Verification Report. Anemon Wind Farm

Transcription

1 Verification Report Anemon Wind Farm Initial and First Periodic Verification of the Gold Standard VER project Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey Report No , rev. 1 May 28, 2008 TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Carbon Management Service Westendstr Munich - GERMANY

2 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 1 of 19 Report No. Date of first issue Version Date of this revision May 13, (rev. 1) May 28, 2008 Certificate No. Subject: Initial and First Periodic Verification of a GS VER Project Executing Operational Unit: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Carbon Management Service Westendstr Munich, GERMANY Client: Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S. Contract approved by: Report Title: Number of pages Thomas Kleiser Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER project Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 19 (excluding cover page and annexes) Summary: The certification body Climate and Energy of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has been ordered by Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S., Feneryolu / Istanbul, Turkey, to carry out the periodic verification of the Anemon Wind Farm GS VER Project in Turkey. The underlying emission reduction report covers the monitored period from to The verification team confirms that the installed equipment being essential for generating emission reduction runs reliably and is calibrated appropriately. The monitoring system is in place and the project generates GHG emission reductions. The verification team confirms that the monitoring report is correct and valid and the GHG emission reduction for the whole monitoring period is calculated without material misstatements. Based on the information we have seen and evaluated, we confirm the following statement: Reporting period: from March 19, 2007 to December 31, Verified emission in the above reporting period: Baseline Emissions: t CO2 Project Emissions : 0 t CO2 Emission Reductions: t CO2 The verification team also determined some few areas of risks for the project in the context of the monitoring and management system. Issues indicated as Forward Action Request should be submitted as indispensable information to the verification team of the next periodic verification. Work carried out by: Klaus Nürnberger (project manager) Thyge Weller (GHG auditor) Nuri Mol (Local expert, Auditor-Trainee) Internal Quality Control by: Javier Castro

3 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 2 of 19 Abbreviations Abbreviations that have been used in the report here: AAU ACM CAR DOE ERU FAR GHG GS IETA IVC KP MP MVP PDD PVC SD TEIAS TÜV SÜD UNFCCC VER VVM Assigned Amount Unit Approved Consolidated Methodology Corrective Action Request Designated Operational Entity Emission Reduction Unit Forward Action Request Greenhouse Gas Gold Standard International Emission Trading Association Initial Verification Checklist Kyoto Protocol Monitoring Plan Monitoring and Verification Protocol Project Design Document Periodical Verification Checklist Sustainable Development Turkish Electricity Transmission Company TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Verified Emission Reductions Validation and Verification Manual

4 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 3 of 19 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Scope GHG Project Description METHODOLOGY Review of Documentation and Site Visit Resolution of Corrective and Forward Action Requests INITIAL VERIFICATION FINDINGS Remaining issues, CARs, FARs from initial validation Project Implementation Internal and External data Environmental and Social Indicators Management and Operational System Completeness of Monitoring Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Management System and Quality Assurance PROJECT SCORECARD VERIFICATION STATEMENT REFERENCES Annex 1: Initial Verification Checklist Annex 2: Periodic Verification Checklist

5 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 4 of 19 1 INTRODUCTION Erol Demirer, managing director of the Demirer Holding, the mother company of Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S., has commissioned the certification body Climate and Energy of TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH to verify the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey. The order covers the initial and first Periodic Verification of the project. This report summarizes the findings of both verifications. It is based on the Initial Verification Report Template Version 3.0, December 2003 and on the Periodic Verification Report Template Version 3.0, December 2003, both part of the Validation and Verification Manual (VVM) published by International Emission Trading Association (IETA). Initial and first periodic verification has been performed as one integrated activity. The verifier has reviewed the GHG data collected for the period between and It consisted of a desk review of the project documents and an on-site visit. The results of the final determination were documented by TÜV Rheinland in the Validation Report Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project Turkey, report no , rev. 1, dated This final validation report indicates no remaining issues. The same day the project was also officially registered by the GS organization. During the 6-week GS registration reviews there were no outstanding issues raised. The verification team consists of the following personnel: Klaus Nürnberger TÜV SÜD, Munich Project Manager, Team Leader Dr. Thyge Weller TÜV SÜD, Munich GHG Auditor TÜV SÜD GROUP Türkiye Local expert, GHG Trainee 1.1 Objective Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S. has commissioned an independent initial / first periodic verification of the GS VER Project Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm by TÜV SÜD. The objective of verification can be divided in Initial Verification and Periodic Verification: Initial Verification: The objective of an initial verification is to verify that the project is implemented as planned, to confirm that the monitoring system is in place and fully functional, and to assure that the project will generate verifiable emission reductions. A separate initial verification prior to the project entering into regular operations is not a mandatory requirement. Periodic Verification: The objective of the periodic verification is to verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan; furthermore the periodic verification evaluates the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion with a high, but not absolute, level of assurance about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free of material misstatements; and verifies that the reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence, i.e. monitoring records. If no prior initial verification has been carried out, the objective of the first periodic verification also includes the objectives of the initial verification.

