VERIFICATION EPORT İ ELEKTRİ

Report Template Revision 21.2,18/09/2013

VERIFICATION REPORT BAKİ ELEKTRİK ÜRETİM

LTD. ŞTİ.

VERIFICATION OF THE SAMLİ 114 MW WİND POWER

PROJECT,TURKEY

BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION

62/71 Boulevard du Château 92571 Neuilly Sur Seine Cdx - France

REPORT NO.BVC/TURKEY-VR/TR.1315787.12.C45/2014

REVISION NO.02


Report No: BVC/TURKEY-VR/CER.TR1315787.12.C45/2014 rev. 02

VERIFICATION REPORT

1

Date of first issue: Organizational unit:

31/01/2014 Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS

Client: Client ref.:

Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd.Şti. Mrs.Bengisu Çorakçı Summary:

Bureau Veritas Certification has conducted the 1st periodic verification Samli 114 MW Wind Power Project, Turkey, GS Registration Reference Number GS 351, owned by Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti., which is located in Marmara Region, province of Balıkesir, district of Samli, and applying the methodology ACM0002 Version 12.1, on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the CDM Methodology, Gold Standard v.2.2, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM rules and modalities and the subsequent decisions by the CDM Executive Board, as well as the host country criteria. The verification scope is defined as an independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored GHG emission reductions, and consisted of the following three phases: i) desk review of the project design, the baseline and monitoring plan; ii) follow-up interviews with project stakeholders; iii) resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final verification report and opinion. The overall verification, from Contract Review to Verification Report & Opinion, was conducted using Bureau Veritas Certification internal procedures. In summary, Bureau Veritas Certification confirms that the project is implemented as planned and described in the validated and registered project design documents. Installed equipments being essential for generating emission reduction run reliably and are calibrated appropriately. The monitoring system is in place and the project is generating GHG emission reductions. The GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements, and the emission reductions verified totalize 367,370 tons of CO2e for the monitoring period. Our opinion relates to the projects' GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported and related to the valid and registered project baseline, approved monitoring plan and its associated documents. Reporting period: 01/06/2009 to 31/12/2011 Baseline emissions 2009 (01/06/2009 – 31/12/2009): 76,973 t CO2 equivalents. Baseline emissions 2010 (01/01/2010 – 31/12/2010): 126,558 t CO2 equivalents. Baseline emissions 2011 (01/01/2011 – 31/12/2011): 163,839 t CO2 equivalents. Baseline emissions (Total) : 367,370 t CO2 equivalents. Project emissions : 0 t CO2 equivalents. Leakage emissions : 0 t CO2 equivalents. Emission Reductions : 367,370 t CO2 equivalents.

Report No.: Subject Group: BVC-TURKEY/VR/CER.TR1315787.12.C45/2014

GS-VER Indexin g terms

Project title: Work approved by:

Samli 114 MW Wind Power Project, Turkey

Mr. Matthieu MARTINI Work carried out by:

Mr. Furkan SADIKOĞLU - Team Leader Mr. Mehmet KUMRU - Team Member

No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organizational unit

Internal Technical Review carried out by:

Mrs. Burcu MUTMAN BORAN Limited distribution

Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:

18/02/2014 02 54 Unrestricted distribution



VERIFICATION REPORT

2

Abbreviations CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CER Certified Emission Reductions CL Clarification Request CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent DOE Designated Operational Entity DRR Daily Reading Record ETN Electricity Transaction Note FAR Forward Action Request GHG Green House Gas(es) MoV Means of Verification MP Monitoring Plan MR Monitoring Report MRR Monthly Reading Record PDD Project Design Document PLF Plant Load Factor PP Project Participant PPA Power Purchase Agreement UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VVS Validation and Verification Standard



VERIFICATION REPORT

3

Table of Contents Page

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4

1.1. Objective 4

1.2. Scope 4

1.3. GHG Project Description 5

1.4. Verification Team 5

2. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Review of Documents 6

2.2. Follow-up Interviews 6

2.3. Resolution of Clarification, Corrective and Forward Action Requests 7

2.4. Internal Technical Review 8

3. VERIFICATION CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................. 8

3.1. Remaining issues from validation or previous verification (213) 9

3.2. Compliance of the project implementation with the registered project design document (228) 9

3.3. Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s) (232) 10

3.4. Compliance of monitoring activities with the monitoring plan (235-236) 10

3.5. Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments (243) 13

3.6. Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions (246) 14

4. VERIFICATION OPINION ....................................................................................... 18

5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 20

6. CURRICULA VITAE OF THE DOE’S VERIFICATION TEAM MEMBERS .............. 22

APPENDIX A: CDM PROJECT VERIFICATION PROTOCOL .............................................. 23



VERIFICATION REPORT

4

1. INTRODUCTION

Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti. has commissioned Bureau Veritas Certification to verify the emissions reductions of its GS-VER project Samli 114 MW Wind Power Plant Project, Turkey (hereafter called “the Project ”) at Marmara Region, Province of Balıkesir, district of Samli.

This report summarizes the findings of the verification of the Project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria, Gold Standard (GS) v.2.2 as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting.

1.1. Objective

The objective of CDM verification is to conduct a thorough, independent assessment of the registered project activities.

In carrying out its verification work, the DOE shall ensure that the project activity complies with the requirements of paragraph 62 of the CDM modalities and procedures. In particular, this assessment shall:

(a) Ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD or any approved revised GS-VER-PDD, and that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project are in place;

(b) Ensure that the monitoring report and other supporting documents provided are complete in accordance with latest applicable version of the completeness checklist for requests for issuance of CERs, verifiable, and in accordance with applicable CDM and GS requirements;

(c) Ensure that actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan or any revised approved monitoring plan, and the approved methodology including applicable tool(s);

(d) Evaluate the data recorded and stored as per the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s).

1.2. Scope

The verification scope is defined as an independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored GHG emission reductions. The verification is based on the validated and registered project design document, the monitoring report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet, and supporting documents. The information in these documents is reviewed against Kyoto Protocol requirements, UNFCCC and GS v.2.2 rules and associated interpretations.

The verification is not meant to provide any consulting service towards the PPs. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project monitoring towards reductions in the GHG emissions.



VERIFICATION REPORT

5

1.3. GHG Project Description

The Project consists of 43 sets of Vestas V90 Wind Turbines. The project activity consists 30 sets Vestas V90 wind turbines with a unit installed capacity of 3 MW and 3 sets Vestas V90 wind turbines with a unit capacity of 2 MW and 10 sets Vestas V90 wind turbines with a unit capacity of 1.8 MW, providing a total installed capacity of 114 MW. The project was 90 MW before the implementation. Project capacity is increased with building additional 13 unit V90 – 1.8/2.0 MW. The capacity extension is confirmed through the revised generation license dd.23/09/2010 and Gold Standard Final Design Change Review dd. 10/02/2013. In the current situation for the project activity until 2012 the annual expected electricity supplied to Turkish National Grid (Balıkesir Transformer Station) is 260,000 MWh and after this year the annual expected electricity to Turkish national grid is 341,460 MWh. For the monitoring period the annual estimated emission reductions are 405,145 tCO2e. Before the capacity extension during the GS review process, GS raised comment for the crediting period can be start maximum 2 years before of the GS registry date of the project activity. Samli GS registry date is 22/06/2011 and crediting period start date is revised as 01/07/2009 during the GS registration review period.

Project title: Samli 114 MW Wind Power Project, Turkey

GS ref number: GS 351

Registration Date: 22/06/2011

Crediting Period: 01/07/2009 to 31/06/2016 (renewable)

Monitoring Period: 01/07/2009 to 31/12/2011

Project Participants: Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti. (Project Owner)

Methodologies used: ACM0002 Version 12.1

Location of the Project: Marmara Region, province of Balıkesir, district of Samli

Geo coordinates: 43 sets of the Wind turbines coordinates are between 578321 E – 571820 E and 4416768 N – 4421882 N

No post registration changes have been requested.

1.4. Verification Team

The assessment team and internal technical reviewer team consist of the following personnel:

FUNCTION NAME TA 1.2 TA 1.3 TASK PERFORMED*

Team Leader Mr. Furkan SADIKOĞLU

DR SV RI TR

Team Member

Mr. Mehmet KUMRU

DR SV RI TR

Technical Specialist N.A. DR SV RI TR

Internal Technical Reviewer (ITR)

Mrs. Burcu MUTMAN BORAN

DR SV RI TR

Specialist supporting ITR N.A. DR SV RI TR



VERIFICATION REPORT

6

*DR = Document Review; SV = Site Visit; RI = Report issuance; TR = Internal Technical Review

2. METHODOLOGY

The overall verification, from Contract Review to Verification Report & Opinion, was conducted using Bureau Veritas Certification internal procedures.

