Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project...Table 1 shows the coordinates of the facility in Magna SIRGAS coordinate system with the origin in Bogota, Colombia. Table 1. SIRGAS coordinates

1

ALLCOT Group

Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project Verification Report

November 25, 2020

This page intentionally blank

Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Report ALLCOT Group Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project

1

1 Verification Objective and Details

The objective of the verification is to confirm data, controls and processes supporting the emission reduction or removal calculations as presented in the GHG Report and corresponding GHG Assertion according to the procedures set out in ISO 14064-3.

Additional objectives include confirming that the GHG Report and corresponding GHG Assertion conformed to the requirements and principles of ISO 14064-2 and are without material discrepancies.

ISO 14064-2 defines the following terms used in the context of a GHG verification:

GHG Assertion: a declaration or factual and objective statement made by the Responsible Party.

Project: activity or activities that alter the conditions identified in the baseline scenario which cause greenhouse gas emission reductions or greenhouse gas removal enhancements.

ISO 14064-2 defines the following parties associated with the verification:

Responsible Party: person or persons responsible for the provision of the greenhouse gas assertion and supporting GHG information.

The Responsible Party for this verification is ALLCOT Group.

Intended User: individual or organization identified by those reporting GHG-related information as being the one who relies on that information to make decisions.

The Intended User for this verification is the CSA CleanProjects® Registry and its users.

Verifier: competent and independent person, or persons, with the responsibility of performing and reporting on the verification process.

The Verifier for this verification is Brightspot Climate Inc. (Brightspot). The verification team members are described in Section 1.11 of this report.

Brightspot Climate Inc. (Brightspot) has been engaged by the Responsible Party to perform the verification of the GHG Report and GHG Assertion for the Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project.

1.1 Project Title

Hydroelectric Aures Bajo.

1.2 Date When the Project Began

The project start date and crediting start date is December 12, 2018.

1.3 Verification Site Visit (October 27, 2020)

Due to the travel restrictions in place with COVID-19 the verification site visit was performed virtually over a video call on October 27, 2020. The virtual site visit was conducted by Jeanna Brown, Rodrigo Cubedo and Lydia Brant of Brightspot. The participants from ALLCOT Group were Ginna Castillo Mendigaña, an Environmental Engineer, and Asier Aramburu, Renewables Sector Manager. The participants from Aures Bajo were Andrés Sierra, an Environmental Engineer, and Elian, an operator at the facility. During the virtual site visit, Andrés and Elian, of Aures Bajo, provided an overview of the


2

facility and answered questions related to the generation and consumption of energy, maintenance and calibration of equipment, and associated data collection procedures.

1.4 Expected Lifetime of the Project

The expected lifetime of the project is 48 years according to its Environmental Impact Assessment. The lifetime of the GHG emission reduction project is 10 years, starting from the registration date.

1.5 Type of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction or Removal Project

The Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project is a run of the river hydroelectric facility that produces hydroelectricity for the National Interconnected System (SIN) Electric Grid and displaces electricity from fossil fuel powered facilities. The stated emissions reduction is measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as per the ACM0002 Methodology that was used to quantify the emission reduction. Brightspot is an accredited verification body by the Standards Council of Canada and the verification team has the required competency to perform this verification. Section 6 of the Verification Report details the qualifications of the verification team.

1.6 Verification of Appropriateness of the Methodology

The project uses guidance from the Clean Development Mechanism ACM0002 Large-scale Consolidated Methodology for Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, Version 20.0 (the “Methodology”) for the selection of greenhouse gas sinks, sources and reservoirs (SSRs) and quantification of associated GHG emissions.

The application of the Methodology has been confirmed as appropriate for the Project based on a review of the following:

• All applicability requirements in the Methodology were met, • The fundamental assumptions and criteria for baseline and project emission sources are met by

the project, • Quantification of baseline and project conditions are functionally equivalent, and; • Quantification is based upon actual measurement and monitoring, where applicable.

The relevant applicability requirements for the ACM0002 Methodology and the associated verification procedures are below:

• The methodology is applicable for grid-connected renewable energy power generation project activities that: install a greenfield power plant.

o It was confirmed through Environmental Assessment documents and a virtual site visit that the Aures Bajo hydroelectric facility is a greenfield power plant.

• The methodology is applicable under the following condition: The project activity may include a renewable energy power plant/unit of one of the following types: Hydro power plant/unit with or without reservoir.

o It was confirmed through site visit inquiry and video tours of the facility that the Aures Bajo facility is a hydro power plant without a reservoir.


3

• In case of hydro power plants, the following shall apply: The power density calculated using the total installed capacity of the project is greater than 4 W/m2.

o An independent recalculation of the power density, using the engineering total power capacity value and the area of the sand trap in the facility yielded a power density of 17 W/m2.