6 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 5 of 19 The verification shall consider both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. Quantitative data comprises the monitoring reports submitted to the verifier by the project entity. Qualitative data comprises information on internal management controls, calculation procedures, and procedures for transfer, frequency of emissions reports, review and internal audit of calculations/data transfers. The verification follows UNFCCC criteria referring to the Kyoto Protocol criteria, the JI/CDM rules and modalities, and rules of the Gold Standard organisation, as defined in the document The Gold Standard Validation & Verification Manual For Voluntary Offset Projects (June 2007) Scope Verification scope is defined as an independent and objective review and ex post determination by the Designated Operational Entity of the monitored reductions in GHG emissions. The verification is based on the submitted monitoring report and the validated project design documents including its monitoring plan. These documents are reviewed against Kyoto Protocol requirements, UNFCCC rules and associated interpretations, and the GS rules. TÜV SÜD has, based on the recommendations in the relevant Validation and Verification Manuals employed a risk-based approach in the verification, focusing on the identification of significant risks of the project implementation and the generation of GS VERs. The verification is not meant to provide any consulting towards the client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the monitoring activities. The audit team has been provided with a Monitoring Report and underlying data records in January 31, 2008, covering the period from March 19, 2007 to December 31, This document and its further revisions serve as the basis for the assessment presented herewith. Studying the existing documentation belonging to this project, it was obvious that the competence and capability of the audit team performing the verification has to cover at least the following aspects: Knowledge of Kyoto Protocol, the Marrakech Accords and the GS requirements Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Skills in environmental auditing (ISO 14000, EMAS) Quality assurance Technical aspects of wind energy Monitoring technologies and concepts Political, economical and technical conditions in host country According to these requirements TÜV SÜD has composed a project team in accordance with the appointment rules of the TÜV certification body climate and energy. Responsibility for the internal quality control of the project was with Javier Castro, head of the certification body climate and energy.

7 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 6 of GHG Project Description The main feature of the project is the energy production by wind turbines substituting electricity of the Turkish national grid. By replacing fossil fuel power generation the greenhouse gas emission in Turkey is reduced. The project involves the development of a 30.4 MW onshore wind farm in the region of Çanakkale-Intepe, Çanakalan-Karacaviran-Kurttepe Region in Turkey. The project is constructed and operated by Demirer Holding, under the name Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim Anonim Sirketi and consists of 38 wind turbines of 800 kw, supplied by Enercon GmbH, Germany. 27 units have a hub height of 65m, 9 units have a hub height of 55m and 2 units of 50m. The project activity includes the construction of 2000 m of new transmission line to establish a connection between the project and the national grid. The project is connected to the national grid 154 kv high-voltage transmission line between the Çanakkale and Ezine transformer stations. At the time of the verification the project was fully operational. Involved project participants were: Salih Uysal, Member of the Board; Demirer Holding A.S. Cagla Balci Eris, Ass. Commercial Coordinator, Demirer Holding A.S. Ömer Akyurek, OneCarbon Türkiye 2 METHODOLOGY Starting the initial verification the verifier s first task has been to familiarize with the project. Based on the received documents (see Annex 1) a verification checklist (VC) has been prepared, consisting of the Initial Verification Checklist (IVC) and the Periodic Verification Checklist (PVC) according to the VVM. These combined checklists serve the following purposes: - it organizes details of the audit procedure and clarifies the requirements the project is expected to meet; and - it documents how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the verification. During the verification a special focus was given to: - the correct implementation of the project (installations, monitoring equipment and procedures, quality assurance procedures) - the correctness of assumptions with impacts on the monitoring and verification process (e.g. baseline assumptions) - sustainable development and environmental performance parameters, with special focus on GS requirements - training programs - allocation of responsibilities - the day-to-day operation of the system After the document review the audit team conducted - interviews with the members of Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S. in Istanbul ( ) - an on-site inspection at the wind farm ( )

8 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 7 of 19 The findings are the essential part of this verification report, which is based on the verification protocols of the VVM. Those protocols consist of four tables one from the IVC, three from the PVC. The completed protocol is enclosed in Annex 1 and Annex 2 to this report. The structure of the tables is shown in the following: The project assessment aims at being a risk based approach and is based on the methodology developed in the relevant Validation and Verification Manuals. For further information see and Initial Verification Checklist table 1 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) The requirements the project must meet. Gives reference to the legislation or agreement where the requirement is found. Description of circumstances and further conclusions. This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) of risk or non-compliance with stated requirements. The corrective action requests are numbered and presented to the client in the Verification report. Forward Action Requests (FARs) indicate essential risks for further periodic verifications Periodic Verification Checklist Table 1: Data Management System/Controls Expectations for GHG data management system/controls The project operator s data management system/controls are assessed to identify reporting risks and to assess the data management system s/control s ability to mitigate reporting risks. The GHG data management system/controls are assessed against the expectations detailed in the table. Score A score is assigned as follows: Full all best-practice expectations are implemented. Partial a proportion of the best practice expectations is implemented Limited this should be given if little or none of the system component is in place. Verifiers Comments (including Forward Action Requests) Description of circumstances and further commendation to the conclusion. This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) of risk or noncompliance with stated requirements. The corrective action requests are numbered and presented to the client in the Verification report. The Initial Verification has additional Forward Action Requests (FAR). FAR indicates essential risks for further periodic verifications