In order to ensure transparency, a verification protocol was customized for the project, according to the version 04.0 of the Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard, issued by CDM Executive Board after its 74th meeting on 29/07/2013 /7/. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from verifying the identified criteria. The verification protocol serves the following purposes:

� It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet;

� It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifier will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the result of the verification.

The completed verification protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this report.

2.1. Review of Documents

The assessment of the project documentation provided by the project participant is based upon both quantitative and qualitative information on emission reductions. Quantitative information comprises the reported numbers in the monitoring report (MR) version 03 dated 07/01/2014 /4/ and emission reduction calculation spreadsheet version 02 dated 20/12/2013 /5/. Qualitative information comprises information on internal management controls, calculation procedures, procedures for transfer of data, frequency of emissions reports, and review and internal audit of calculations.

In addition to the monitoring documentation provided by the project participants, the DOE reviews:

(a) The registered PDD and the monitoring plan, including changes from the registered PDD, /1/;

(b) The validation report /2/

(c) Previous verification reports /3/;

(d) The applied monitoring methodology /6/;

(e) Gold Standard Final Design Change Review /8/;

2.2. Follow-up Interviews

On 29/11/2012 Bureau Veritas Certification performed a site visit and interviews with project stakeholders to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document



VERIFICATION REPORT

7

review. Representatives of Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti. and FutureCamp were interviewed (see References). The main topics of the interviews are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Interview topics Interviewed organization Interview topics Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti. (the Project Owner)

� Project Design and implementation � Technical equipment, calibration and operation � Monitoring Plan and management procedures � Monitoring data � Data uncertainty and residual risks (QA/QC) � GHG Calculation � Environmental Impacts � Compliance with National Laws and Regulations

FutureCamp (the Consultant)

� Monitoring Plan � Monitored data and Monitoring Report � GHG Calculations

2.3. Resolution of Clarification, Corrective and Fo rward Action Requests

The objective of this phase of the verification is to resolve issues related to the monitoring, implementation and operations of the registered project activity that could impair the capacity of the registered project activity to achieve emission reductions or influence the monitoring and reporting of emission reductions prior to Bureau Veritas Certification’s positive conclusion on the GHG emission reduction calculation.

Findings established during the verification can either be seen as a non-fulfillment of criteria ensuring the proper implementation of a project or where a risk to deliver high quality emission reductions is identified.

A Corrective Action Request (CAR) is raised, if one of the following situations occurs:

(a) Non-compliance with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting and has not been sufficiently documented by the project participants, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient;

(b) Modifications to the implementation, operation and monitoring of the registered project activity has not been sufficiently documented by the project participants;

(c) Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions that will impact the quantity of emission reductions;

(d) Issues identified in a FAR during validation to be verified during verification or previous verification(s) have not been resolved by the project participants.

A Clarification Request (CL) is raised, if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met.

A Forward Action Request (FAR) is raised, for actions if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period.



VERIFICATION REPORT

8

To guarantee the transparency of the verification process, the concerns raised are documented in more detail in the verification protocol in Appendix A.

2.4. Internal Technical Review

The verification report underwent an Internal Technical Review (ITR) before requesting issuance of VERs for the project activity.

The ITR is an independent process performed to examine thoroughly that the process of verification has been carried out in conformance with the requirements of the verification scheme as well as internal Bureau Veritas Certification procedures.

The Team Leader provides a copy of the verification report to the reviewer, including any necessary verification documentation. The reviewer reviews the submitted documentation for conformance with the verification scheme. This will be a comprehensive review of all documentation generated during the verification process.

When performing an Internal Technical Review, the reviewer ensures that:

� The verification activity has been performed by the team by exercising utmost diligence and complete adherence to the CDM rules and requirements.

� The review encompasses all aspects related to the project which includes project design, baseline, additionality, monitoring plans and emission reduction calculations, internal quality assurance systems of the project participant as well as the project activity, review of the stakeholder comments and responses, closure of CARs, CLs and FARs during the verification exercise, review of sample documents.

The reviewer may raise Clarification Requests to the verification team and discusses these matters with Team Leader.

After the agreement of the responses on the Clarification Requests from the verification team as well as the PP(s), the finalized verification report is accepted for further processing such as uploading via the UNFCCC interface.

3. VERIFICATION CONCLUSIONS

In the following sections, the conclusions of the verification are stated.

The findings from the desk review of the original monitoring documents and the findings from interviews during the follow up visit are described in the Verification Protocol in Appendix A.

The Clarification, Corrective and Forward Action Requests are stated, where applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the Verification Protocol in Appendix A. The verification of the Project resulted in 10 CAR(s) and 05 CL(s).

The CARs, CLs and FARs were closed based on adequate responses from the Project Participant(s) which meet the applicable requirements. They have been reassessed before their formal acceptance and closure.



VERIFICATION REPORT

9

The number between brackets at the end of each section corresponds to the VVS paragraph.

3.1. Remaining issues from validation or previous v erification (213)

1 FAR(s) was raised from the GS during the design change review. FAR 1 was according to possible effects to the residents of the increased project capacity regarding to noise. The project observation forms dd. 10/04/2013 have been provided to the verification team. It is confirmed that the increased project capacity does not impact the nearby residents with respect to noise. The verification team confirms that the project participants have addressed the FARs identified during validation. On the other hand Gold Standard has been raised 4 FAR(s) during to validation to DOE. All FAR(s) have been addressed in the verification protocol under Appendix A.

3.2. Compliance of the project implementation with the registered project design document (228)

Bureau Veritas Certification has performed a site visit and found that the Project has been put into operation and the electricity generated is supplied to Turkish National Grid according to the signed commissioning of the project activity. /9/. Before the capacity extension the project activity consist 30 Vestas V90 wind turbines with a rated output of 3.0 MW providing a total installed capacity 90 MW. The project capacity is increased to 114 MW by 24 MW capacity extension dd. 13/11/2011. Capacity extension is confirmed through the revised generation license and Gold Standard final design change review dd. 10/02/2013.

43 sets of turbines of 30 sets Vestas V90 wind turbines with a unit capacity of 3 MW and 3 sets Vestas V90 wind turbines with a unit capacity of 2 MW and 10 sets Vestas V90 wind turbines with a unit capacity of 1.8 MW, providing a total installed capacity of 114 MW have been in operation after capacity extension dd. 13/11/2011.

Changes to the project design in the registered project activity have occurred and identified during this verification. A request for approval of changes has been submitted prior to the submission of the request for issuance and approved by the GS on 10/02/2013. The implementation and operation of the project activity have been conducted in accordance with the description contained in the approved revised GS-VER-PDD.

[Power System]

As shown in the diagram of the power connection system and generation license of the project activity /10/, the electricity generated by the Project is delivered to the grid substation through an 33 kV line and then delivered to 154 kV Balıkesir Transformer Station via 25 km long overhead transmission line.



VERIFICATION REPORT

10

[Metering System]

There are two meters installed for the project.

The main meter was installed at the output of the on-site substation to measure the electricity exported to and imported from the grid by the Project.

The backup meter was installed beside the main meter to measure the electricity exported to and imported from the grid by the Project.

[Management and Operation]

The PP has operated the Project as per the approved revised GS-VER-PDD. The monitoring organization has been set up and all monitoring staffs have been trained. Meter reading records of all the meters are based on continuously measurement and monthly recorded by the PP and TEIAS. Each month, an officer from TEIAS and the plant manager electricity technician of the plant will record the reading and sign. Employment records of personnel /11/ and internal training records /12/ have been provided and verified by the verification team.

� Corresponding to the paragraph 228 of VVS version 03.0, Bureau Veritas Certification can confirm that:

− The implementation of the Project is consistent with the approved revised GS-VER-PDD.

− The Project is operated as per the approved revised GS-VER-PDD by the PP.

3.3. Compliance of the monitoring plan with the mon itoring methodology including applicable tool(s) (232)

The verification team has verified the monitoring plan, including the data and parameters required to be monitored, measurement procedures, monitoring frequency and QC/QA procedures as described in the approved revised GS-VER-PDD.

� Corresponding to the paragraph 232 of VVS version 03.0, Bureau Veritas Certification can confirm that the monitoring plan is in accordance with the approved methodology including applicable tool(s) applied by the Project.

3.4. Compliance of monitoring activities with the m onitoring plan (235-236)

Monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the approved revised GS-VER-PDD.

[Parameters and information flow]

The parameters required by the monitoring plan and how Bureau Veritas Certification has verified the information flow (from data generation, aggregation, to recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters including the values in the monitoring report are described below:



VERIFICATION REPORT

11

Parameters monitored:

(1) EGy, net electricity delivered into the grid by the Project

The net electricity supplied to the grid by the Project is the electricity exported to the grid minus the electricity imported from the grid by the Project which is measured by the bidirectional main meter. Therefore EGy can be calculated as below:

EGy= EGexport - EGimport

As described above, the meters have been installed in accordance with the approved revised GS-VER-PDD. The verification team has checked on-site the location of the meters against the diagram of power connection system and found them to be consistent.

