GS Verification and Certification report for Prony and

ESSPL/GS/2019/74 Page 1 of 29

GS Verification and Certification report

for

Prony and Kafeate wind-farms, New

Caledonia

Verification period:

01/01/2016 to 31/12/2018

Submitted by:


BASIC INFORMATION

Title and GS reference number of the project activity

Prony and Kafeate wind-farms, New Caledonia

GS566

Scale of the project activity Large-scale

Small-scale

Version number of the verification and certification report 1.21

Completion date of the verification and certification report 13/09/201904/12/2019

Monitoring period number and duration of this monitoring period

Monitoring period number: 07

Duration of the MR period: 01/01/2016 – 31/12/2018

Version number of the monitoring report to which this report applies 4.03.1

Crediting period of the project activity corresponding to this monitoring period 20th April 2015 to 19th April 2022

Project participants Alizes Energie (private entity)

South Pole Carbon Asset Management Ltd. (private entity)

Host Party New Caledonia

Applied methodologies and standardized baselines

Methodology: ACM0002 -Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources - Version 16.0

Mandatory sectoral scopes SS 1: Energy industries (renewable/non-renewable sources)

Conditional sectoral scopes, if applicable NA

Certified amount of GHG emission reductions or GHG removals for this monitoring period 97,762tCO2

Name and UNFCCC reference number of the DOE EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited (E-0062)

Name, position and signature of the approver of the verification and certification report

K.Suryanarayana Murthy

Managing Director


SECTION A. Executive summary

>> EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited (EPIC) has been contracted by Alizes Energie to undertake the seventh periodic independent verification of the registered GS project activity titled “Prony and Kafeate windfarms, New Caledonia” (GS project id: GS566) for the monitoring period from 1st Jan 2016 to 31st Dec 2018 (first and last day included)); and to verify that the data reported are complete and transparent. The project registered on 20th April 2010 as GS project/1/. The duration of the second crediting period is 20th April 2015 to 19th April 2022. This report summarizes the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for CDM and GS criteria for GS, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM rules and modalities as agreed in the Bonn Agreement, the Marrakech Accords and the CDM Executive Board‟s decisions. The verification team has, based on the recommendations in the Validation and Verification Standard/2/ version 2.0 and Gold Standard/2/ version 2.2, GS toolkit/2/ version 2.2, and employed a risk-based approach in the verification, focusing on the identification of significant risks and reliability of project monitoring and generations of GS-VERs. The verification is not meant to provide any consulting to the client. However, stated request for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project design The scope of the verification is the independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emission by the project activity and compliance of sustainability indices in line with GS passport and GS rules. The verification is based on the validated and registered project design document, GS passport, and Sustainability monitoring report. These documents were reviewed against the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM Modalities and Procedures and related rules and GS guidance rules. The verification of the monitoring period is based on the PDD/3/ version 4.0 dated 7th November 2016 and GS passport/3/ version 4.0 dated 21st August 2016 (hereinafter referred to as registered/validated PDD and registered/validated passport respectively). The request for issuance is based on monitoring report/4/ version 3.14.0 dated 1228th NovemberSeptember 2019 (hereinafter referred to as final MR) and the ER spread sheet version 2.0 dated 12th September 2019/18/. As per the registered PDD/3/ and GS passport/3/, the project activity involved the construction of 116 wind turbines in six wind farms in New Caledonia namely Prony II (Capacity:21 x 220 kW, Owned by: Eole Prony II, Location: Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, Date of commissioning:31st December 2003), Kafeate I (22 x 275 kW, Eole Kafeate, Kafeate site, Kone village, North of New Caledonia, 9th February 2005), Kafeate II (20 x 275 kW, Eole Kafeate II, Kafeate site, Kone village, North of New Caledonia, 31st December 2005), Prony III (20 x 275 kW, Eole Prony III, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2006), Mont Mau (15 x 275 kW, Eole Mont Mau, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2007) and Touongo (18 x 275 kW, Eole Touongo, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2009). The total installed capacity of the project was 30.745 MW. The verification team has reviewed the commissioning records/5/ at the site. The electricity generated from Prony & Mont Mau, Touongo wind farms and Kafeate wind farms are sold to EEC and Enercal respectively. The verification team has reviewed the power purchase agreements/6/ at the site. The verification team determines the conformity of the actual project activity and its operation with the validated project design document. EPIC has, by means of a desk review and an on-site visit, assessed that all physical features of the proposed GS project activity proposed in the validated PDD/3/ are in place, and that the project participants have operated the GS project activity as per the validated PDD/3/. Thus the verification team has concluded that the project activity was