9 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 8 of 19 Periodic Verification Checklist Table 2: GHG calculation procedures and management control testing Identification of potential reporting risk Identification of potential reporting risks based on an assessment of the emission estimation procedures. Identification of key source data. Focus on those risks that impact the accuracy, completeness and consistency of the reported data. Identification, assessment and testing of management controls Identification of the key controls for each area with potential reporting risks. Assessment of adequacy of the key controls and eventually test that the key controls are actually in operation. Internal controls include, Understanding of responsibilities and roles, Reporting, reviewing and formal management approval of data; Procedures for ensuring data completeness, conformance with reporting guidelines, maintenance of data trails etc. Areas of residual risks Identification of areas of residual risks, i.e. areas of potential reporting risks where there are no adequate management controls to mitigate potential reporting risks Areas where data accuracy, completeness and consistency could be improved are highlighted. Periodic Verification Checklist Table 3: Detailed audit testing of residual risk areas and random testing Areas of residual risks List of residual areas of risks of Periodic Verification Checklist Table 2 where detailed audit testing is necessary. In addition, other material areas may be selected for detailed audit testing. Figure 1 Verification Protocol Tables Additional verification testing performed 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. Conclusions and Areas Requiring Improvement (including FARs) Having investigated the residual risks, the conclusions are noted here. Errors and uncertainties are highlighted.

10 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 9 of 19 Duration of the verification Preparations: from January 31, 2008 to February 04, 2008 On-site verification: March 12, 2008 Emission Reduction Reporting Period: From March 19, 2007 to December 31, Two CARs were encountered during the verification process. They were both resolved in the course of the verification. Further on, the verification team has defined four FARs, where - the current status required a special focus on this item for the next consecutive verification, or - an adjustment of the MVP was recommended. All FARs have to be reported to the verification team of the next Periodic Verification, which has to take into account all such findings. 2.1 Review of Documentation and Site Visit The verification was performed as a desk review of the project documents including monitoring plan, determination (validation) report, monitoring report and further documentations. Site visits consisted by an on-site inspection at the wind farm by, TÜV SÜD GROUP Türkiye. 2.2 Resolution of Corrective and Forward Action Requests The objective of this phase of the verification was to resolve the requests for corrective actions and any other outstanding issues which needed to be clarified for TÜV SÜD`s positive conclusion on the GHG emission reduction calculation. Two critical issues (CAR 1 and CAR 2) were discussed already during the on-site audit and were resolved thereafter, by updated monitoring reports (version 1.1: February 18, 2008; version 1.2: April 22, 2008; version 1.3: May 06, 2008; version 1.4: May 28, 2008). Four Forward Action Requests are defined for issues which do not effect the generation of emission reduction in the verified period, but shall be improved in order to ensure the reliability of future data. To guarantee the transparency of the verification process, the CARs and FARs raised and responses that have been given are summarized in chapter 3 below and documented in more detail in the verification checklist (protocol) in annex 1. 3 INITIAL VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following sections the findings of the verification are stated. The verification findings for each verification subject are presented as follows: The findings from the desk review of the final monitoring report and the findings from interviews during the follow up visit are summarized. A more detailed record of these findings can be found in the Verification Protocol in annex 1.

11 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 10 of 19 1) Where TÜV SÜD had identified issues that needed clarification or that represented a risk to the fulfilment of the project objectives, a Corrective or Forward Action Request, respectively, have been issued. The Corrective and Forward Action Requests are stated, where applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the Verification Protocol in annex 1. The verification of the project resulted in 2 CARs and 4 FARs. 2) In the context of Forward Action Requests, risks have been identified, which may endanger the delivery of high quality CERs in the future, i.e. by deviations from standard procedures as defined by the MP. As a consequence, such aspects should receive a special focus during the next consecutive verification. A FAR may originate from lack of data sustaining claimed emission reductions. Forward Action Requests are understood as recommendation for future project monitoring; they are stated, where applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the Verification Protocol in annex 1. 3) The final conclusions for verification subject are presented. The verification findings relate to the project implementation as documented and described in the final monitoring report. 3.1 Remaining issues, CARs, FARs from initial validation One task of verification is to check the remaining issues from the previous validation or issues which are clearly defined for assessment in the PDD. The validation report, prepared by TÜV Rheinland, Germany, notes no open issues. 3.2 Project Implementation Discussion The scrutiny of a proper implementation of a project is a key issue of an Initial Verification, in order to have a climate change project ready for successful operation. The wind park was constructed from April 2006 to February February 15, 2007, was the first day of full operation. Since that time the plant is operational. After a test period of about one month the first crediting period started March 19, The results of the final determination were documented by TÜV Rheinland November 09, The same day the project was also officially registered by the GS organization. All details of the wind farm were checked. This covers the 38 turbines, the cabin with the electrical and control equipment, the two main grid meters and one 154 / 24 kv-transformer. Measurement equipments are in place and calibrated. All required metering systems have been identified and checked. The following meters are relevant for the calculation of emission reductions: Four quadrant CIRCUTOR electricity meter , accuracy class 0,5, date of calibration February 15, Used as primary meter. Four quadrant CIRCUTOR electricity meter , accuracy class 0,5, date of calibration February 15, Used as back-up-meter. Both meters are within their first calibration period. They comply with the appropriate standards.