The Responsible Party has prepared a barrier analysis to identify the most likely scenario that would occur if the project were not implemented. In the absence of the project, power from the National Interconnected System (SIN) Electric Grid in Colombia would be generated from existing grid connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources. New powerplant facilities are likely to be alternatives that do not face the financial barriers and economic risks confronting Aures Bajo, or, projects which are eligible for government grant funding or other incentives. The Responsible Party has identified a number of fiscal incentives available for generation facilities, but Aures Bajo is not eligible for these incentives. Based on the results of the barrier analysis and the baseline selection process, the verification team has concluded that the emission reductions generated by Aures Bajo are additional to what otherwise would have occurred in the absence of this project.

1.7 Legal Land Description of the Project

The project is located in the municipalities of Sonson and Abejorral in the south-eastern part of the Antioquia department on the Aures River. Table 1 shows the coordinates of the facility in Magna SIRGAS coordinate system with the origin in Bogota, Colombia. Table 1. SIRGAS coordinates from Bogota, Colombia

Facility East North

Weir and intake 855100.22 1128234.47

Roundhouse 852343.78 1127033.99

1.8 Ownership Verification

The project developer for the Hydroelectric Aures Bajo project is Aures Bajo S.A.S. E.S.P. and the project proponent is ALLCOT AG. Aures Bajo S.A.S. E.S.P. is the owner of the project as documented on the environmental license, and the owner of the emission reduction claim. ALLCOT is acting as a consultant to Aures Bajo S.A.S. E.S.P., confirmed through a review of their contracting agreement.

1.9 Reporting, Monitoring, and Verification Details

The Responsible Party has not indicated the intended frequency of updating the GHG project documentation and reporting to GHG CleanProjects®.

The Responsible Party has developed a monitoring plan for each of the project parameters, including the quantification variables used to calculate the emission reduction. The monitoring plan was reviewed during the verification – see Section 3.5 for the verification results.


4

This Verification Report, dated November 25, 2020, will be posted publicly on the GHG CleanProjects® registry along with the GHG Project and related GHG Report. This is the final version of the Verification Report. The GHG reporting period covered by this verification is December 12, 2018 to August 31, 2020.

The asserted total emissions reduction for the reporting period is 62,966 tonnes CO2e.

1.10 Level of Assurance and Verification Summary

The verification was planned and executed to reach a reasonable level of assurance.

The verification team has concluded that the Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project, its corresponding GHG Report and GHG Assertion are fair and accurate, and free from material discrepancies.

The Responsible Party’s asserted emission reduction is provided in the following table: Table 2: GHG Assertion by Vintage Year

GHG Emission Reduction

December 18, 2018 – December 31, 2018: 1,544 tonnes CO2e

January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019: 36,253 tonnes CO2e

January 1, 2020 – August 31, 2020: 25,169 tonnes CO2e

Total over the reporting period: 62,966 tonnes CO2e

1.11 Roles and Responsibilities

REPORT VERIFIER

Brightspot Climate Inc. 409 Granville Street, Suite 401 Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2 A Statement of Qualifications for the verification team is included in Section 6. The verification team was comprised of the following team members:

Lead Verifier

Jeanna Brown, P.Eng. [email protected] +1 (403) 863-5501

The Lead Verifier was responsible for the oversight of all activities conducted within the verification, including the development of the Verification Plan, as well as the execution of the verification procedures. The Lead Verifier was lead author of the Verification Report and executed the Verification Statement.


5

Associate Verifier

Lydia Brant, EIT [email protected] +1 (403) 399-4493

Lydia Brant provided support to the verification team through the development of the Verification Plan, the carrying out of the verification procedures and the development of the Verification Report.

Associate Verifier

Rodrigo Cubedo, EIT [email protected] +1 (778) 814-1184

Rodrigo Cubedo provided support to the verification team by conducting the virtual site visit.

Technical Expert

Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng. [email protected] +1 (604) 353-0264

Aaron Schroeder provided technical support to the verification team through the development of the Verification Plan and the Verification Report.

Peer Reviewer

Sheldon Fernandes, P.Eng., MBA. [email protected] +1 (647) 967-1649

The Peer Reviewer conducted an independent peer review of the verification.

PROJECT DEVELOPER

Andrés Felipe Sierra Morales Aures Bajo S.A.S. E.S.P. Calle 4 Sur# 38-04, Colombia [email protected] +57 (4) 5600810

PROJECT PROPONENT

ALLCOT AG Steinhauserstrasee 74 6300 Zug, Switzerland Contact: Alexis Leroy, CEO [email protected] +41 79 960 2924


6

1.12 Accreditation

Brightspot Climate Inc. is an accredited verification body by the Standards Council of Canada, accreditation number 07010.