The readings of the meters are continuously monitored and monthly recorded by the PP and the grid company. Each month, an officer from TEIAS and the plant manager electricity technician of the plant will record the reading and sign. After a cross-check with PMUM records for 2009 and 2011 vintage, the project owner provided the signed monthly reading records.

The verification team has verified the values provided in the monitoring report and ER spreadsheet against the relevant documented evidences i.e the Monthly Reading Records /13/ and the PMUM screens /14/ and found them to be consistent with the evidences. The Monthly Reading Records and the PMUM screens can cover the monitoring period from 01/07/2009 and 31/12/2011.

(2) Job Creation, Number of type of jobs and training

This parameter allows monitoring of qualitative employment through acquired certificates and provided trainings. The project activity has increased the number of qualified jobs as 9 of whole 18 jobs created are for plant specific technical positions. The provided certificate records are as below;

� Product training on safety harness, lanyard and retaining rope rescue device – 19/01/2010 ( Attendee: İbrahim Bostancı Administered by: Mittelmann Sicherheitstechnik)

� Product training on safety harness, lanyard and retaining rope rescue device – 19/01/2010 ( Attendee: İsmail Cam Administered by: Mittelmann Sicherheitstechnik)

� Product training on safety harness, lanyard and retaining rope rescue device – 19/01/2010 ( Attendee: Yaşar Kuş Administered by: Mittelmann Sicherheitstechnik)

� Product training on safety harness, lanyard and retaining rope rescue device – 19/01/2010 ( Attendee: Ertuğrul Kuş Administered by: Mittelmann Sicherheitstechnik)

� Training on repair and rescue of hydraulic systems – 04-06/04/2012 ( Attendee: Ertuğrul Korkmaz Administered by: SMC IT Türkiye)

� Training on repair and rescue of hydraulic systems – 04-06/04/2012 ( Attendee: Yaşar Kuş Administered by: SMC IT Türkiye)



VERIFICATION REPORT

12

� Training on repair and rescue of hydraulic systems – 04-06/04/2012 ( Attendee: Recep Akın Administered by: SMC IT Türkiye)

� Training on repair and rescue of hydraulic systems – 04-06/04/2012 ( Attendee: Alican Zeytin Administered by: SMC IT Türkiye)

� Training on repair and rescue of hydraulic systems – 04-06/04/2012 ( Attendee: İbrahim Bostancı Administered by: SMC IT Türkiye)

Social security records of the 18 employee and the training certificates are checked and confirmed by the validation team.

(3) Tree cutting and transmission lines, Number of trees being cut

During the construction number of the cut trees is 4133. The receipts to the Balıkesir department of forestry, Chieftaincy of Ilıca have been submitted to the verification team. /15/

The receipts’ dates and the paid values are confirmed as follows;

� Türkiye İş Bankası Receipt No: 01100818 – 25/01/2011 Paid Value:18,497.13 TL

� Türkiye İş Bankası Receipt No: 01100780 – 25/01/2011 Paid Value: 2,406.04 TL


� Türkiye İş Bankası Receipt No: 01000696 – 25/01/2011 Paid Value: 601.51 TL


(4) Expropriation, Compensation with land owners and use the rest of the area and ensuring free usage of lands by villagers for agriculture activities and livestock

The project owner has made the necessary payments to the land owners. The agreement with the land owner Ferit Eser dd. 28/06/2011 /19/ and the payments to the land owners’ Ferit Eser and İsmail Cam dd.11/12/2013 /20/ are provided to the verification team. Also during the site visit, stakeholders declared that there is no barrier to free usage of the lands for agriculture activities and livestock.

(5) Air, Amount of CO, NMVOC and NOx emissions

According to total electricity generation in 2008 CO, NMVOC and NOx emissions are provided as 0.148 tons/GWh , 0.037 tons/GWh and 1.709 tons/GWh. Total electiricy generation in 2008 is confirmed through the TEIAS statistics.( http://www.teias.gov.tr/istatistik2008/30(84-08).xls). On the other hand CO and NMVOC emission amounts are confirmed through the TUIK statistics. (http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=6276&tb_id=7). For the first monitoring period total electricity generation value is confirmed as 589,399 MWh. Avoided emissions are confirmed through the total electricity generation as below;

CO: 87.23 tons

NMVOC: 21.80 tons



VERIFICATION REPORT

13

NOx: 1,007.28 tons

According to GS Design change review the project owner made an additional stakeholder consultation. The stakeholder feedbacks are taken into account through the feedback forms. It is confirmed that there is no negative feedback regarding to dust emission during construction, noise, bird strake and free accession to the project site as well as general views about the power plant. Also during the site visit of the verification team the stakeholders were interviewed. No negative comment is raised by the stakeholders.

FAR01 has been raised by the GS during the design change review as;

FAR01: The DOE shall at the time of first verification verify that the increased project capacity does not impact the nearby residents with respect to noise.

The site visit was conducted before the GS design change review by the verification team on 29/11/2012. The noise parameter is discussed with the stakeholders during the site visit and no negative feedback has been raised by them. According to project observation forms dd. 10/04/2013 it is confirmed that the increased project capacity does not impact the nearby residents with respect to noise.

Parameters determined ex-ante:

(1) EFy, emission factor of the grid

The emission factor of the 1st crediting period of the Project has been determined ex-ante in the registered and approved GS-VER-PDD as 0.6233 tCO2/MWh. The emission factor used in the monitoring report has been verified against the GS-VER-PDD and found them to be consistent.

� Corresponding to the paragraph 235 and 236 of VVS version 03.0, Bureau Veritas Certification can confirm that:

− The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the approved revised PDD.

− All parameters required by the monitoring plan have been sufficiently monitored and correctly listed. The monitored data for required parameters have been verified by checking the whole information flow.

3.5. Compliance with the calibration frequency req uirements for measuring instruments (243)

The registered monitoring plan requires that as the meters are sealed by TEIAS, Baki Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti. cannot intervene with the devices by themselves. TEIAS performs a regular maintenance on a regular basis. TEIAS is the main responsible for calibration and maintenance of the devices. TEIAS performs the necessary maintenance and calibration. Meters should not require calibration for a periodic of less than 10 years as per the regulations and be in



VERIFICATION REPORT

14

compliance with the regulations. /16/ (http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/download/osgm/olcu_aletleri_muayene_yonetmelik.zip)

The project activity consists by two metering devices. During this monitoring period, the installed measuring instruments have been operating well and did not require out of schedule calibration and the first periodic calibration has been made on 2008 by manufacturer. Latest calibration is made by TEIAS on 22/04/2013. /17/ Table 2 The calibration records of the meters

Meter ID Serial number Accuracy Calibration date Calibration entity

Main 37117746 0.2S 22/04/2013 TEIAS

Back-up 37117745 0.2S 22/04/2013 TEIAS

[Instrument accuracy]

The verification team has verified the calibration records and TEIAS is the sole responsible. All the meters meet the rated accuracy level as described in the monitoring plan and are in compliance with the regulations/16/.

[Calibration frequency]

The calibration frequency fulfills the requirement as described in the monitoring plan and is in compliance with the regulations /16/.


− The calibration is conducted at the frequency as specified by the methodology and the monitoring plan contained in the approved revised GS-VER-PDD.

3.6. Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions (246)

A complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available.

The critical parameter used for the determination of the Emission Reductions is the net electricity supplied to the grid by the Project. The data pertaining to the above parameter are maintained in the identified records. All the data are in compliance with that stated in the Monitoring Report version 03.

As per the methodology ACM0002 Version 12.1 and the approved revised GS-VER-PDD, the emission reductions for the Project are calculated as the baseline emissions minus the project emissions and leakage. Hence the emission reduction is determined by the following formula:



VERIFICATION REPORT

15

ERy = BEy-PEy-Ly

Where,

ERy: Emission reductions

BEy: Baseline emissions

PEy: Project emissions

Ly: Emissions due to leakage

[Baseline emissions]

The baseline emissions are the baseline emission factor times the net electricity supplied to the grid Therefore,

BEy = GENy * EF Where: BEy = Baseline Emissions in year y; t CO2 GENy = Net electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity in year y excluding transmission losses of the grid. EF = Emission Factor calculated according to selected methodology EFCO2: GHG emission factor of the Turkish national Grid, calculated ex-ante in the registered GS-VER-PDD as 0.6233 tCO2e/MWh.

The net electricity delivered to the grid (GENy) can be calculated as:

GENy = EGexport – EGimport

The verification team has cross-checked the values from the Monthly reading records /13/ with the PMUM screens /14/ for the period from 01/07/2010 to 31/12/2011. The conservative values are used for emission reductions calculation. The verified values are shown in the Table 3.