implemented and operated as per validated PDD, and that all physical features of the project are in place, except for few WTGs which were damaged due to cyclone and found to be not operating. The monitoring report for this monitoring period is in compliance with the monitoring plan of the validated PDD. The project activity was registered by applying the large scale methodology/7/ ACM 0002 version 16.0 (for the 2nd crediting period) and the verification was carried out in accordance with the applied methodology. It was confirmed during the site visit that the project activity during the current periodic verification is in accordance with the applicability criteria of the methodology. It is the responsibility of EPIC to express an independent GHG verification opinion on the GHG emissions reductions and on the calculation of GHG emission reductions from the project for this monitoring period based on the reported emission reduction in the monitoring Report. EPIC‟s verification approach was based on the requirements as defined under the Kyoto Protocol, Marrakech accord, as well as those defined by the CDM Executive board. EPIC‟s approach was risk-based, drawing on an understanding of the risks associated with reported GHG emissions data and the controls in place to mitigate these. The examination includes assessment of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in relation to the project‟s GHG emission reductions for this monitoring period. The verification team has planned and performed the work to obtain the information and explanations that is considered necessary to provide sufficient evidence for it to give reasonable assurance that the amount of calculated GHG emission reductions for this monitoring period were fairly stated

SECTION B. Verification team, technical reviewer and approver

B.1. Verification team member

No. Role

Typ

e o

f re

so

urc

e

Last name First name Affiliation (e.g. name of

central or other office of DOE or

outsourced entity)

Involvement in

Desk/d

ocu

men

t re

vie

w

On

-sit

e in

sp

ecti

on

Inte

rvie

ws

Veri

ficati

on

fin

din

gs

1. Team Leader Anbazhagan Prabu das EPIC, Central office, Bangalore

B.2. Technical reviewer and approver of the verification and certification report

No. Role Type of resource

Last name First name Affiliation (e.g. name of

central or other office of DOE or

outsourced entity)

1. Technical reviewer IR Vishnu Govindarao EPIC, Central office, Bangalore


SECTION C. Application of materiality

C.1. Consideration of materiality in planning the verification

No. Risk that could lead to material errors, omissions or misstatements

Assessment of the risk Response to the risk in the verification plan and/or sampling plan

Risk level

Justification

1. No risk IR Not applicable Proposed for Complete verification of all the values indicated in the emission reduction spreadsheet/18/ in documents such as monthly reports, invoices/9/.

C.2. Consideration of materiality in conducting the verification

>> In line with Guidelines for Application of materiality in verifications/8/, a reasonable level of assurance is defined for the verification of the project by complete verification of all the values indicated in the emission reduction spreadsheet/18/ in documents such as invoices/9/ at the document review stage and onsite. There are no material errors, omissions or misstatements

SECTION D. Means of verification

D.1. Desk/document review

>>The verification was performed primarily based on the review of the monitoring report and the supporting documentation. This process included review of data and information presented to verify their completeness and review of the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology, paying particular attention to the frequency of measurements, the quality of metering equipment including calibration requirements, and the QA/QC procedures, and an evaluation of data management and the QA/QC system in the context of their influence on the generation and reporting of emission reduction. The first MR/4/ version 1.0 submitted by the project participant and additional background documents related to the emission reductions are reviewed as an initial step of the verification process. The subsequent step involved the identification of corrective action requests and clarification requests (CAR and CR) which are presented in Appendix 4 of this report. As a result of these findings, the MR is revised to MR version 3.14.0/4/. A complete list of all documents and records reviewed is as attached in Appendix 3 of this report