12 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 11 of 19 The project boundaries have not been changed. The Monitoring Plan (MP) defines the responsibilities to consolidate the data required for emission reduction calculations. Calculations are simple and restricted to entering monthly the production data into a predefined Excel spreadsheet Findings None Conclusion The project complies with the requirements. 3.3 Internal and External data Discussion The following parameters need to be obtained according to the monitoring plan: Electricity production (154 kv, manually recorded each hour) Electricity consumption from main grid (154 kv, manually recorded each hour) Electricity consumption was not taken into account in the first version of the monitoring report, thus leading to CAR #1. Even if the source of the electricity generation and the sink of the electricity demand is internal, the relevant meter are external (owned and maintained by TEIAS. TEIAS personnel will read the month-end data (which are stored in the meter) once a month. But also the wind park personnel records manually the data each hour. The only internal data set is the electricity generation metered by the Enercon Scada system. This is used as backup source in case of a failure of the 154 kv meters. The production data of the main and the backup meter are constantly compared. Any deviations can therefore be discovered immediately. Also the meter data read by TEIAS are monthly compared with the hourly production data. The Scada data are stored in the central Scada server in the Anemon 154 kv distribution station. At the same time they are continuously transferred to the Enercon dispatch centre in Germany Findings Corrective Action Request 1: The monitoring plan and the monitoring report have to reflect the net production, i.e. take into account also the consumption of the wind park. This has not yet been considered in the monitoring report.

13 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 12 of 19 Response: The required changes have been included in version 1.4 of the monitoring report and in the CDM- Monitoring-Manual version Conclusion The project complies with the requirements. 3.4 Environmental and Social Indicators Discussion Apart from the GS requirements no environmental and social indicators are defined in the monitoring plan, as no additional negative environmental and social indicators were identified. With respect to GS requirements it is evident that most sustainable development (SD) consequences of the project will remain unchanged over time. However, the project owner has defined three indicators which may vary from year to year and therefore have to be audited regularly: job quality of employment, number of employees, technological self reliance. Those parameters have been added to the monitoring plan and will be presented to the DOE during each verification. At the time of the initial / first periodic verification no changes have occurred which may have lead to any negative impact on the GS qualification. The project continues to fulfil the GS requirements Findings None Conclusion The project complies with the CDM requirements as well as with the GS requirements. 3.5 Management and Operational System Discussion The Monitoring Plan of emission reductions in Anemon Wind Farm (MP) is documented in the Management Handbook. This is an encompassing document, covering monitoring plan, organiza-

14 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 13 of 19 tion charts, training aspects, technical details, maintenance, electrical diagrams etc. It is the basic document to manage and operate the wind power plant and to produce the ER reports. This handbook was checked in all its details during the on-site visit of the verification team. At present, it exists only in an English version (see FAR 1). Data acquisition is well defined in the Management Handbook. The Wind Farm is equipped with ENERCON SCADA system for monitoring and control of the energy production units. The data measured by the meters are transferred and stored in personal computers. What is still missing is an external backup unit for systematic storage and availability of the manually read data (see FAR 2) At present, there are no internal control procedures included in the MP. Due to the low complexity of the monitoring system this does not represent an apparent weakness but should be changed until the next periodic verification (see FAR 3). Changes and extensions of the original monitoring plan (as defined in the PDD) are summarized in an additional document called CDM-Monitoring Manual. This document is also considered as part of the Management handbook Findings Forward Action Request 1: The Management Handbook with its relevant documents has to exist in Turkish and English version, to guarantee maximum understanding and acceptance by all involved participants Response: The project owner agreed to this request; implementation to be checked during the next periodic verification. Forward Action Request 2: An external backup unit for systematic storage and availability of the manually read data in the PCs should be implemented. Data archiving with all its related aspects and a system integrity check of the IT system has to be introduced and included in the project documentation. Response: The project owner agreed to this request; implementation to be checked during the next periodic verification. Forward Action Request 3: Internal control procedures should to be included in the monitoring plan for minimizing mistakes in data transfer and calculations. Response:

15 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 14 of 19 The project owner agreed to this request; implementation to be checked during the next periodic verification Conclusion The Management and Operational System of the project complies with the CDM requirements as well as with the GS requirements. It is evident that there will be always changes in the documentation, and we support therefore the approach of a living CDM monitoring manual as part of an overall Management handbook. The existing FARs do not represent at present any negative impact on the quality and reliability of the calculation of emission data. Resolving above FARs within this verification period will help to keep and even improve the present standard.