This verification was completed in conformance with the requirements of the ISO 14064-3, ISO 14065 and ISO 14066 standards.


7

2 Verification Criteria

As per ISO 14064-3, the verification assessed the project document and all supporting information.

The Project was developed using the Clean Development Mechanism ACM0002 Large-scale Consolidated Methodology for Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, Version 20.0.

Additional objectives included the following:

• Confirming that the GHG Report and corresponding GHG Assertion conformed to the requirements and principles of ISO 14064-2 and are without material discrepancies;

• The data supporting the GHG emission reduction calculations have sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate and are without material discrepancy;

• The emission reduction calculations supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and accurate and are without material discrepancy;

• There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG Project and the resulting emission reductions or removals.

2.1 Scope

Table 3: Verification Scope

Geographic Boundary: The municipalities of Sonson and Aberjorral in the south-eastern part of the Antioquia district on the Aures River.

GHG Project Quantification

Methodology:

Clean Development Mechanism ACM0002 Large-scale Consolidated Methodology for Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, Version 20.0

Physical Operations: Hydroelectric generation

GHG Sources: Electricity generation and distribution

Type of GHGs: Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Reporting Period: December 12, 2018 – August 31, 2020

2.2 Materiality

The quantitative materiality threshold identifies misstated or omitted information that would significantly misrepresent the GHG Assertion to the intended user. For this project, the quantitative materiality threshold is equal to 5% of the asserted greenhouse gas emission reduction. Qualitative discrepancies will also be evaluated and considered against the needs of the intended user.


8

3 Verification Plan

3.1 Preliminary Review

The verification team conducted a preliminary review of the project and project documentation. The review was conducted by reviewing the GHG Report and interviewing representatives of the responsible party. Through this review, the verification team confirmed that the team has the necessary technical skills and competencies to review the nature, scale and complexity of the project.

A preliminary review of the completeness and appropriateness of the GHG Report and GHG Assertion and data management systems confirmed that the project is ready for verification.

There were no issues raised through the preliminary review that would have precluded the completion of the verification.

3.2 Verification Risk Assessment

The Verification Risk Assessment was completed during the verification planning stage. Verification risk is defined as the risk of an incorrect verification conclusion. It can be calculated as the product of the Project’s inherent risks, the Responsible Party’s control risks and the Verifier’s detection risks. The verifier cannot affect the inherent risk or the control risk. Therefore, to reduce the overall verification risk and reach the agreed level of assurance (defined in the verification scope), the verifier must design verification procedures that reduce the detection risk.

The following table presents the results of the verification risk assessment. Each inherent and control risk is described along with the risk evaluation (high/medium/low). The risk evaluation considers both the magnitude of the activity data or inventory component on the overall GHG assertion as well as the probability that the risk will result in a discrepancy, as assessed by the verifier.


9

Table 4: Verification Risk Assessment

Activity Data / Inventory

Component

Inherent Risk Control Risk Detection

Risk Design

Description of Verification Procedure

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Emission sources Relevance – Medium There may be more than one emission source in the facility.

High – Responsible Party does not have a control for this risk.

Low Substantive test: Interview field staff about emission sources at the facility

Substantive test: Review data for any anomalies, errors or missing data that would indicate the data is incomplete or inaccurate.

Reporting period Cut-off – Medium

Data may be included from outside the reporting period.

Low – The Responsible Party filters to only include data that falls within the reporting period.

Low Substantive test: Review data and exclude any data from outside of the reporting period

METHODOLOGIES

Emission quantification methodologies

Occurrence – Medium Incorrect or irrelevant quantification methodologies may be applied to the data.

Medium – The Responsible Party has developed a GHG Report that conforms to the requirements of the approved methodology.

Low Substantive test: Confirm quantification methodologies in the referenced Methodology Document are utilized in the GHG Project Report and calculation of emissions.

Substantive test: Recalculate emissions using the approved quantification methodologies in the protocol.


10


Component


Risk Design


Completeness of activity data

Completeness – High There may be missing data or errors that have been applied to the dataset.

Medium – The Responsible Party reviews energy consumption and generation every 24 hours.

Low Substantive test: Review completeness (zeros, anomalies) for all activity data.

Methodology calculation options

Occurrence – Medium

Incorrect methodology calculation options may have been used to calculate emission reduction.

Medium – The Responsible Party has developed a GHG Report that conforms to the requirements of the approved methodology.

Low Substantive test: Select appropriate options for the emissions calculation from the methodology based on evidence provided by the Responsible Party. Recalculate the emissions using the options selected.