D.2. On-site inspection

Duration of on-site inspection: 29/04/2019 to 02/05/2019

No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member

1. The verification team conducted visits to the project site to confirm the information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. An on-site assessment was conducted as a part of verification activity and involved: 1) an assessment of the implementation and operation of the GS project activity as per the validated PDD 2) a review of information flows for generating, aggregating and reporting of the monitoring parameters 3) interviews with relevant personnel to confirm that the operational and data collection procedures are implemented in accordance with the Monitoring Plan 4) a cross-check between information provided in the MR and data from other sources 5) a check of the monitoring equipment including calibration performance, and observations of monitoring practices against the requirements of the PDD and the applied methodology 6) a review of calculations and assumptions made in determining the GHG data and ERs, and 7) an identification of QA/QC procedures in place to prevent, or identify and correct, any errors or omissions in the reported monitoring parameters 8) Performance of project activity - Power generation, and auxiliary consumption if any 9) Data management and reporting, QA/QC systems of PP 10) Record keeping – daily production report, breakdown / maintenance log 11) Project Site layout 12) Project implementation, operation, boundary issues 13) Confirmation of technical specifications 14) Electricity Monitoring / measuring systems & Data verification 15) Record keeping – daily electricity generation report, breakdown / maintenance log 16) Metering guidelines, Meter specifications – Accuracy, make 17) Calibration requirements – procedure, frequency/schedule, record 18) Emergency procedures – Change / failure in meters 19) Provisions for internal audits 20) Staff Competency and training 21) Compliance to regulatory requirements 22) Environmental and social issues 23) Projects contribution to sustainable development

Project site 29/04/2019 to

02/05/2019

A Prabu das


D.3. Interviews

No. Interviewee Date Subject Team member

Last name

First name Affiliation

1. Lapous Christophe Director- Alizes Energie

29/04/2019 to

02/05/2019

Refer sec D.2 above

A Prabu das

2 Vincent - VPAC

3 Beauvois Arnaud Alizes Energie

4 Dinh - Alizes Energie

5 Weisuach A Enercal

6 Toga - VPAC

7 Tomasi - VPAC

8 Auduge - Alizes Energie

9 Sui - VPAC

10 Kapeli - VPAC

11 Leeroy - VPAC

12 Tein - VPAC

13 Kain Evlakhoff EEC

14 Yves Auduge Villager

15 Kein Diel Villager

16 Vincent Rauf Villager

17 Ben Tein Villager

D.4. Sampling approach

>> No sampling is used as the verification team has visited all the project sites. The verification team has reviewed all the documents like invoices/9/, credit notes etc

D.5. Clarification requests (CLs), corrective action requests (CARs) and forward action requests (FARs) raised

Areas of verification findings No. of CL No. of CAR No. of FAR

Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form

- 01 -

Compliance of the project implementation and operation with the registered PDD

01 - 01

Post-registration changes - - -

Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with the methodologies including applicable tools and standardized baselines

- - -

Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan

- 03 -

Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments

- 01 -

Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals

- - 01

Assessment of reported sustainable development goal indicators

02 02 -

Global stakeholder consultation - - -

Others (please specify) - - -

Total 03 07 02

SECTION E. Verification findings

E.1. Compliance of the monitoring report with the monitoring report form

Means of verification The verification team has determined whether the monitoring report was as per the GS requirement.

Findings One CAR (CAR 01) is raised in this section.


Conclusion PP has used their own version of the MR template/4/. The verification team has concluded that the monitoring report was completed and the information contained is as per the GS requirement.

E.2. Remaining forward action requests from validation and/or previous verifications

>> The verification has reviewed the previous validation report/verification reports and observed that there were no open issues i.e FARs was found from the validation/verification. EPIC has raised two Forward Action Requests (FARs) during this verification process.

E.3. Compliance of the project implementation and operation with the registered project design document

Means of verification As per para 383 and 384 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team determined the conformity of the actual project activity and its operation with the registered project design document. EPIC has, by means of a desk review and an on-site visit, assessed that all physical features of the proposed GS project activity proposed in the registered PDD/3/ are in place, and that the project participants have operated the GS project activity as per the registered PDD/3/.