16 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 15 of 19 Periodic Verification Findings 3.6 Completeness of Monitoring Discussion After changes in the monitoring report (see CAR 1) the reporting procedures reflect the monitoring plan completely. All parameters are now determined as prescribed. No further changes to the monitoring plan are required Findings None Conclusion The project complies with the requirements. 3.7 Accuracy of Emission Reduction Calculations Discussion Due to the approved methodology there is no need to make corrections for data uncertainty. The audit team confirms that emission reduction calculations have been performed according to the MP Findings None Conclusion The project complies with the requirements, assuming appropriate handling of FARs in the ongoing verification period Quality of Evidence to Determine Emission Reductions Discussion The method to determine GHG emissions is fully documented. Back-up procedures in case of meter failures exist. The data stored in the SCADA system is available in emergency cases. Details of the information flow exist, but no overall flow diagram is available (see FAR 4).

17 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 16 of 19 Calculation of emission reductions are based on meter data which are read internally (wind farm personnel) as well as externally (TEIAS personnel). Both meters are subject to national standards and under the control of TEIAS. Further on, entering and processing of those data in the monitoring excel sheet was checked as well as recalculation of the sum of those data Findings Forward Action Request 4: An overall flow diagram, describing the yearly monitoring and reporting process has to be included in the monitoring plan. Response: The project owner agreed to this request. The CDM-Monitoring-Manual will be updated and provided during the next periodic verification Conclusion The project complies with the requirements, assuming appropriate handling of FAR 4 in the ongoing verification period. 3.9 Management System and Quality Assurance Discussion The text of the monitoring report had to be rephrased in some formal details (see CAR 2). Apart from that the existing management system is appropriate and quality assurance is guaranteed due to the straightforward approach for calculating GHG emission reductions Findings Corrective Action Request 2: The text of the monitoring report must be corrected accordingly by present time expressions (replace will be, proposed with is, existing ) Response: The required changes have been included in version 1.4 of the monitoring report Conclusion The project complies with the requirements.

18 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 17 of PROJECT SCORECARD The conclusions on this scorecard are based on the final monitoring report (version 1.4). Risk Areas Conclusions Summary of findings and comments Baseline Emissions Project Emissions Emission Reductions Completeness Source coverage/ boundary definition Accuracy Physical Measurement and Analysis Data calculations n.a n.a n.a All relevant sources are covered by the monitoring plan and the boundaries of the project are defined correctly and transparently. State-of-the-art technology is applied in an appropriate manner. Two independent meters as well as two different organisations reading the meters guarantee high reliability. Emission reductions are calculated correctly. Data management & reporting n.a A data management system exists, but back-up storage is recommended (FAR 2). Consistency Changes in the project n.a Results are consistent to underlying raw data. There are no changes in the project to date. Relevant GS requirements are visualized by a subset of the GS Sustainable Development Assessment Matrix. Any negative variation could be contradictory to the GS requirements: Social sustainability and development Employment (including job quality, fulfilment of labour standards) Economic and technological development Variation compared with last year s situation Job descriptions unchanged. Personal inspection of work environment was conducted. Employment (numbers) Number of people (11) unchanged. Technological self reliance (including project replicability, hard currency liability, skills development, institutional capacity, technology transfer) No change. Enercon Servis Türkiye is still responsible for all trainings. Demirer Holding is a major shareholder of this company and therefore gains increasing experience in maintaining wind turbines.

19 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 18 of 19 5 VERIFICATION STATEMENT TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH has performed an initial and first periodic verification of the GS VER project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey. The verification is based on requirements of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and on GS requirements. The management of Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S. is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emissions reductions on the basis set out within the document GS VER Monitoring Manual Anemon Intepe Wind Farm, version 1.1 (May 2008). The verifier confirms that the project is implemented as planned and described in the validated project design document. Installed equipment being essential for generating emission reduction and for metering the data defined in the monitoring plan runs reliably and is calibrated appropriately. The monitoring system is in place and the project generates GHG emission reductions according to the project plan. The verifier can confirm that the GHG emission reduction is calculated without material misstatements for the whole monitoring period. Our opinion relates to the project s GHG emissions reductions reported and related to the valid project baseline and monitoring, and its associated documents. There are no project GHG emissions. The verification team also determined some areas of risks for the project in the context of the management system. Those issues indicated as Forward Action Request and should be submitted as indispensable information to the verification team of the next periodic verification. Munich, Klaus Nürnberger Assessment Team Leader Javier Castro Head of certification body Climate and Energy