Imports and exports of grid energy

Occurrence – High

The inclusion of emissions related to energy imports or exports from the grid may not have been included in the calculation.

Medium – The Responsible Party has developed a GHG Report that conforms to the requirements and assumptions of the approved methodology.

Low Substantive test: Confirm if imports and exports of grid energy to neighboring countries is included in the methodology. Evaluate appropriateness of assumption made in the methodology.


11


Component


Risk Design


METHODOLOGY APPLICABILITY

Project must be a greenfield power plant or an acceptable modification to an existing plant

Occurrence – Low The project is a greenfield project.

N/A – verification is not relying on Responsible Party Controls.

Low Substantive test: Interview personnel to ensure that the project is a greenfield install

Project must include renewable energy

Occurrence – Medium There may be other non-renewable sources of power from the facility.


Low Substantive test: Observe operations and interview personnel to ensure that the sole energy source is from hydroelectricity

Project power density must be greater than 4 W/m2

Occurrence - Medium Calculations to determine power density for the facility may be incorrect or based off incorrect measurements.


Low Substantive test: Recalculate the power density using original data from the facility


12


Component


Risk Design


The methodology emission factor tools may only be used when calculating baseline emissions for a project that substitutes grid electricity or saved electricity that would have been provided to the grid

Occurrence – Low Not all electricity produced at the facility may be going to the SIN electrical grid.


Low Substantive test: Gather evidence proving the electricity generated from the hydropower facility is going to the Colombian power grid.

ACTIVITY DATA

Quantity of electricity generated

Accuracy – Medium

Completeness - Medium Failure of the electricity generation meters or incorrect calibration could result in measurement errors.

Low – The Responsible Party has implemented a QAQC process to calibrate/verify the meters are working as intended every four years.

Low Controls test: Review the calibration/verification procedures for the calibration and maintenance of the direct measurement meters

Substantive test: Review the data for any abnormal values or missing data

Weighting of build and operating margin factors for determining the combined margin emission factor

Accuracy – Medium

Completeness – Medium

Reported values from the CDM Tool 07 Version 7 may be incorrectly transcribed.


Low Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the CDM Tool 07 Version 7 to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.

Substantive test: Recalculate the factors using the CDM Tool 07 Version 7.


13


Component


Risk Design


2017 & 2018 grid energy usage and associated emissions factors; Caloric value and CO2e emissions factor for fossil fuels

Accuracy – Medium

Completeness - Medium Reported values from the Colombia National Mining and Energy Planning Unit may be incorrectly transcribed.


Low Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the Colombia National Mining and Energy Planning Unit to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.

Fuel consumption for electric facilities in Colombia

Accuracy – Medium


Reported values from the National Electric System of Colombia may be incorrectly transcribed.


Low Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the National Electric System of Colombia to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.

Power efficiency of electric facilities

Accuracy – Medium


Reported values from the CDM Tool 09 Version 3 may be incorrectly transcribed.



Substantive test: Recalculate the efficiency using the CDM Tool 09 Version 3.


14


Component


Risk Design


2019 energy generated broken down by low-cost/must-run facilities and other facilities in Colombia and hours each facility operated in 2019

Accuracy – Medium


Reported values from the Grid Administrator, XM, may be incorrectly transcribed or calculated.


Low Substantive test: Confirm correct transcription of information from Grid Administrator to emissions calculator and GHG Report.

Substantive test: Confirm correct calculations and methodology used to calculate values from Grid Administrator data.

QUANTIFICATION

Emission quantification Accuracy – Medium

Emissions or production quantification may be inaccurately calculated.


Low Substantive test: Perform independent calculations of emissions.

DATA INTEGRITY

Activity data and emission factor data integrity

Accuracy – Medium

Values may be inaccurately transcribed between electronic systems and calculation sheets.

Medium – The Responsible Party uses electronic data whenever possible to maintain data integrity.

Low Controls test: Analyze all metered data for abnormal data

Substantive test: Recalculate the complete emission reduction using original data


15


Component


Risk Design


All inventory emission, production and reporting quantities

Accuracy – Low

Completeness - Low

Final emission reduction may not have been transcribed accurately from calculation spreadsheets into the GHG Report.


Low Substantive test: Compare the final emission reduction quantity reported by the Responsible Party to the quantity reported in the GHG Report. Also, compare those quantities to the recalculated quantity.

3.3 Sampling Plan

Table 5 below describes the evidence-gathering activity and sampling plan for each component.

Table 5: Sampling plan for the verification


Component

Detection Risk Description of Verification Procedure Sample Size Sampling Methodology

and Justification

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Emission sources Low Substantive test: Interview field staff about emission sources at the facility


Sampling is not applicable to this source

Observation and inquiry


16


Component


and Justification

Reporting period Low Substantive test: Review data and exclude any data from outside of the reporting period

All values Review of full dataset has lower detection risk than sampling.