Table 3 The verified electricity generation values (MWh)

Period Export (MWh) Import (MWh) Verified EGy (MWh)

July 2009 19,828.620 29.100 19,799.52

August 2009 32,960.730 320.00 32,640.73

September 2009 16,487.690 38.150 16,449.54

October 2009 16,445.240 63.040 16,382.20

November 2009 12,792.500 73.790 12,718.71

December 2009 25,539.510 36.240 25,503.27

TOTAL 2009 124,054.290 560.320 123,493.97

January 2010 21,239.300 36.740 13,215.56



VERIFICATION REPORT

16

February 2010 19,939.480 41.600 12,402.35

March 2010 14,580.920 32.610 14,548.31

April 2010 12,386.480 39.570 12,346.91

May 2010 6,152.520 102.880 6,049.64

June 2010 8,304.150 74.130 8,230.02

July 2010 16,966.420 22.550 16,943.87

August 2010 20,227.410 23.480 20,203.93

September 2010 18,357.680 27.780 18,329.90 October 2010 18,974.120 42.990 18,931.13

November 2010 20,404.620 86.530 20,318.09

December 2010 26,065.240 20.820 20,044.42

TOTAL 2010 203,598.340 551.680 203,046.66

January 2011 13,246.230 66.810 13,719.42

February 2011 17,662.620 30.490 17,632.13

March 2011 21,243.230 41.820 21,201.41

April 2011 20,517.950 17.930 20,500.02

May 2011 15,680.430 34.380 15,646.05

June 2011 14,699.650 55.970 14,643.68

July 2011 16,506.460 39.920 16,446.54

August 2011 33,721.440 8.280 33,713.16

September 2011 26,880.630 14.080 26,866.55

October 2011 26,237.210 42.000 26,195.21

November 2011 26,092.298 35.550 26,056.75

December 2011 30,795.650 37.930 30,757.72

TOTAL 2011 263,283.798 425.160 262,858.64

Total 590,936.428 1,537.160 589,399.268

GENy 2009 is calculated and confirmed as 123,493.97 MWh



The baseline emissions of the project are calculated as;

BE2009 = EF1st CP* GENy,2009= 0.6233 tCO2e/MWh* 123,493.97 MWh = 76,973 tCO2e

BE2010 = EF1st CP* GENy,2010= 0.6233 tCO2e/MWh* 203,046.66 MWh = 126,558 tCO2e

BE2011 = EF1st CP* GENy,2011 0.6233 tCO2e/MWh* 262,858.64 MWh = 163,839 tCO2e



VERIFICATION REPORT

17

BE1stMP = BE2009+BE2010+BE2011 = 76,973 + 126,558 + 163,839 = 367,370 tCO2e

[Project emissions]

The Project is a newly built wind power project, thus according to ACM0002 Version 12.1 the project emissions are zero.

[Leakage emissions]

No leakage needs to be considered according to ACM0002 Version 12.1.

[Emission reductions]

The emission reductions during the monitoring period from 01/07/2009 to 31/12/2011 are calculated as:

ERy = BEy-PEy-Ly= 367,370 - 0 - 0 = 367,370 tCO2e

[Comparison of ERs]

The annual estimated emission reductions are 162,058 tCO2e as per the approved revised GS-VER-PDD until 2012.After 2012 annual estimated emission reductions are 212,832 tCO2e. In the current situation the monitoring period is between 01/07/2009 and 31/12/2011 so the acceptable the annual estimated emission reduction is 162,058 tCO2e. The actual operation days of the Project in the monitoring period are 913 days. The corresponding estimate in the monitoring period are 405,145(=162,058*913/365) tCO2e. The actual emission reductions are 9.3% less than the estimated value in the monitoring period.

The variation is due to the installation of extension turbines, and it is deemed to be reasonable.


− Data used for the determination of the emission reductions are available and monitored in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the approved revised GS-VER-PDD.

− Information and data provided in the monitoring report have been cross-checked with other sources such as plant logbooks, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis.

− Appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed.

− Assumptions, emission factors and default values that were applied in the calculations have been justified.



VERIFICATION REPORT

18

4. VERIFICATION OPINION Bureau Veritas Certification has performed the 1st periodic verification of Samli 114 MW Wind Power Project, Turkey, GS Registration Reference Number GS 351, which is located in Marmara Region, province of Balikesir, district of Samli, and applying the methodology ACM0002 Version 12.1. The verification was performed based on the requirements set by the CDM methodology, GS v.2.2 and relevant guidance provided by CMP and the CDM Executive Board.

The verification consisted of the following three phases: i) desk review of the project design, the baseline and monitoring plan; ii) follow-up interviews with project stakeholders; iii) resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final verification report and opinion.

The management of FutureCamp is responsible for the preparation of the GHG emissions data and the reported GHG emission reductions of the project on the basis set out within the monitoring plan contained in the approved revised GS-VER-PDD. The development and maintenance of records and reporting procedures in accordance with that plan, including the calculation and determination of GHG emission reductions from the project, is the responsibility of the management of the project.

Bureau Veritas Certification has verified the project Monitoring Report version 03 dated 07/01/2014 for the reporting period as indicated below. Bureau Veritas Certification confirms that the project is implemented as described in the approved revised project design documents. Installed equipments being essential for generating emission reductions run reliably and are calibrated appropriately. The monitoring system is in place and the Project is generating GHG emission reductions as a GS-VER project.

Bureau Veritas Certification can confirm that the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements. Our opinion relates to the projects' GHG emissions and resulting GHG emission reductions reported and related to the validated and registered project baseline, approved monitoring plan and its associated documents. Based on the evidence and information that are considered necessary to guarantee that GHG emission reductions are appropriately calculated, Bureau Veritas Certification confirms the following statement:



VERIFICATION REPORT

19

Reporting period: 01/07/2009 to 31/12/2011

Baseline emissions 2009 (01/07/2009 – 31/12/2009): 76,973 t CO2 equivalents



Baseline emissions (Total) : 367,370 t CO2 equivalents

Project emissions : 0 t CO2 equivalents

Leakage emissions : 0 t CO2 equivalents

Emission Reductions : 367,370 t CO2 equivalents

Mr. Burcu MUTMAN BORAN Mr. Furkan SADIKOĞLU

Internal Technical Reviewer Team Leader

31/01/2014 31/01/2014



VERIFICATION REPORT

20

5. REFERENCES Documents reviewed:

/1/ Registered GS-VER-PDD version 10 dated 10/07/2012, GS ref no.GS 351 Revised GS-VER-PDD Version 12 dated 12/05/2013

/2/ Validation Report revision 04, dated 20/09/2012

/3/ -

/4/ Monitoring Report version 03, dated 07/01/2014

/5/ Monitoring Report version 02, dated 20/12/2013

/6/ ACM0002 Version 12.1, applied approved CDM Methodology

/7/ Validation and Verification Standard Version 04.0 dated 29/07/2013

/8/ Gold Standard Final Design Change Review 10/02/2013

/9/ Commissioning Date of the Project activity 01/08/2008

/10/ EMRA Electricity Generation License dd.06/04/2004

/11/ Social Security Records of the Employee

/12/ Internal Training Records and Qualification Certificate of Operation Staff

/13/ Monthly Reading Records (01/07/2009 – 31/12/2011)

/14/ PMUM Screens (01/07/2009 – 31/12/2011)

/15/ Fees for tree cutting to Balıkesir Department of Forestry, Chieftaincy of Ilıca dd. 25/01/2011

/16/ http://www.sanayi.gov.tr/download/osgm/olcu_aletleri_muayene_yonetmelik.zip

/17/ http://www.teias.gov.tr/istatistik2008/30(84-08).xls /18/ http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=6276&tb_id=7

/19/ The agreement with the land owner Ferit Eser dated 28/06/2011

/20/ The record of the payments to land owners’ Ferit Eser and İsmail Cam dated 11/12/2013



VERIFICATION REPORT

21

Persons interviewed:

Baki Elektrik Üretim A.Ş

• İsmail ÇAM – Plant Manager - +90 0 212 478 66 66

• Yaşar Kuş – Technician - +90 0 212 478 66 66 FutureCamp Türkiye

• Bengisu Çorakçı – Consultant - +90 312 481 21 42 Stakeholders

• İsmail Meral – Samli (Akgedik) district Muhtar - +90 535 434 48 46

• Murat Tozan - Local

• Osman Akyüz - Local



VERIFICATION REPORT

22

6. CURRICULA VITAE OF THE DOE’S VERIFICATION TEAM M EMBERS

Mr. Furkan SADIKOĞLU Bureau Veritas

Certification, Turkey

Team Leader, Climate Change Lead Verifier,

Furkan Sadıkoğlu is an Electrical & Electronics engineer. He has an experience in renewable energy and LED lightning sectors and he has over 2 years’ experience in energy sectors. He has participated online seminars in the Gold Standard Academy in 2012 and 2013 and is a lead verifier for GHG emission reduction projects.