20 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey 19 of 19 6 REFERENCES Category 1 Documents: Documents provided by the Client that relate directly to the GHG components of the project. These have been used as direct sources of evidence for the initial verification conclusions: 1-1 GS VER PDD Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey, vers. 02, September 11, Validation Report Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turley, TÜV Rheinland, report No , rev. 01, November 09, Gold Standard Voluntary Emission Reduction Monitoring Report Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project, Turkey, vers. 1.0, January 29, Gold Standard Voluntary Emission Reduction Monitoring Report Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project, Turkey, vers. 1.4, May 28, GS VER Monitoring Manual Anemon Intepe Wind Farm, vers. 1.1, one carbon, May 06, Generated_Electricity_Anemon_2007.xls (Excel-spreadsheet) 1-7 Management Handbook Anemon Wind Farm, chapter 1: organization, licenses of responsible personels; chapter 2: trainings 1-8 Confirmation that no outstanding issues exist for the GS project; by Meinrad Bürer, GS Organisation ( ) 1-9 Monthly metering sheet (signed by TEIA and producer) 1-10 Monthly invoices to TEIAS from producer.

21 Initial and First Periodic Verification of the GS-VER Project: Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey Initial Verification Checklist Annex 1 Initial Verification Checklist

22 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 1 of 13 Initial Verification Checklist A. Opening Session OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) A.1. Introduction to audits The audit dates were (desk review) and (onsite assessment). The intention and the target of the audit were illustrated to the participants of the audit. The operating company of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project is Anemon Enerji Elektrik Üretim A.S., the project participants are Demirer Enerji Üretim Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (50% share), Istanbul, and Ado Enerji Üretim A.S. (50% share), Antalya. Participants at the audit on the part of the shareholder Demirer Holding A.S., Istanbul, and the operator, Anemon Rüzgar Enerjisi Santrali Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim A.S. : Salih Uysal, Member of the Board; Demirer Holding A.S. Cagla Balci Eris, Ass. Commercial Coordinator, Demirer Holding A.S. Participants at the audit on the part of TÜV SÜD : Dr. Thyge Weller, GHG auditor, TÜV SÜD Industrie Service, GHG auditor, TÜV SÜD, Istanbul A-1 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

23 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 2 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS Based on the validation report, the project meets all relevant requirements of the methodology ACM 0002, version 6 (UNFCCC) as well as the Gold Standard Validation and Verification Manual for Voluntary Emission Reduction criteria. Turkey is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol and doesn t have an entity (DNA) to approve projects according to CDM or JI criteria. Therefore the emission reductions generated by the project can be registered as voluntary offsets. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) A.2. Clarification of access to data archives, records, plans, drawings etc. The verification team had open access to all required plans, data, records, drawings and to all relevant facilities. A.3. Contractors for equipment and installation works : Who has installed the equipment? Who was contracted for planning etc.? A.4. Actual status of installation works Project installation should be finished at time of initial verification in so far as the project should be ready to generate emission reductions afterwards. The contractor for the construction and operation of the Wind Farm is Demirer Holding A.S., Istanbul. Enercon GmbH is the manufacturer and supplier of the wind turbines. The main activity was the erection and commissioning of the Wind Farm and the construction of new transmission line to the 154 kv national grid. The construction works started on , the installation of the 38 turbines was completed by The test production started on The start up date to grid supply was , which is also the beginning of the monitoring period. A-2 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

24 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 3 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS B. Open issues indicated in validation report Especially in projects which are not yet registered at CDM-EB or JI-SB, there might be some outstanding issues which should have been indicated by the validation report. B.1. Missing steps to final approval Based on the validation protocol and validation report reviewed, there are no essentials issues preventing the registration of the project. The project design document (PDD) submitted in by ECOFYS was checked against the actual status of the project. The PDD was found to be consistent, even if the estimated production data are considerably higher than the actual production. The guaranteed purchase price according to the Renewable Energy Law ( ) and Law on energy Efficiency ( ) is set to cent 5.50/kWh (in contrary to cent 4.5/kWh and cent 5/kWh used in the additionality considerations). The Validation Report and the Validation Protocol (Appendix A) prepared by TUV Rheinland (Validation date : ; Registration date: ) were checked; no open CARs were left in this report. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) C. Implementation of the project This part is covering the essential checks during the on-site inspection at the project s site, which is indispensably for an initial verification C.1. Physical components Check the installation of all required facilities and All details of the Wind Farm were checked on site. This covers the 38 turbines, the operation house with the electrical and control equipment, A-3 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