METHODOLOGIES


Low Substantive test: Confirm quantification methodologies in the referenced Methodology Document are utilized in the GHG Project Report and calculation of emissions.



Documentation review & recalculation

Completeness of activity data Low Substantive test: Review completeness (zeros, anomalies) for all activity data.


Methodology calculation options Medium Substantive test: Select appropriate options for the emissions calculation from the methodology based on evidence provided by the Responsible Party. Recalculate the emissions using the options selected.

All options in methodology

All options in methodology calculation to be reviewed.


17


Component


and Justification


Low Substantive test: Confirm if imports and exports of grid energy to neighboring countries is included in the methodology. Evaluate appropriateness of assumption made in the methodology.


Methodology evaluation


Project must be a conversion (brownfield) or an acceptable install (greenfield)

Low Substantive test: Interview personnel to ensure that the project is a greenfield install




Low Substantive test: Observe operations and interview personnel to ensure that the sole energy source is from hydroelectricity




Low Substantive test: Recalculate the power density using original data from the facility


Single recalculation of data


Low Substantive test: Gather evidence proving the electricity generated from the hydropower facility is going to the Colombian power grid.



18


Component


and Justification

ACTIVITY DATA

Quantity of electricity generated Low Controls test: Review the calibration/verification procedures for the calibration and maintenance of the direct measurement meters


All meters/values

Review of full dataset has lower detection risk than sampling.






Low Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the Colombia National Mining and Energy Planning Unit to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.



Low Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the National Electric System of Colombia to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.



19


Component


and Justification






Low Substantive test: Confirm correct transcription of information from Grid Administrator to emissions calculator and GHG Report.



QUANTIFICATION

Emission quantification Low Substantive test: Confirm emission quantification through independent recalculation


Full recalculation

DATA INTEGRITY


Low Controls test: Analyze all metered data for abnormal data


All values Review of full dataset has lower detection risk than sampling


20


Component


and Justification

All inventory emission, production and reporting quantities

Low Substantive test: Compare the final emission reduction quantity reported by the Responsible Party to the quantity reported in the GHG Report. Also, compare those quantities to the recalculated quantity.

All values Review of full dataset has lower detection risk than sampling


21

3.4 GHG Report

The final GHG Report subject to this verification is dated October 28, 2020.

The asserted emission reduction quantity is shown in Section 1.9 of this report.

3.5 Verification Findings

The results of the verification risk assessment provided the basis for the verification procedures. Table 6, below, provides a summary of the verification procedures where discrepancies were detected. Table 7, which follows, provides a description of every verification procedure that was completed.

Detailed working papers regarding the verification procedures are available on request. Table 6: Verification Findings Summary

Imports of grid energy A small amount of electricity is imported to the Colombian SIN grid. Energy imports are tracked by the grid administrator and are available from the XM Portal. In 2017 and 2018, 194,235,922 kWh (0.29% of total grid consumption) and 233,181,655 kWh (0.33% of total grid consumption), were imported to the Columbian SIN grid, respectively. The 2019 data is not yet available. The Responsible Party has opted to exclude imported electricity from their calculation of the combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power

generation. Based on the contribution of available imported electricity data, the verification team has concluded that the exclusion of imported electricity has an immaterial impact on the emission reduction assertion.

Immaterial


Component Description Discrepancy Description Discrepancy Magnitude


22

Electricity Meter Reconciliation

It was identified during the virtual site visit that there have been instances where the two meters recording electricity consumed and generated were not reconciling with each other. The Aures Bajo site personnel explained, during the site visit on October 27, 2020, that when this happens, an appeal process is initiated with the Grid Administrator. The appeal documentation and meter readings were provided to Brightspot to verify the appeal process was completed. The Responsible Party was able to provide the documentation and explain the incorrect meter reading. A variation in the energy consumed, as per the documentation provided, would account for less than 0.1% of the GHG Assertion.

Immaterial


23

Table 7: Findings of Verification Procedures


Component Description

Verification Procedures Verification Findings

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Emission sources Substantive test: Interview field staff about emission sources at the facility


Emission sources for the facility were discussed with facility staff through the virtual site visit on October 27, 2020, and all sources were found to be included in the GHG Assertion.

All energy consumption and generation, along with the associated energy type (diesel, hydro, solar, etc.) are reported nationally through the Grid Administrator (XM) who tracks energy data for all energy facilities in Colombia. The energy data retrieved directly through the XM Portal was analyzed for missing, negative or abnormal values and no discrepancies were noted.