Mr. Mehmet KUMRU Bureau Veritas

Certification, Turkey Team Member, Climate Change Lead Verifier, Mehmet Kumru received his Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Engineering from Uludag University. He was worked as a team member of research and development in renewable energy projects. He is working with Bureau Veritas Turkey as an auditor and carbon verifier. He is also lead verifier in ISO 14064 and PAS 2050.

Mrs. Burcu MUTMAN BORAN

Bureau Veritas

Certification, Turkey

Technical Reviewer, Climate Change Lead Verifier.

Burcu Mutman is an auditor for environment, safety and quality management systems. Has participated various online trainings, seminars and personal trainings on Gold Standard also participated in the Gold Standard Academy in 2009 and 2010.



VERIFICATION REPORT

23

APPENDIX A: CDM PROJECT VERIFICATION PROTOCOL Table 1 Verification requirements based on VVS vers ion 03.0 (EB 70 Annex 3), PS version 02.1 (EB 70 An nex 2), PCP version 03.1 (EB 70 Annex 4), and Guidelines for completing the Monitor ing Report Form version 03.1 (EB 70 Annex 11)



VERIFICATION REPORT

24

CHECKLIST QUESTION Ref. § COMMENTS Draft Concl

Final Concl

Part I Cover Page

(a) Is the title of the project activity provided? MR Title is given as “Samli 114 MW Wind Power Plant

Project” in line with the GS Registry. OK OK

(b) Is the reference number of the project activity provided? MR GS Project ID given as GS 351. OK OK

(c) Is the version number of the monitoring report indicated? MR Version 1.1 OK OK

(d) Is the completion date of the monitoring report provided in DD/MM/YYYY format? MR 25.03.2013 OK OK

(e) Is the registration date of the project activity provided in DD/MM/YYYY format? MR Registration date of the project activity is given as

22.06.2011 in line with the GS Registry. OK OK

(f) Are the monitoring period number and duration of this monitoring period (first and last days included in DD/MM/YYYY format) provided?

MR Period 1 (01.06.2009 – 31.12.2011)

OK OK

(g) Are project participants indicated? MR Bakı Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti is given as project

participant. OK OK

(h) Is the host party(ies) indicated? MR Host party is presented as Turkey. OK OK

(i) Are the sectoral scope(s) and applied methodology(ies) indicated? MR

The methodology is indicated as ACM0002, Version 12.1 on the cover page of the monitoring report. The sectoral scope is presented as Scope 01.

OK OK

(j) Is the estimated amount of GHG emission MR Estimated amount of GHG emission reduction is given CL01 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

25


Final Concl

reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks for this monitoring period in the registered PDD indicated?

as 405,118 tCO2e for this monitoring period. It is not line with the registered PDD. Please clarify.

(k) Are the actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks achieved in this monitoring period indicated?

MR Actual GHG emission reduction is given as 367,372 tCO2e for this monitoring period. OK OK

(l) Are the actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks achieved during the period up to 31 December 2012 indicated (if applicable)?

MR

N/A

OK OK

(m) Are the actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks achieved during the period from 1 January 2013 onwards indicated (if applicable)?

MR

N/A

OK OK

Part II Monitoring Report

A. Description of project activity

A.1 Purpose and general description of project activity

A.1.1 Is the description of the project activity to be presented in this section a brief summary of the detailed description given in the section B.1 Implementation status of the project activity?

MR

Under section A.1 general description of the project activity is presented. The capacity additions are not presented technically and definitional. Please provide more information about the project change and revise the technical information through to project design change transparently.

CAR01 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

26


Final Concl

A.1.2 Does this description include:

A.1.2.1 Purpose of the project activity and the measures taken for GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks?

MR

The purpose of the project is to generate electricity and to feed it into the public grid. OK OK

A.1.2.2 Brief description of the installed technology and equipments? MR Please see CAR01. CAR01 OK

A.1.2.3 Relevant dates for the project activity (e.g. construction, commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.)?

MR Relevant dates for the project activity are presented under section B.1 of the PDD through the registered PDD.

OK OK

A.1.2.4 Total GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks achieved in this monitoring period?

MR Please provide the actual GHG emission reduction under section A.1. CAR02 OK

A.2 Location of project activity

A.2.1 Is the information on the location of the project activity provided, including Host Party(ies), Region/State/Province, City/Town/Community, Physical/ Geographical location etc.?

MR

The project is located in Marmara Region, province of Balıkesir, district of Şamlı. The coordinates of the 43 wind turbines are confirmed through the amendment of generation license dd. 23/09/2010 and registered PDD.

OK OK

A.3 Parties and project participant(s)

A.3.1 Is the Party(ies) and project participant(s) involved in the project activity listed in the provided table?

MR Bakı Elektrik Üretim Ltd. Şti is listed as project participant under section A.3 of the monitoring report. OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

27


Final Concl

A.4 Reference of applied methodology

A.4.1 Is the exact reference (number, title, version) of the methodology(ies) indicated? MR Reference for the applied methodology is given as

ACM0002, Version 12.1. OK OK

A.4.2 Is the exact reference (number, title, version) of any tools and other methodologies to which the applied methodology(ies) refers indicated?

MR

Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 06.0.0) is given under section A.4 of the PDD.

OK OK

A.5 Crediting period of project activity

A.5.1 Are the type, start date and length of the crediting period corresponding to this monitoring period provided?

MR Crediting period of the project activity is presented as 07.2009 – 06.2015. Please provide the crediting period in DD/MM/YYYY.

CAR03 OK

B. Implementation of project activity

B.1 Description of implemented registered project activity

B.1.1 Is the description of the installed technology, technical processes and equipments provided, include diagrams where appropriate?

MR

PS

191(a)

Under section B.1 of the monitoring report description of the installed technology, technical processes and equipments are not presented. Please add. On the other hand please add references for all inputs for the technical definitions as a footnote under section B.1.

CAR04 OK

B.1.2 Is the information on the implementation and actual operation of the project activity, including relevant dates (e.g. construction,

PS 191(b) Please see CAR01

CAR01 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

28


Final Concl

commissioning, continued operation periods, etc.) provided?

B.1.3 Is the description of: (i) the events or situations that occurred during the monitoring period that may impact the applicability of the methodology (ii) how the issues resulting from these events or situations have been addressed provided?

PS 191(c)

Project has been extended its capacity to 114 MW in July 2011. GS design change review and revised PDD has been provided to the validation team. Also revised generation license is provided.

OK OK

B.1.4 Have the project participants addressed the FARs identified during validation or previous verification(s)?

VVS 213 FARs will be discussed under Table-2

OK OK

B.1.5 Have the implementation and operation of the project activity been conducted in accordance with the description contained in the registered PDD?

VVS 226

Revised PDD after project change has been provided. Operation has been conducted in accordance with the revised PDD after project change.

OK OK

B.1.6 Are all physical features of the project activity in the registered PDD in place? VVS 227 Please see CAR01 CAR01 OK

B.1.7 Have the project participants operated the project activity as per the registered PDD or any approved revised PDD? VVS 227

Revised PDD after project change has been provided. Operation has been conducted in accordance with the revised PDD after project change. Please also provide the registered PDD before the project change. Please refer CAR04.

OK OK

B.1.8 Was an on-site visit conducted? VVS 227 An on-site was conducted on 29/11/2012 OK OK

B.1.9 If an on-site visit is not conducted, is the rationale of the decision justified? VVS 227 N/A OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

29


Final Concl

B.2 Post registration changes

B.2.1 Temporary deviations from registered monitoring plan or applied methodology

B.2.1.1 Is it indicated whether any temporary deviations have been applied during this monitoring period?

MR There is no revision in the monitoring plan of the project. OK OK

B.2.1.2 Is a description of the deviation(s) in accordance with applicable provisions in the Project standard provided?

MR There is no revision in the monitoring plan of the project. OK OK

B.2.1.3 Are the reasons for the deviation(s), how it deviates from the monitoring plan and/or applied methodology(ies), the duration for which the deviation(s) is(are) applicable and justification on the conservativeness of the approach included in the description?

MR

There is no any other changes than stated above.

OK OK

B.2.1.4 For deviation(s) that require prior approval by the Board, are the date of approval and reference number included in the description?

MR


OK OK

B.2.2 Corrections

B.2.2.1 Is it indicated whether any corrections to project information or parameters fixed at validation have been approved during this monitoring period or

MR No deviation is applied for the project activity.

OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

30


Final Concl

submitted with this monitoring report?

B.2.2.2 In cases where the correction(s) and the revised PDD are approved prior to the submission of this monitoring report for request for issuance, are the approval date and reference number provided? Otherwise, are the version number and the completion date of the revised PDD provided?

MR

N/A

OK OK

B.2.3 Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan or applied methodology

B.2.3.1 Is it indicated whether any permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan or applied methodologies have been approved during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report?

MR


OK OK

B.2.3.2 In cases where the change(s) and the revised PDD are approved prior to the submission of this monitoring report for request for issuance, are the approval date and reference number provided? Otherwise, are the version number and the completion date of the revised PDD provided?