Findings One CL (CL03) and a FAR (FAR 01) is raised in this section

Conclusion As per the registered PDD/3/ and GS passport/3/, the project activity involved the construction of 116 wind turbines in six wind farms in New Caledonia namely Prony II (Capacity:21 x 220 kW, Owned by: Eole Prony II, Location: Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, Date of commissioning:31st December 2003), Kafeate I (22 x 275 kW, Eole Kafeate, Kafeate site, Kone village, North of New Caledonia, 9th February 2005), Kafeate II (20 x 275 kW, Eole Kafeate II, Kafeate site, Kone village, North of New Caledonia, 31st December 2005), Prony III (20 x 275 kW, Eole Prony III, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2006), Mont Mau (15 x 275 kW, Eole Mont Mau, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2007) and Touongo (18 x 275 kW, Eole Touongo, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2009). The total installed capacity of the project was 30.745 MW. The electricity generated from Prony & Mont Mau, Touongo wind farms and Kafeate wind farms are sold to EEC and Enercal respectively. The verification team has reviewed the power purchase agreements/6/ at the site. The verification team determined the conformity of the actual project activity and its operation with the registered PDD/3/ and GS passport/3/. It was found that there was no electricity generation during the cyclone alert period during which the project is shutdown from production. It was also observed that few WTGs were damaged due to cyclones - Wind turbine no 7 in Kafeate 1 site was damaged in the year 2014, and Wind turbine number 38 and 39 are not operated since April 2018 and turbine number 42 got burnt down in November 2016. These WTGs were not found to be non-operational. It was explained by PP that at the time of severe cyclones the damages to the wind turbines occur, and they are taking precautionary methods to protect the wind turbines during natural calamities – in this regard they are found to be in engagement with government departments during harsh weather period.

EPIC has, by means of a desk review and an on-site visit, assessed that all physical features of the proposed project activity proposed in the registered PDD/3/ and GS passport/3/ are in place, and that the project participants have operated the project activity as per the registered PDD and GS passport. The verification team, based on the site visit and document review, was able to conclude that the project activity has been implemented as per the registered PDD, GS passport. The verification team has observed at the site that all physical features of the power plant along with the feeders, substations correctly match with the registered PDD/3/. Thus the verification team has concluded that the project activity was implemented and operated as per registered PDD. The specification of the main meters such as location, connectivity, substation, voltage levels and accuracy is matching with that mentioned in the registered PDD. The verification team, based


on the site visit and document review, was able to conclude that the project activity has been commissioned and implemented as per the registered PDD/3/ and that all physical features of the project are in place.

E.4. Post-registration changes

E.4.1. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan, applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological regulatory documents1

>> There is no temporary deviation for this monitoring period from the registered PDD

E.4.2. Corrections

>> There are no corrections in this monitoring period

E.4.3. Changes to the start date of the crediting period

>> There is no change to the start date of the crediting period in this monitoring period

E.4.4. Inclusion of a monitoring plan

>> Not applicable

E.4.5. Permanent changes from registered monitoring plan, or permanent deviation of monitoring from the applied methodologies, standardized baselines or other methodological regulatory documents

>> There is no permanent deviation observed for this MR period

E.4.6. Changes to the project design

>> There is no such change

E.4.7. Changes specific to afforestation and reforestation project activities

>> Not applicable as the project does not involve afforestation and reforestation activity

E.5. Compliance of the registered monitoring plan with applied methodologies, applied standardized baselines, and other applied methodological regulatory documents

Means of verification As per the para 386 and 387 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team determined whether the registered monitoring plan is in accordance with the applied methodology/7/ (ACM0002 v9.0 and v16.0) including applicable tools.

Findings There is no CAR/CL/FAR raised in this section

Conclusion The verification team was is able to confirm that the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD is in accordance with the approved methodology/7/ applied by the project activity, i.e. ACM0002 v16.0 and its applicable tools. The monitoring plan of the project is in accordance with the applied methodology. The monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD. All parameters stated in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology has been fulfilled in the current monitoring period. All parameters used for emission reductions calculation have been verified and found satisfactory. The discussion regarding each parameter has been elaborated in the

1 Other standards, methodologies, methodological tools and guidelines (to be) applied in accordance with the applied (selected) methodologies are collectively referred to as the other (applied) methodological regulatory documents).


further sections of this report. The monitoring plan as mentioned in the registered PDD is in accordance with the applied methodology. The monitoring approach for each parameter described in the registered PDD was found consistent in terms of unit, measurement procedures and monitoring frequency

E.6. Compliance of monitoring activities with the registered monitoring plan

E.6.1. Data and parameters fixed ex ante or at renewal of crediting period

Means of verification As per the para 389 to 391 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team has determined whether all ex-ante parameters used for emission reduction calculation stated in the registered monitoring plan are used appropriately as per the registered PDD.