25 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 4 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS equipment as described by the PDD. two main grid meters, two 154-kV-transformers. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) C.2. Project boundaries Check whether the project boundaries are still in compliance with the ones indicated by the PDD. C.3. Monitoring and metering systems Check whether the required metering systems have been installed. The meters have to comply with appropriate quality standards applicable for the used technology. C.4. Data uncertainty How will data uncertainty be determined for later calculations of emission reductions? Is this in compliance with monitoring and metering equipment? C.5. Calibration and quality assurance Check how monitoring and metering systems are subject to calibration and quality assurance routines a) with installation The project boundaries were checked. They are in compliance with the ones indicated in the PDD. All required metering systems have been identified and checked. The following meters are relevant for the calculation of emission reductions; they are all on the premises of the wind park : Electricity two-way meter (primary) Serial Number (CIRCUTOR, Model CIRWATT D / 402 LT1A-29D) Electricity two-way meter (secondary) Serial Number (CIRCUTOR, Model CIRWATT D / 402 LT1A-29D) Both meters are two-way meters from the same supplier (CIRCUTOR). Both meters were approved by CIRCUTOR on Their accuracy class is 0.5. All meters are within their first calibration period of 5 years. The only instruments to influence the data accuracy are the electricity meters. Their accuracy class of 0.5 is consistent with the Turkish requirements. All calibration / maintenance requirements are met. Both the main meter (No ) and the auxiliary meter (No ) will be checked and adjusted by TEİAS and will be under constant control of TEİAS. TEIAS is the state owned Electricity Distribution Company, who is also responsible for the calibration and maintenance of the meters at A-4 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

26 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 5 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS b) during future operation grid connected electricity generation sources. The initially installed auxiliary meter (No ) was out of the accuracy range (protocol from by TEIAS). Despite this fact it was installed and sealed in Anemon Wind Farm on The new meter was installed two weeks later ( ), before production started. C.6. Data acquisition and data processing systems Check the eligibility of used systems. The data of primary / secondary meters are stored within the meters. Only TEİAS has the right to read out those data. The data on the meter display are regularly (5x/day) recorded by the wind farm operation personnel on a spreadsheet and then transferred to an excel sheet on a PC. At the end of the month, TEİAS personnel checks onsite the meter data on the starting day (at 00:00) and the last day (at 24:00) of the month. These data are then crosschecked with the spreadsheet data documented by the operation personnel. In case of agreement by both parties, the TEİAS template is filled with the mutual agreed data and signed by both parties. The billing is done on the basis of this final document. In case of any differences between the two meters or other diverse results, the operator must immediately request TEIAS to check the reliability of the meters. TEIAS and the operator intend to install and operate a remote control system with online data monitoring and transfer to TEİAS control centre, the so called PMUM. The energy data generated at the turbines are managed by a SCADA system. These data are transferred to the ENERCON operation centre in Germany. A UPS unit guarantees for continuous data storage. The operation personnel has monitoring access to the SCADA data. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) C.7. Reporting procedures Reporting procedures are defined in the GS-VER-Monitoring Manual A-5 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

27 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 6 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS Check how reports with relevance for the later determination of emission reductions will be generated C.8. Documented instructions Check whether the personnel performing tasks with sensitivity for the monitoring of emission reductions have access and knowledge of documented instructions, forming a part of the project s management system. C.9. Qualification and training Check whether the personnel performing tasks with sensitivity for the monitoring of emission reductions has the appropriate competences, capabilities and qualifications to ensure the required data quality. C.10. Responsibilities Check whether all tasks required to gather data and prepare a monitoring report with the necessary quality have been allocated to responsible employees. C.11. Troubleshooting procedures Check whether there are possibilities of redundant data monitoring in case of having problems with Anemon Intepe Wind Farm, vers. 1.1, May It is an expanded version of the short monitoring plan segment in the PDD. The monitoring plan documents clearly the monitoring processes. The number of involved personnel is sufficient. Further information is included in the Instruction Manual for the Turbines and the Training Instructions. 4 competency levels have been defined (responsible wind farm engineer, service technicians, high voltage switchgear centre technician, consultant). Each employee belongs to one of these levels. Detailed qualification descriptions exist, including training requirements. All high voltage switchgear centre technicians have been trained and licensed by TEIAS (proof by TEIAS license). The responsible wind farm engineer and service technicians have received numerous trainings by Enercon Servis Türkiye (proof by Enercon s participant list with signature of participants). The responsibilities are clearly defined in the monitoring plan. The allocation of responsibilities has been documented and incorporated in the operation and management system. In case of any problems with both meters (main and control meter) the data of the SCADA system can be used minus a loss percentage of 2,0%. This is regarded as a reliable and conservative approach. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) A-6 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

