDD ACM0002 The monitoring plan in particular of data monitoring, data record, data collection, data archive, data review, data transfer and QA/QC procedure are in accordance with ACM0002 (version 10) 2.2 In case the implemented monitoring plan defers from the monitoring methodology, has PDD Not applicable 3 MoV = Means of Verification, = Document Review, I = Interview, www = internet search. Page 21

22 Verification protocol Checklist question any requests for revision to or deviation from the monitoring methodology been officially communicated to the CDM EB? Reference: < 84, 58 Ref. MR MoV 3 I Findings, comments, Draft Final references, data sources conclusion conclusion Have the above changes to the monitoring plan been approved by the CDM EB? PDD MR I Not applicable 3. Monitoring and the monitoring plan 3.1 Is monitoring established in full compliance with the monitoring plan, contained in the registered PDD (or new monitoring plan approved by the CDM EB)? PDD MR Yes, the monitoring arrangement is in full compliance with the monitoring plan as documented in the registered PDD. 3.2 Are all baseline emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions? PDD MR As per ACM0002 (version 10) and registered monitoring plan, net electricity supplied to the grid is monitored to calculate the baseline emission Was the monitoring equipment for baseline emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency? MR I The main meter (Serial No , Accuracy: 0.5s) is controlled by the grid company Was the monitoring equipment for baseline emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan? MR I The main meter will be calibrated each 10 years that is prescribed by Turkish National Standard TS EN Are all project emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions? MR The net electricity supply to the grid is monitored in accordance with registered monitoring plan and monitoring methodology. Page 22

23 Verification protocol Checklist question Was the monitoring equipment for project emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency? Was the monitoring equipment for project emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan? 3.4 Are all leakage emission parameters monitored and updated in accordance with monitoring plan, monitoring methodology and relevant CDM EB decisions? Was the monitoring equipment for leakage emission parameters controlled and monitoring results recorded as per approved frequency? Was the monitoring equipment for leakage emission parameters calibrated in accordance with QA&QC procedures described in the registered monitoring plan? Ref. MoV 3 Findings, comments, Draft Final references, data sources conclusion conclusion MR Not applicable MR Not applicable MR Not applicable MR Not applicable MR Not applicable 3.5 Were all monitoring parameters available and verifiable through the whole monitoring period? MR I All monitoring parameters are verifiable through the whole monitoring period In case, only partial monitoring data is available and PP(s) provide estimations or assumptions for the rest of data, was it possible to verify those estimations and assumptions? Reference: < 109(b) MR Not applicable, all monitoring parameters can be monitored directly and completely. Page 23

24 Verification protocol Checklist question Ref. MoV 3 Findings, comments, Draft Final references, data sources conclusion conclusion 3.6 Was management and operation system established and operated in accordance with the monitoring plan? MR I By means of reviewing the monitoring and operation manual, the verification team confirms that the management and operation system is operated in accordance with the monitoring plan. 3.7 Was is it possible to verify that involved management and operation personal is fully aware of the responsibilities and perform all operations according to the registered monitoring plan and internally developed manuals? MR I The qualification certificates of operation staff has bee reviewed by the verification team to be effective. Furthermore, training on operation of the project and monitoring arrangement has been given to the operation staff. 4. Parameters 4.1 Monitored parameter Title: Electricity supplied to the grid Indication: EG facility,y Units: MWh Estimated value (ex-ante): 80,275 MWh annually Measured value (ex-post): 53,587 MWh from 16/12/2009 to 31/12/2010 MR Please refer to details as described in table 2 CAR 01 CAR Default parameter Title: Emission factor of the grid Indication: EF grid,cm,y Units: t CO2e/MWh Default/Used value: MR As per registered PDD, the emission factor has been calculated by ex-ante method and thus the emission factor doesn t need to be monitored or recalculated for the current crediting period. 5. Calculations Page 24

25 Verification protocol Checklist question Ref. MoV 3 Findings, comments, Draft Final references, data sources conclusion conclusion 5.1 Have all the calculations related to the baseline emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology? MR Please refer to details as described in table 2 CAR 01 CAR Have all the calculations related to the project emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology? 5.3 Have all the calculations related to the leakage emissions been carried according to the formulae and methods described in the registered PDD and applied methodology? MR Not applicable MR Not applicable Page 25

26 Verification protocol Table 2: List of Requests for Corrective Action (CAR) No. CAR Reference Summary of project owner response Verification team conclusion 1 Please present rounded down value of annual emission reductions in the MR Section A.1, page 2 Section E.4, page 19 Section E.5, page 19 All figures were rounded. The corresponding figures relating to emission reductions are rounded down for conservativeness. The CAR is closed. 2 Amount of electricity supplied to the grid measured by the grid company (PMUM) shall be used to calculate emission reduction. Please update the figures in the table 14 entirely according to PMUM records. Section E.4, page 19 Electricity figures were taken from PMUM account data. This was also explained in section C.1. Net electricity supplied to the grid measured by the main meter owned by PMUM was taken to calculate emission reduction which is in accordance with registered monitoring plan and monitoring methodology. The CAR is closed. 3 More details about health and safety trainings should be addressed in table 23 of the MR. Section F.4, page 27 Further details were added to Table 23. The monitoring report reflects corresponding information appropriately. The CAR is closed. Page 26

27 Verification protocol Table 2: List of Requests for Clarification (CL) No. CL Reference Summary of project owner response Verification team conclusion 1 Please provide description of impact on mammal in the monitoring report Section F.3.2 Section F.4 The corresponding description has been indicated in the monitoring report that no negative impact on mammal has been identified. The impact on mammal of the proposed project activity was independently assessed by the zoologist - Prof. Dr. Levent Turan /DOC33/ that no negative interaction between local mammalian species and turbines or interaction between animal behaviour and turbines is identified in consequence of project s implementation. The /DOC33/ has been received by the verification team. The PDD also reflects corresponding information appropriately. The CL is closed. Page 27

28 Appendix B Certification statement to the Verification Report Page 28

29 Certification statement TÜV Rheinland Japan Ltd., the DOE, has performed a verification of the registered GS VER project activity GS503, Kemerburgaz Wind Farm Project in Turkey. The project activity is designed to generate emission reductions by generation of electricity from renewable energy resource. The verification was performed to identify the compliance of the project activity with implementation and monitoring requirements, and to verify the actual amount of achieved emission reductions. The verification is based on: Registered GS PDD (version 05, 05/12/2009); Approved monitoring methodology ACM0002 Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, version 10; Monitoring report (version 02, 14/06/2011). This statement covers verification period between 16/12/2009 and 31/12/2010. The DOE has raised 3 corrective action requests and 1 clarification request; all of which have been successfully resolved by the PP. The DOE, herewith certifies that the project activity, achieved emission reductions by sources of GHG equal to 33,063 tco 2 and all monitoring requirements have been fulfilled Date Date Mr. Ralf Kober Technical Reviewer TÜV Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH Mr. You Cui Team Leader TÜV Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH Page 29

30 Appendix C Certificates of Competence Page 30

31 Page 31

32 Page 32