MR

N/A

OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

31


Final Concl

B.2.4 Changes to project design of registered project activity

B.2.4.1 Is it indicated whether any changes to the project design of the project activity have been approved during this monitoring period or submitted with this monitoring report?

MR

Project has been extended its capacity to 114 MW in July 2011. The project design change review and revised PDD through the project design change is provided.

OK OK

B.2.4.2 In cases where the change(s) and the revised PDD are approved prior to the submission of this monitoring report for request for issuance, are the approval date and reference number provided? Otherwise, are the version number and the completion date of the revised PDD provided?

MR

The project design change review and revised PDD Version 12 Dated 13 May 2013 through the project design change is provided.

OK OK

B.2.5 Changes to start date of crediting period

B.2.5.1 Is it indicated whether any changes to the start date of the crediting period have been approved during this monitoring period?

MR

Start date of crediting period has not been changed.

OK OK

B.2.5.2 In cases where the changes and the revised PDD are approved prior to the submission of this monitoring report for request for issuance, are the approval date and reference number provided?

MR

Start date of crediting period has not been changed.

OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

32


Final Concl

B.2.6 Types of changes specific to afforestation or reforestation project activity

B.2.6.1 Is it indicated whether any changes specific to afforestation or reforestation project activities have been applied during this monitoring period based on applicable provisions in the Project standard that do not require prior approval by the Board?

MR

N/A

OK OK

B.2.6.2 If changes were applied, are the version number and the completion date of the revised PDD provided?

MR N/A

OK OK

C. Description of monitoring system

C.1 General requirements

C.1.1 Have project participants described the monitoring system and provided line diagrams (graphical schemes) showing all relevant monitoring points?

MR

PS

193

Monitoring system and relevant monitoring points are described under section 1.1 of the PDD. OK OK

C.1.2 Does this description where appropriate include data collection procedures (information flow including data generation, aggregation, recording, calculations and reporting), organizational structure, roles and responsibilities of personnel, and emergency procedures for the monitoring

MR

PS

193

Data processing was provided under section C.1 and roles and responsibilities under C.3 and calibration procedures, Troubleshooting procedures and special events under section C.1.3, C.1.4 and C.1.5 of the monitoring report.

OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

33


Final Concl

system?

C.1.3 Is the monitoring plan of the project activity in accordance with the applied methodology including applicable tool(s)?

VVS 229

Please see the below;

• Expropriation parameter is not monitored which is described in the PDD. Please provide.

• Under “Quantitative employment and income generation” parameter it is defined that the Bakı Elektrik has made the necessary payment to land owner for land compensation. Please provide the payment records to the verification team.

• Under “Quality of employment” training list is provided. Please provide the Training records to the validation team.

• Under “Tree Cutting” parameter it is presented that there is no tree cutting occurred. Please provide it by objective evidences.

CAR05 OK

C.1.4 For monitoring aspects that are not specified in the methodology, particularly in the case of small-scale methodologies (e.g. additional monitoring parameters, monitoring frequency and calibration frequency), are there any issues which may enhance the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring plan and should bring to the attention of the Board?

VVS 231

Please see CAR05.

CAR05 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

34


Final Concl

C.1.5 Has the monitoring plan been properly implemented and followed by the project participants? VVS 234(a)

The monitoring plan has been properly implemented and allowed by the project participants. Please add the first calibration date of the meters under section D.2 of the PDD.

CAR06 OK

C.1.6 Have all parameters stated in the monitoring plan and relevant Board decisions been monitored and updated as applicable, including:

VVS 234(b)

- -

C.1.6.1 Project emission parameters?

VVS 234(b)

There is no project emission in this kind of project. However for emergency cases, there is a diesel generator to be used. For the monitoring period and applied methodology, diesel generator is not considered as project emissions.

OK OK

C.1.6.2 Baseline emission parameters? VVS 234(b) EF has been fixed ex-ante for the crediting period and

EG was monitored as defined. OK OK

C.1.6.3 Leakage parameters? VVS 234(b) No leakage needs to be considered. OK OK

C.1.6.4 Management and operational system: the responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting are in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan?

VVS 234(b)

No discrepancies were observed.

OK OK

D. Data and parameters



VERIFICATION REPORT

35


Final Concl

D.1 Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period

D.1.1 For “Purpose of data”, is one of the following options chose: (a) Calculation of baseline emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks; (b) Calculation of project emissions or actual net GHG removals by sinks; (c) Calculation of leakage?

MR

EF is given as 0.6233 is used for baseline emission calculations.

OK OK

D.1.2 For “Value(s) applied”, if applicable, is one table used to report multiple values referring to the same data and parameter? If necessary, are reference(s) to electronic spreadsheets used?

MR

Fixed value is 0.6233.

OK OK

D.1.3 Is the source of data provide and/or identified? PS 195(d) Source of data is the registered PDD of the project

activity. OK OK

D.1.4 Is information about appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and any other reference values that have been used in the calculation of GHG emission reductions or net GHG removals provided?

PS 195(g)

Parameter has been calculated in the registered PDD and the relevant assumptions as well as default values are also indicated in this PDD. OK OK

D.2 Data and parameters monitored

D.2.1 For “Purpose of data”, is one of the following options chose: (a) Calculation of baseline emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks; (b) Calculation of project

MR

Under section D.1 parameter is used for the baseline emission reduction parameters are not line with the validated PDD. “Full load hours per energy source”, “Technology specific emission factor of the 20% plants”

CL02 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

36


Final Concl

emissions or actual net GHG removals by sinks; (c) Calculation of leakage?

and “Emission factor, EF” parameters which are given in the monitoring report are not presented in the registered PDD. Please clarify.

D.2.2 For “Value(s) of monitored parameter”, if applicable, is one table used to report multiple values referring to the same data and parameter? If necessary, are reference(s) to electronic spreadsheets used?

MR

July 2009 , Aug 2009, September 2009, October 2009, and November 2009 PMUM records are not available. On the other hand under section D.2 please provide the source of data cross check process clearly.

CAR07 OK

D.2.3 Are the values of the monitored parameter for the purpose of calculating GHG emission reductions or net GHG removals provided? Where data are measured continuously, are they presented using an appropriate time interval? For default values (such as an IPCC value), where it is ex post confirmed, is the most recent value applied?

PS 195(a)

Refer CAR07

CAR07 OK

D.2.4 Is the equipment used to monitor each parameter described, including details on accuracy class, and calibration information (frequency, date of calibration and validity), if applicable as per monitoring plan?

PS 195(b)

Monitoring equipment are the electricity meters sealed and controlled by TEIAS. The electricity meter’s manufacturer is Elster with accuracy class of 0.2S. Please provide the date of installation and calibration of meters under section D.2 of the PDD.

CL03 OK

D.2.5 Is the equipment used for monitoring is controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan, the applied methodology, the Board guidance,

VVS 234(c) Calibration will be performed in line with the national standards, by TEIAS’s initiative. OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

37


Final Concl

local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer’s specification?

D.2.6 Is the calibration of those measuring equipments that have an impact on the claimed emission reductions conducted by the project participants at a frequency specified in the applied monitoring methodology and/or the monitoring plan?

VVS 237

Regular calibration interval is determined as 10 years by the local regulations. However TEIAS has right to calibrate as needed, as in this case. OK OK

D.2.7 If, during verification of a certain monitoring period, the calibration has been delayed and the calibration has been implemented after the monitoring period in consideration (i.e. the results of delayed calibration are available), is the following conservative approach adopted in the calculation of emission reductions:

VVS 238

Calibration has not been delayed. N/A

OK OK

D.2.7.1 Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured values taken during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration, if the results of the delayed calibration do not show any errors in the measuring equipment, or if the error is smaller than the maximum permissible error?

VVS 238(a)

Please provide the installation and calibration of the meters’ testing results to the verification team.

CAR08 OK

D.2.7.2 Applying the error identified in the delayed calibration test, if the error is

VVS 238(b) Refer CAR07. CAR08 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

38


Final Concl

beyond the maximum permissible error of the measuring equipment?

D.2.8 Has the error has been applied: VVS 239 - - -

D.2.8.1 In a conservative manner, such that the adjusted measured values of the delayed calibration shall result in fewer claimed emission reductions?

VVS 239(a)

Please see CAR08

CAR08 OK

D.2.8.2 For all measured values taken during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration.

VVS 239(b)

N/A

OK OK

D.2.9 In cases where the results of the delayed calibration are not available, or the calibration has not been conducted at the time of verification, prior to finalizing verification, were the project participants requested to conduct the required calibration have the project participants calculated the emission reductions conservatively using the approach mentioned in item “D.2.7” above?

VVS 240

N/A

OK OK

D.2.10 In cases where it is not possible for the project participants to conduct the calibration at a frequency specified by either the applied methodology, guidance provided by the Board, and/or the

VVS 241

N/A

OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

39


Final Concl

registered monitoring plan due to reasons beyond the control of PPs, are the requirements for post registration changes, in section 9.5 of the VVS, followed?