The Responsible Party has elected to exclude transportation emissions associated with the facility over the reporting period. The CDM ACM0002 quantification methodology does not explicitly state whether transportation emissions are to be included. Although emissions associated with transportation are expected to have an immaterial impact on the GHG assertion, including this emission source is noted as an opportunity for improvement.

No discrepancies detected.

Reporting period Substantive test: Review data and exclude any data from outside of the reporting period

All data used for the emission reduction calculation was confirmed to be within the reporting period.



24




METHODOLOGIES


Substantive test: Confirm quantification methodologies in the referenced Methodology Document are utilized in the GHG Project Report and calculation of emissions.


The methodologies in the GHG Report and emission reduction calculation were reviewed and found to be consistent with the quantification methodologies in the Clean Development Mechanism ACM0002 Large-scale Consolidated Methodology for Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, Version 20.0.

An independent recalculation of the emission reduction was performed using the quantification methodology from the approved ACM0002 Methodology and the GHG Assertion reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s GHG Assertion.


Completeness of activity data Substantive test: Review completeness (zeros, anomalies) for all activity data.

All of the activity data required for the emissions reduction calculation was reviewed for completeness. The data was analyzed for any zeros, potential missing values, and abnormal values.


Methodology calculation options

Substantive test: Select appropriate options for the emissions calculation from the methodology based on evidence provided by the Responsible Party. Recalculate the emissions using the options selected.

The independent recalculation of the emission reduction was performed by following the ACM0002 Methodology and selecting the appropriate options based on data available from the Grid Administrator. The emission reduction recalculated reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s GHG Assertion.



25





Substantive test: Confirm if imports and exports of grid energy to neighbouring countries is included in the methodology. Evaluate appropriateness of assumption made in the methodology.

A small amount of electricity is imported to the Colombian SIN grid. Energy imports are tracked by the grid administrator and are available from the XM Portal. In 2017 and 2018, 194,235,922 kWh (0.29% of total grid consumption) and 233,181,655 kWh (0.33% of total grid consumption), were imported to the Columbian SIN grid, respectively. The 2019 data is not yet available. The Responsible Party has opted to exclude imported electricity from their calculation of the combined

margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation.

Based on the contribution of available imported electricity data, the verification team has concluded that the exclusion of imported electricity has an immaterial impact on the emission reduction assertion.


Project must be a conversion (brownfield) or an acceptable install (greenfield)

Substantive test: Interview personnel to ensure that the project is a greenfield install

It was confirmed through inquiry with the facility personnel that the project is a greenfield development and no other project or facility existed prior.

No discrepancy detected.


Substantive test: Observe operations and interview personnel to ensure that the sole energy source is from hydroelectricity

Discussions with facility personnel confirmed that the sole source of power is the hydroelectric generation and no further sources of emissions exist at the facility.



26





Substantive test: Recalculate the power density using original data from the facility

Construction schematics and maximum power generation data were referenced, and the power density was recalculated. The recalculated power density reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s power density.



Substantive test: Gather evidence proving the electricity generated from the hydropower facility is going to the Colombian power grid.

Through the virtual site visit it was determined that the energy generation meters are positioned at the custody point to the Colombian power grid, therefore all electricity used for the GHG Assertion is confirmed to be going to the Colombian power grid.



27




ACTIVITY DATA

Quantity of electricity generated Controls test: Review the calibration/verification procedures for the calibration and maintenance of the direct measurement meters


A review of the energy meter installation and calibration records was completed. The calibration was performed prior to starting to generate energy for the facility and was within the last 4 years as per the calibration requirements. It was confirmed through the virtual site visit that no further maintenance or preventative work has been performed on these meters.

All of the electricity data was reviewed for completeness. The data was analyzed for any zeros, potential missing values, and abnormal values.

A number of transcription errors were identified with the Responsible Party’s GHG calculator for energy generation of facilities in Colombia. The Responsible Party addressed these errors and updated the emission calculator as required.

It was identified during the virtual site visit that there have been instances where the two meters recording electricity consumed and generated were not reconciling with each other. The Aures Bajo site personnel explained, during the site visit on October 27, 2020, that when this happens, an appeal process is initiated with the Grid Administrator. The appeal documentation and meter readings were provided to Brightspot to verify the appeal process was completed. The Responsible Party was able to provide the documentation and explain the incorrect meter reading.

A variation in the energy consumed, as per the documentation provided, would account for less than 0.1% of the GHG Assertion and is therefore deemed to be an immaterial discrepancy.


28





Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the CDM Tool 07 Version 7 to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.


The weighting values were cross checked from the CDM Tool 07 Version 7 to the Responsible Party’s emissions calculator and verified to be accurate.