Findings There is no CAR/CL raised in this section

Conclusion Refer Appendix 5 of this report for details

E.6.2. Data and parameters monitored

Means of verification As per the para 389 to 391 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team has determined whether the registered monitoring plan has been properly implemented and followed by the PP that the monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the registered monitoring plan

Findings Three CARs (CAR 02, CAR 06 and CAR 07) are raised in this section


E.6.3. Implementation of sampling plan

Means of verification As per para 391 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification assessed whether the compliance of the sampling efforts and surveys with the registered sampling plan in accordance with the “Standard for sampling and surveys for CDM project activities and programme of activities” if PP had applied a sampling approach to determine data and parameters monitored.

Findings There is no CAR/CL/FAR raised in this section.

Conclusion PP did not apply sampling plan to determine data and parameters monitored during this monitoring period. The verification team has checked all the documents such as monthly invoices/9/ etc. hence sampling plan was not required. The verification team hereby confirms that it checked all the documents

E.7. Compliance with the calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments

Means of verification As per para 394 to 399 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team determined whether the calibration of the measuring equipment that has an impact on the claimed emission reductions is conducted by the PP at a frequency specified in the registered monitoring plan

Findings One CAR (CAR 03) is raised in this section.

Conclusion The monitoring plan in the validated PDD/02/

mentions calibration frequency of the electricity meters as once in five years for all WEGs.

Site Main Meter

Number Date of

Calibration Valid upto

Calibration delay

Mont Mau 33053147 26/06/2012 25/06/2017 No

28/04/2016 27/04/2021 No

Prony 2 33049389 26/06/2012 25/06/2017 No

28/04/2016 27/04/2021 No

Touongo 33057538

26/06/2012 25/06/2017 No

28/04/2016 27/04/2021 No

Kafeate 1 and 2*

33034902 12/07/2012 11/07/2017* Yes

16/07/2019 15/07/2024 NA


*Calibration delay is observed for Kafeate 1 and 2 site, so for the delay period of 11/07/2017 to 31/12/2018, error correction factor of 0.5% is applied, as the latest calibration done on 16/07/2019 reported that the meters were functioning within permissible limits. The application of error in ER calculations is verified to be as per VVS version 2.0 para 366a, hence accepted by the verification team. Refer Appendix 5 of this report for further assessment.

Prony 3 33053305 26/06/2012 25/06/2017 No

29-04-2016 28/04/2021 No

E.8. Assessment of data and calculation of emission reductions or net removals

E.8.1. Calculation of baseline GHG emissions or baseline net GHG removals by sinks

Means of verification As per para 401 and 402 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team assessed whether the data and calculations of baseline emission resulting from the registered PDD is correct. The verification team has checked whether calculations of baseline GHG emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered monitoring plan

Findings A FAR (FAR 02) is raised in this section.

Conclusion FAR 02 is raised to adjust the ER calculation‟s for the next monitoring period, for Kafeate 1 and 2 wind farm, as the calibration delay period overlaps to next MR period also.

E.8.2. Calculation of project GHG emissions or actual net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks

Means of verification As per para 401 and 402 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team assessed whether the data and calculations of project emission resulting from the registered PDD is correct. The verification team has checked whether calculations of project GHG emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered monitoring plan

Findings There was no CAR/CL/FAR was raised in this section.


E.8.3. Calculation of leakage GHG emissions

Means of verification As per para 401 and 402 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team assessed whether the data and calculations of leakage emission resulting from the registered PDD is correct. The verification team has checked whether calculations of leakage GHG emissions have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered monitoring plan.

Findings There was no CAR/CL/FAR was raised in this section

Conclusion The leakage emissions are regarded as zero according to the applied methodology. Refer Appendix 5 of this report for details

E.8.4. Summary calculation of GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks

Means of verification As per para 401 and 402 of VVS/2/ version 2.0, the verification team assessed whether the data and calculations of GHG emission reductions achieved resulting from the registered GS project activity. The verification team has checked whether calculations of GHG emission reduction have been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the registered monitoring plan

Findings There was no CAR/CL/FAR was raised in this section.