D.2.11 In cases where neither the monitoring methodology nor the monitoring plan specify any requirements for calibration frequency for measuring equipments, are the equipments calibrated either in accordance with the specifications of the local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer’s specification? If neither local/national standards nor the manufacturer’s specification are available, were international standards used?

VVS 242

Please provide the installation and calibration of the meters’ testing results to the verification team. Please refer CAR08.

CAR08 OK

D.2.12 Is it described how the parameters are measured/calculated and the measurement and recording frequency?

PS 195(c) Monitoring equipment are the electricity meters sealed and controlled by TEIAS. The electricity meter’s manufacturer is Elster with accuracy class of 0.2S.

OK OK

D.2.13 Are monitoring results consistently recorded as per approved frequency?

VVS 234(d)

July 2009 , Aug 2009, September 2009, October 2009, and November 2009 PMUM records are not available. On the other hand under section D.2 please provide the source of data cross check process clearly. Refer CAR07.

CAR06 OK

D.2.14 Is the source of data (e.g. logbooks, daily records, surveys, etc.) provide and/or identified?

PS 195(d) The electronic spreadsheet to present emission reduction calculation in the monitoring report is not provided. Please provide.

CAR09 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

40


Final Concl

D.2.15 Where relevant is the calculation method of the parameter provided? PS 195(e) Yes the calculation method is line with the registered

PDD. OK OK

D.2.16 Are the QA/QC procedures applied described (if applicable per monitoring plan)?

PS 195(f) Please refer CAR07.

CAR07 OK

D.2.17 Have quality assurance and quality control procedures been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan or the revised monitoring plan?

VVS 234(e)

Please refer CAR07.

CAR07 OK

D.2.18 Is information about appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and any other reference values that have been used in the calculation of GHG emission reductions or net GHG removals provided?

PS 195(g)

Please refer CAR07.

CAR07 OK

D.3 Implementation of sampling plan

D.3.1 Is a description provided on how project participants implemented the sampling efforts and surveys for those data and parameters according to the sampling plan, Include:

MR

N/A

OK OK

D.3.1.1 Description of implemented sampling design? MR N/A OK OK

D.3.1.2 Collected data (electronic spreadsheets may be attached and referenced)? MR N/A OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

41


Final Concl

D.3.1.3 Analysis of the collected data? MR N/A OK OK

D.3.1.4 Demonstration on whether the required confidence/precision has been met? MR N/A OK OK

E. Calculation of emission reductions or GHG removals by sinks

E.1 Calculation of baseline emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks

E.1.1 Are the sample calculations for all formulae used and calculation of baseline emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks provided, applying actual values?

MR

PS

197(a)

Please see CAR07.

CAR06 OK

E.1.2 Are the electronic spreadsheets to present full calculations in the monitoring report attached?

MR The electronic spreadsheet to present emission reduction calculation in the monitoring report is not provided. Please provide. Please see CAR09.

CAR09 OK

E.2 Calculation of project emissions or actual net GHG removals by sinks

E.2.1 Are the sample calculations for all formulae used and calculation of project emissions or actual net GHG removals by sinks provided, applying actual values?

MR

PS

197(b)

There is no project emission in this kind of project. However for emergency cases, there is a diesel generator to be used. For the monitoring period and applied methodology, diesel generator is not considered as project emissions.

OK OK

E.2.2 Are the electronic spreadsheets to present full calculations in the monitoring report

MR N/A. OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

42


Final Concl

attached?

E.3 Calculation of leakage

E.3.1 Are the sample calculations for all formulae used and calculation of leakage provided, applying actual values?

MR

PS

197(c)

No leakage needs to be considered. OK OK

E.3.2 Are the electronic spreadsheets to present full calculations in the monitoring report attached?

MR N/A.

OK OK

E.4 Summary of calculation of emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks

E.4.1 Are the results of above sections summarized and GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks for this monitoring period presented, using the provided table?

MR

PS

197(d)

July 2009 , Aug 2009, September 2009, October 2009, and November 2009 PMUM records are not available. On the other hand under section D.2 please provide the source of data cross check process clearly. Refer CAR07.

CAR07 OK

E.4.2 Is a complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available? VVS 245(a) This question will be evaluated after CAR07 is closed. OK OK

E.4.3 Has information provided in the monitoring report been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis?

VVS 245(b)

Cross check process is not clearly described under section D.2. Please provide the source of data for net electricity production and cross check document for net electricity production. Please provide the cross-check documents to the validation team.

CAR10 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

43


Final Concl

E.4.4 Have calculations of baseline emissions, and project activity emissions and leakage, as appropriate, been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document?

VVS 245(c)

Calculations are line with the registered PDD.

OK OK

E.4.5 Have any assumptions used in emission calculations been justified? VVS 245(d) EF is used from the registered PDD. OK OK

E.4.6 Have appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and other reference values been correctly applied?

VVS 245(e) Parameter has been calculated in the registered PDD and the relevant assumptions as well as default values are also indicated in this PDD.

OK OK

E.5 Comparison of actual emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks with estimates in registered PDD

E.5.1 Is a comparison of actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removal of the project activity achieved during this monitoring period with the estimates in the registered PDD provided?

MR

PS

198

Under section E.5 values estimated in ex-ante calculation is given as 367,373 tCO2e and Actual values achieved during this monitoring period is given as 405,118 tCO2e. The given values are not line with the calculations and registered PDD. Please clarify.

CL04 OK

E.6 Remarks on difference from estimated value in registered PDD

E.6.1 For any registered CDM project activity, except A/R project activities, have project participants explained the cause of any

MR

PS

199

Percent error is calculated under section E.6. Please clarify how 405,118 tCO2e is calculated from the registered PDD. It is not line with the registered PDD.

CL05 OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

44


Final Concl

increase in the actual GHG emission reductions achieved during the current monitoring period (e.g. higher water availability, higher plant load factor, etc.), including all information (i.e. data and/or parameters) that is different from that stated in the registered PDD?

Please clarify.

E.7 Actual emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks during the first commitment period and the period from 1 January 2013 onwards

N/A as project is GS and the MR template used does not include such reporting. OK OK

E.7.1 If the monitoring period starts before 31 December 2012 and ends anytime thereafter, are actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks achieved for the following two periods provided respectively? (a) Up to 31 December 2012 (1st

commitment period); (b) From 1 January 2013 onwards.

MR

N/A

OK OK

E.7.2 Is it ensured that the achieved GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks are calculated proportionally for each period? In cases where annual caps were applied in the calculations, is it ensured that the annual caps are pro-rated to each period?

MR

N/A

OK OK



VERIFICATION REPORT

45

Table 2 Resolution of Corrective Action /Clarificat ion / Forward Action RequestsDraft report clarifications and corrective action requests by verification team

Ref. to checklist

question in table 1

Summary of project participant response Verification team conclusion

CAR01

Under section A.1 general description of the project activity is presented. The capacity additions are not presented technically and definitional. Please provide more information about the project change and revise the technical information through to project design change transparently.

Capacity addition related information are inserted in section A.1 of MR.

Review 1:

Capacity addition related information is presented under section A.1 of the monitoring report.

CAR01 is closed.

CAR02

Please provide the actual GHG emission reduction under section A.1.

Actual GHG emission reduction amounts per each vintage are presented in section A.1.

Review 1:

The actual GHG emission reduction is provided under section A.1 of the monitoring report.

CAR02 is closed.

CAR03

Crediting period of the project activity is presented as 07.2009 – 06.2015. Please provide the crediting period in DD/MM/YYYY.

Crediting period is presented as DD/MM/YYYY under section A.5 of MRv2.

Review 1:

The crediting period is provided in a correct format.

CAR03 is closed.

CAR04

Under section B.1 of the monitoring report

Description of technical processes and equipments are presented in section B.1 with

Review 1:

The technical details of the



VERIFICATION REPORT

46

Draft report clarifications and corrective action requests by verification team

Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


description of the installed technology, technical processes and equipments are not presented. Please add. On the other hand please add references for all inputs for the technical definitions as a footnote under section B.1.

related references.

Response to Review-1:

The total electricity generation and total emission reduction values are revised to be in line with the revised PDD.

installed technology are presented under section B.1 of the monitoring report. The total electricity generation and total emission reduction values are not line with the revised PDD. Please correct.

CAR04 is still open.

Review 2:

Total electricity generation and the total emission reduction values are revised according to revised PDD.

CAR04 is closed.

CAR05

Please see the below;

• Expropriation parameter is not monitored which is described in the PDD. Please provide.

• Under “Quantitative employment and income generation” parameter it is defined that the Bakı Elektrik has

a) Expropriation parameter is provided in Section F of the Monitoring Report

b) Payment to land owners is now shifted to “Expropriation” indicator. Payment protocols and receipts are submitted to the DOE as Annex-1a and Annex-1b of this protocol.