An independent recalculation of the emission reduction was performed using the values from the CDM Tool 07 Version 7 and the GHG Assertion reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s GHG Assertion.



Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the Colombia National Mining and Energy Planning Unit to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.

The 2017 and 2018 grid usage and emissions factors, caloric values and CO2e emissions for fossil fuels were cross checked from the Colombian National Mining and Energy Planning Unit to the Responsible Party’s emissions calculator and verified to be accurate.

In accordance with the CDM ACM0002 methodology, the emissions reduction is quantified using a calculated combined margin CO2

emission factor for grid connected power generation. The Responsible Party’s quantification requires this value for 2017, 2018 and 2019. The Colombian Mining and Energy Planning Unit (UPME) publishes this value annually. The 2017 and 2018 values have been published by the UPME and were used in the quantification. The 2019 value was calculated by the Responsible Party using the CDM “TOOL07: Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”. The Responsible Party’s decision to use the UPME published values for 2017 and 2018 results in a conservative emissions reduction assertion.



29





Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the National Electric System of Colombia to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.

The reported fuel consumption values for electric facilities were cross checked from the Colombian National Electric System to the Responsible Party’s emissions calculator and verified to be accurate.



Substantive test: Compare the reported values from the CDM Tool 09 Version 3 to the GHG Report and the emissions calculator for transcription errors.


The power efficiency values were cross checked from the CDM Tool 09 Version 3 to the Responsible Party’s emissions calculator and verified to be accurate.

An independent recalculation of the emission reduction was performed using the values from the CDM Tool 09 Version 3 and the GHG Assertion reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s GHG Assertion.



Substantive test: Confirm correct transcription of information from Grid Administrator to emissions calculator and GHG Report.


The breakdown of low-cost/must-run power facilities in Colombia was verified through the Grid Administrator and correct transcription of these facilities to the Responsible Party’s emissions calculator was verified.

The independent recalculation of the emission reduction was performed by following the ACM0002 Methodology and selecting the appropriate options based on the low-cost/must-run data from the Grid Administrator. The emission reduction recalculated reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s GHG Assertion.



30




QUANTIFICATION

Emission quantification Substantive test: Perform independent recalculation of emissions.

The recalculation of the emission reduction reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s quantification.


DATA INTEGRITY


Controls test: Analyze all metered data for abnormal data


The activity data were reviewed to detect any abnormal values, zeroes or missing data amongst the data provided.

The recalculation of the emission reduction reasonably matched the Responsible Party’s quantification.


All inventory emission and reporting quantities

Substantive test: Compare the final emission reduction quantity reported by the Responsible Party to the quantity reported in the GHG Report. Also, compare those quantities to the recalculated quantity.

The final emission reduction quantities were correctly transcribed into the GHG Report. No discrepancies detected.


31

3.6 Verification Records

All records used and developed during the verification will be maintained by Brightspot for seven years from the date of this report.

3.7 Facts discovered after the verification

If any facts are discovered after the completion of the verification that may result in a material discrepancy, Brightspot will notify the project proponent and GHG CleanProjects® Registry within seven days.

3.8 Verification Schedule

The verification was completed according to the schedule established between the Responsible Party and the Verifier in the Verification Plan. The verification reached important milestones on the following dates:

• Verification Kickoff Meeting: October 8, 2020 • Site Visit: October 27, 2020 • Final GHG Report October 28, 2020 • Draft Verification Report : November 3, 2020 • Final Verification Report November 25, 2020


32

4 Verification Statement

CSA CleanProjects® Registry 178 Rexdale Blvd. Toronto, ON Canada M9W 1R3 November 25, 2020

Introduction

ALLCOT AG (the “Responsible Party”) engaged Brightspot Climate Inc. (Brightspot Climate) to review their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and removal project, Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project (the “Project”). The Project was developed using the Clean Development Mechanism ACM0002 Large-scale Consolidated Methodology for Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, Version 20.0 (the “Methodology”)

The Responsible Party’s “GHG Assertion” is comprised of the GHG Report and supporting documentation. The GHG Assertion covers the reporting period December 12, 2018 to August 31, 2020 and states a total emission reduction and removal claim of 62,966 tonnes CO2e over this period. Emission reduction by vintage year is as follows

December 12, 2018 – December 31, 2018: 1,544 tonnes CO2e January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019: 36,253 tonnes CO2e January 1, 2020 – August 31, 2020: 25,169 tonnes CO2e

The Responsible Party is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the information within the GHG Assertion. Our responsibility as the verifier is to express an opinion as to whether the GHG Assertion is materially correct, in accordance with the requirements of the CSA CleanProjects® Registry and the requirements of ISO 14064-2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements.