28 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 7 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS the used monitoring equipment. Such procedures may reduce risks for the buyers of emission reductions (e.g. the Client) Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) D. Internal Data Identifying the internal GHG data sources and ways in which the data have been collected, calculated, processed, aggregated and stored should be part of initial verification to assess accuracy and reliability of the internal GHG data. D.1. Type and sources of internal data Acquire information on type and source of internal GHG data, which is used in calculations of emission reductions. E.g.. continuous direct measurements, site-specific correlations, periodic direct measurements, use of models and/or use of default emissions factors. D.2. Data collection How is data collected and processed? What are the means of quantifying emissions from the different data sources? D.3. Quality assurance Does internal data collection underlie sufficient Even if the source of the electricity generation and the sink of the electricity demand is internal, the relevant meters are external (owned, maintained and read by TEIAS). They will be considered as external data. The only internal data set is the electricity generation metered by the Enercon SCADA system with an integrated UPS unit. This is used as a backup source for the generated electricity data in case of a failure of the 154 kv meters. The SCADA data are stored in the central SCADA server in the Anemon 154 kv distribution station. At the same time they are continuously transferred to the Enercon centre in Germany. Enercon checks those data on consistency and transfers all data with relevance to the operator of the turbine, onto a closed user group Internet site. The operator has direct access to those data at any time and any place. As explained above, under normal conditions the SCADA data are not needed to calculate emission reductions. Enercon is responsible for many hundreds of turbines and has set up an encompassing system of data protection, data security and quality assurance in its control operation. A-7 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

29 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 8 of 13 quality assurance routines? OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS D.4. Significance and reporting risks Assess the significance and reporting risks related to the different internal data sources. Potential reporting risks may be related to the calculation methods, accuracy of data sources and data collection and/or the information systems from which data is obtained. The significance of and risks associated with the data source indicate the level of verification effort required at a later stage. The risk concerning the SCADA data is negligible. The probability that the SCADA data are needed at all is small (only in case of main and control meter failures). The accuracy of the SCADA data is very high, due to the long term comparison between main meter data and SCADA data. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) E. External Data Especially for data of baseline emissions there might be the necessity to include external data sources. The access to such data and a proof of data quality should be part of initial verification. If it is deemed to be necessary, an entity delivering such data should be audited. E.1. Type and sources of external data Acquire information on type and source of external data, which is used in calculations of emission reductions According to the monitoring plan the following data are external: electricity production, metered by TEIAS (154 kv) electricity consumption, metered by TEIAS (154 kv) The net electricity production is the difference between production and consumption. This has not yet been considered in the monitoring report. CAR #1: The monitoring plan and the monitoring report have to reflect the net production, i.e. take into account also the consumption of the CAR #1 A-8 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

30 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 9 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS E.2. Access to external data How is data transferred? How can reproducibility of data set be ensured? E.3. Quality assurance Does external data underlie any quality assurance routines? E.4. Data uncertainty Is it possible to assess the data uncertainty of external data? Are such routines included in reporting procedures? E.5. Emergency procedures Are there any procedures which will be applicable if there is no access to relevant external data? wind park. The 154 kv data are delivered by TEIAS on a monthly basis. The meters are in the substation Anemon, sealed and under control of TEIAS. In parallel, the staff of the project owner reads out manually 5 times per day the meter data. Both data have been compared during the audit. They match completely. The production data delivered by TEIAS are checked on a monthly basis against the manually read data and against the SCADA data. Any deviations can therefore be discovered immediately. Data uncertainty is restricted to the accuracy of the meter which has a maximum deviation of 0,5%. Yes, there are emergency procedures, using the internally read meter data and the Enercon SCADA data. See section D2 for details. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) F. Environmental and Social Indicators A Monitoring Plan may comprise environmental and/or social indicators which could be necessary to monitor for the success of the project activity. F.1. Implementation of measures A project activity may demand for the installation of measures (e.g. filtering systems or compensation areas), which are exceeding the local legal re- There are no additional requirements going beyond local legal requirements A-9 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual

31 Initial and first periodic verification of the Anemon Intepe 30.4 MW Wind Farm Project in Turkey - Initial Verification Checklist - 10 of 13 OBJECTIVE Ref. COMMENTS quirements. A check of the implementation or realization of such measures should be part of the initial verification. F.2. Monitoring equipment Check where necessary whether the required metering systems have been installed. The meters have to comply with appropriate quality standards applicable for the used technology. F.3. Quality assurance procedures What quality assurance procedures will be applied for such data? F.4. External data Check the quality, reproducibility and uncertainty of external data. F.5. GS requirements Check whether any changes have occurred that may have impact on the GS qualification of the project, particularly with reference to any potential changes in key parameters leading to an overall positive impact on sustainable development of the project, represented by the 3 SD components Local/global environment sustainability Social sustainability and development Economic and technological development Not applicable. Not applicable Not applicable No changes have occurred which may have lead to any negative impact on the GS qualification. The project continues to fulfil the GS requirements. While most SD consequences of the project will remain unchanged over time, there are three indicators which may vary from year to year: job quality of employment, number of employees, technological self reliance. They have been added to the monitoring plan and will be presented to the DOE during each verification. Concl.(incl FARs/CARs) G. Management and Operational System A-10 Report No , rev. 05 This document is a part of the Validation and Verification Manual