Review 1:

a) Expropriation parameter is added to section F of the monitoring report by objective references. OK

b) The payment records are provided to the validation team.



VERIFICATION REPORT

47


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


made the necessary payment to land owner for land compensation. Please provide the payment records to the verification team.

• Under “Quality of employment” training list is provided. Please provide the Training records to the validation team.

Under “Tree Cutting” parameter it is presented that there is no tree cutting occurred. Please provide it by objective evidences.

c) Training list is now under “Job Creation” indicator and training records are submitted to the DOE as Annex-2 of this protocol.

d) Detail information on “Number of trees cut” are provided in section F.1.2.b of MR. Fees paid to the Directorate of Forestry are submitted in Annex-3 of this protocol.


Calculations for Air indicator are revised to be in line with new electricity generation values.

c) Training records are provided to the validation team.

d) The document is provided to the validation team.

On the other hand under Air Quality indicator calculations are based on the old electricity generation values. Please correct.


Review 2:

Air quality parameter is revised according to new electricity generation values.

CAR05 is closed.

CAR06

The monitoring plan has been properly implemented and allowed by the project participants. Please add the first calibration date of the meters under section D.2 of the PDD.

Information on meters in section D.2 is corrected. Manufacturing, calibration year and the latest control date are also added to the D.2. section.

Review 1:

The first calibration record is confirmed according to calibration protocol dd. 22/04/2013.

CAR06 is closed.



VERIFICATION REPORT

48


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


CAR07

July 2009 , Aug 2009, September 2009, October 2009, and November 2009 PMUM records are not available. On the other hand under section D.2 please provide the source of data cross check process clearly.

PMUM records for the months of July 2009 , Aug 2009, September 2009, October 2009, and November 2009 are submitted to DOE as Annex-4 to this protocol.

In section D.2, it is clearly stated that the monthly PMUM records are used for cross check process.

Review 1:

Under section D.2 it is defined that the net electricity production data is obtained from the monthly main meter reading protocols. The generation values are presented through the PMUM records. Please provide the monthly reading protocols and correct the generation values according to protocols.


Review 2:

Electricity generation values are checked from the monthly reading records completely.

CAR07 is closed.

CAR08

Please provide the installation and calibration of the meters’ testing results to the verification team.

Information regarding installation and calibration of the meters are provided in section D.2. Related test result of the meters is given in Annex-5 of this protocol.

Review 1:

The first calibration record is confirmed according to calibration protocol dd. 22/04/2013.

CAR08 is closed.



VERIFICATION REPORT

49


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


CAR09

The electronic spreadsheet to present emission reduction calculation in the monitoring report is not provided. Please provide.

Electronic spreadsheet to present emission reduction calculation in the monitoring report is submitted to DOE as Annex-6 of this protocol.

Review 1:

The electronic spreadsheet to present emission reduction calculation in the monitoring report is provided.

CAR09 is closed.

CAR10

Cross check process is not clearly described under section D.2. Please provide the source of data for net electricity production and cross check document for net electricity production. Please provide the cross-check documents to the validation team.

In section D.2, it is clearly stated that the monthly PMUM records are used for cross check process.

All PMUM records are submitted to the DOE. Please refer to Annex-4 for the missing records.


All monthly reading protocols covering monitoring period, are submitted to the DOE as Annex-8 of this protocol. Generation figures presented in section E.4 are already in line with monthly reading protocols.

Review 1:

Under section D.2 it is defined that the net electricity production data is obtained from the monthly main meter reading protocols. The generation values are presented through the PMUM records. Please provide the monthly reading protocols and correct the generation values according to protocols.


Review 2:




VERIFICATION REPORT

50


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


CAR10 is closed.

CL01

Estimated amount of GHG emission reduction is given as 405,118 tCO2e for this monitoring period. It is not line with the registered PDD. Please clarify.

In PDD, total emission reduction amount until the end of the 2011 is 405,145 tCO2e. The related figure in MR is corrected accordingly.


Electricity generation and emission reduction figures throughout the Monitoring Report are checked and wrong ones are revised to be in line with revised PDD.

Review 1:

Estimated emission reduction is corrected according to revised PDD. On the other side in some parts old values are still presented such as electricity generation estimated total emission reduction value. Please revise according to revised PDD ver. 12 dd. 13 May 2013.

CL01 is still open.

Review 2:

Corrections have been done in the monitoring report according to revised PDD.

CL01 is closed.

CL02

Under section D.1 parameter is used for the baseline emission reduction parameters are not line with the validated PDD. “Full load hours per energy source”, “Technology

Section D.1 of the registered PDD is revised to be in line with the registered PDD (Annex-2, page 58).


Review 1:

CO2 emission parameter is not line with the revised PDD on page 58 and “List of BM power plants with capacity” parameter is



VERIFICATION REPORT

51


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


specific emission factor of the 20% plants” and “Emission factor, EF” parameters which are given in the monitoring report are not presented in the registered PDD. Please clarify.

Section D.1 of the registered PDD is now in line with the registered PDD.

not presented in the monitoring report which is presented in the revised PDD on page 59.

CL02 is still open.

Review 2:

Parameters are corrected according to revised PDD.

CL02 is closed.

CL03

Monitoring equipment are the electricity meters sealed and controlled by TEIAS. The electricity meter’s manufacturer is Elster with accuracy class of 0.2S. Please provide the date of installation and calibration of meters under section D.2 of the PDD.

Manufacturer of the Meter is revised to be ACTARIS. Dates of installation and calibration are provided in section D.2 of the PDD.

Review 1:

The date of installation and calibration of meters are provided under section D.2 of the monitoring report.

CL03 is closed.

CL04

Under section E.5 values estimated in ex-ante calculation is given as 367,373 tCO2e and Actual values achieved during this monitoring period is given as 405,118 tCO2e. The given values are not line with the

Actual and estimated emission reduction amounts under the section E.5 of the PDD is revised to be in line with the registered PDD.


ER calculation is already based on monthly

Review 1:

The actual value for emission reduction calculation should be revised according to monthly reading protocols which are defined as a main source for



VERIFICATION REPORT

52


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


calculations and registered PDD. Please clarify.

reading protocols. Please also refer to response to CAR10.

emission reduction calculations.

CL04 is still open.

Review 2:


CL04 is closed.

CL05

Please describe which actions are applied for the open issues from validation under section G of the PDD and the verification protocol.

All issues given below were raised by Gold Standard during registration process of Samli WPP for 90 MW capacity. Please see Annex-5 of the this protocol for GS registration feedback form for this capacity. However, as the installed capacity increased to 114 MW, a new registration process took place and there is only one open issue from this process (please refer to Annex-7 of this protocol for registration feedback form for 114 MW capacity).

Response to this issue is provided in section G of the MR.


Review 1:

“The site visit was conducted on 29/11/2012 by DOE. During the next verification, DOE shall verify that the increased project capacity does not impact the nearby residents with respect to noise.”

CL05 is still open.

Review 2:

The response is added under section G of the monitoring report.



VERIFICATION REPORT

53


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


Response of FAR1 raised by verification DOE is already covered with the response of FAR#1 (in Section G of MR), which is raised by Gold Standard.

Other FARs referred are forwarded to verification DOE and thus not included in the Monitoring Report.

CL05 is closed.

Open Issues From GS (FAR)

FAR #1 The DOE shall at the time of first verification verify that the increased project capacity does not impact the nearby residents with respect to noise.

As provided in Annex-1, villagers are asked about noise of the power plant due to operation of turbines and whole of them stated that they are not disturbed by noise of turbines. The inquiry was performed after the project capacity increased to 114 MW and during the first verification, on 10.04.2013.

Review 1:

According to project observation forms dd. 10/04/2013 it is confirmed that the increased project capacity does not impact the nearby residents with respect to noise.

FAR01 is closed.

Open Issues From Validation (FAR) to DOE

FAR #1

The installed capacity of the project activity has been increased to 114 MW from 90 MW.

Please refer to response to CL05.


Review 1:

The capacity change is checked and confirmed according to GS



VERIFICATION REPORT

54


Ref. to checklist

question in table 1


The increased capacity will be dealt with post registration following the GS design change.

Please see response of CL05 design change procedure.

FAR #2

Verification DOE shall audit the installed electricity meters at first verification and shall check the installation and calibration details and provide verification opinion accordingly.



Please see response of CL05

Review 1:

Installation and calibration records are provided to the verification team.

FAR #3

Verification DOE shall please verify expropriation process at first verification and provide feedbacks gained from stakeholders/land owners regarding the process.




Review 1:

Payment records to the landowners are provided to the verification team.

FAR #4

During the first verification, the DOE shall conduct follow-up interviews with the local stakeholders to confirm that their concerns were raised during




Review 1:

It is confirmed that the stakeholders have no negative opinion for the project activity during the site visit.