Scope

We completed our review in accordance with ISO 14064 Part 3: Greenhouse Gases: Specification with Guidance for the Validation and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Assertions (ISO, 2006). As such, we planned and performed our work to provide positive, but not absolute assurance with respect to the GHG Assertion.

The verification procedures that were performed through the course of the verification were developed based on the results of a risk assessment that was completed during the verification planning stage. These verification procedures are described in the Verification Report.

Review or validation of future emission reduction estimates is outside of the scope of the verification.


33

Conclusion

I believe our work provides a reasonable basis for my conclusion.

There were no unresolved material discrepancies detected in the final GHG Assertion.

Based on our review, it is my opinion at a reasonable level of assurance that the GHG Assertion is materially correct and presented fairly in accordance with the relevant criteria.

Sincerely,

Jeanna Brown, P.Eng. Brightspot Climate Inc. Calgary, Alberta


34

5 Conflict of Interest Statement

Brightspot Climate monitored threats to independence throughout the duration of the project. The following declaration affirms that the following principles were upheld:

Yes No Details

Independence: The verifying organization remained independent of the activity being verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest.

The verifying organization maintained objectivity throughout the verification to ensure that the findings and conclusions are based on objective evidence generated during the verification,

a N/A

Ethical Conduct: The verifying organization demonstrated ethical conduct through trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the verification process.

a N/A

Fair Presentation: The verifying organization reflected truthfully and accurately verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports.

The verifying organization reported significant obstacles encountered during the verification process, as well as unresolved, diverging opinions among verifiers, the responsible party and the client.

a N/A

Due Professional Care: The verifying organization exercised due professional care and judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed and the confidence placed by clients and intended users.

Members of the verification team have the necessary skills and competences to undertake the verification.

a N/A

Date: November 25, 2020 Location: Calgary, Canada

Signed:

Jeanna Brown Lead Verifier, Brightspot Climate

35

6 Statement of Qualifications

Lead Verifier Details

Lead Verifier Name: Jeanna Brown Professional Designation: Professional Engineer Email: [email protected] Phone Number: +1 (403) 863-5501 Verifying Company Name: Brightspot Climate Inc.

Lead Verifier Training

• Greenhouse Gas Validation and Verification, ISO 14064-3, University of Toronto, 2017

Verification Team Biographies

Lead Verifier: Jeanna Brown is a professional engineer with over 15 years of experience in the energy industry. During her previous employment, she focused on drilling engineering and well planning for oil and gas projects in western Canada, as well as in the North Sea and the Middle East. Since joining Brightspot, Jeanna has gained experience working on greenhouse gas verifications for a variety of projects related to oil and gas production and processing, pulp and paper, agriculture and electricity generation. This has included both emission reduction (offset) projects and annual industrial facility reports under the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) and Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR). Jeanna’s other work in greenhouse gas quantification includes scenario modelling for regulatory compliance, quantification of corporate inventories and consulting on offset project development.

Associate Verifier: Lydia Brant is an engineer in training with 3 years of experience in the energy industry. Prior to joining Brightspot, she focused on drilling engineering and project optimization in Western Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. Lydia has extensive experience executing wellsite operations, supervising large crews and optimizing project plans on-site. Often working with a wide range of clients in many different locations, Lydia built strong relationships and delivered high quality projects. She has a passion for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and implemented multiple wellsite initiatives that directly reduced hazardous waste, trucking and gas venting.

Associate Verifier: Rodrigo Cubedo, EIT. Rodrigo completed a Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering at McGill University in 2016. Rodrigo also completed the GHG Validation and Verification, ISO 14064-3, at University of Toronto in 2019. Following his undergraduate degree Rodrigo worked at PricewaterhouseCoopers in Hong Kong (PwC HK), where he leveraged his engineering experience to understand and systematically improve the processes used to work with international clients operating in the Chinese market. At Brightspot, Rodrigo conducts GHG quantification, reporting, facility report verifications, offset project verifications, regulatory compliance strategy, emissions and emission reduction forecasting.

36

Peer Reviewer: Sheldon Fernandes, P.Eng, MBA, conducted an independent peer review of the verification. Sheldon has over 6 years of experience implementing innovative policies, programs, and

technology focused on addressing energy and sustainability issues. He has completed specific training for the application of ISO 14064-3. I, Jeanna Brown, meet or exceed the qualifications required for third-party verifiers defined by the CSA Clean Projects Registry. Jeanna Brown, P.Eng. Brightspot Climate Inc. Calgary, Alberta

Documents

Hydroelectric Aures Bajo Project...Table 1 shows the coordinates of the facility in Magna SIRGAS coordinate system with the origin in Bogota, Colombia. Table 1. SIRGAS coordinates