E.8.5. Comparison of actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks with estimates in registered PDD

Means of verification The verification team has determined the GS-VER achieved during this monitoring period with the estimated value and reason for increase, if any



Conclusion The verification team analysed the emission reductions reported during the subject monitoring period in comparison with the estimate in the registered PDD, and found that the ex-ante determinedactual realised value is on the higher lower side by 11.01% in comparison to the actual realised value.

E.8.6. Remarks on difference from estimated value in registered PDD

Means of verification The verification team has determined the GS-VER achieved during this monitoring period with the estimated value and reason for increase if any.


Conclusion The verification team analysed the emission reductions reported during the subject monitoring period in comparison with the estimate in the registered PDD, and found that the actual realised ex-ante determined value is on the lower higher side by 11.01%in comparison to the actual realised value. This is due to low PLF realised for the MR period.

E.8.7. Actual GHG emission reductions or net anthropogenic GHG removals by sinks during the first commitment period and the period from 1 January 2013 onwards

Means of verification The verification team has determined the GS-VER achieved during second commitment period, as MR period falls under second C.P


Conclusion GS-VER achieved from 1st Jan 2013 = 97,762 tCO2e. Vintage wise GS-VER achieved:-

Period Emission Reduction (tCO2)

01/01/2016-31/12/2016 32,797

01/01/2017-31/12/2017 32,079

01/01/2018-31/12/2018 32,886

Total 97,762

E.9. Assessment of reported sustainable development goal indicators

Means of verification The verification team has determined the SDG indicators achieved during this monitoring period are as per the PDD and the passport

Findings Two CLs (CL 01 and CL 02) and Two CARs (CAR 04 and 05) are raised in this section


E.10. Global stakeholder consultation

Means of verification NA Findings NA Conclusion NA

SECTION F. Internal quality control

>> After the completion of assessment by the verification team all the relevant documentation is submitted to a qualified, Independent Technical reviewer as part of EPIC‟ internal quality control system. A Technical reviewer team is appointed to review the draft final verification report (Draft FVR). The comments made by the Technical reviewer team are taken into consideration and incorporated in the final FVR. The technical reviewer team assesses whether all the reporting requirements have been fulfilled and whether all the issues raised were closed satisfactorily by the verification team with justification. The technical review process can also raise issues in this regard which is resolved further by the verification team to the satisfaction of the technical reviewer. The technical reviewer team either accepts or rejects the report made by the verification team. The final report (after resolutions of all findings) is then submitted to the Head-operations for review and approval.


SECTION G. Verification opinion

>> EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited (EPIC) has been contracted by Alizes Energie to undertake the seventh periodic independent verification of the registered GS project activity titled “Prony and Kafeate windfarms, New Caledonia” (GS project id: GS566) of the monitoring period from 01/01/2016 – 31/12/2018 (first and last day included); and to verify that the data reported are complete and transparent. This report summarizes the findings of the verification of the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for CDM and GS criteria for GS, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM rules and modalities as agreed in the Bonn Agreement, the Marrakech Accords and the CDM Executive Board‟s decisions. The verification team has, based on the recommendations in the Validation and Verification Standard/2/ version 2.0 and Gold Standard/2/ version 2.2, GS toolkit/2/ version 2.2, and employed a risk-based approach in the verification, focusing on the identification of significant risks and reliability of project monitoring and generations of GS-VERs. The verification is not meant to provide any consulting to the client. However, stated request for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project design The scope of the verification is the independent and objective review and ex-post determination of the monitored reductions in GHG emission by the project activity and compliance of sustainability indices in line with GS passport and GS rules. The verification is based on the validated and registered project design document, GS passport, and Sustainability monitoring report. These documents were reviewed against the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM Modalities and Procedures and related rules and GS guidance rules. As per the registered PDD/3/ and GS passport/3/, the project activity involved the construction of 116 wind turbines in six wind farms in New Caledonia namely Prony II (Capacity:21 x 220 kW, Owned by: Eole Prony II, Location: Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, Date of commissioning:31st December 2003), Kafeate I (22 x 275 kW, Eole Kafeate, Kafeate site, Kone village, North of New Caledonia, 9th February 2005), Kafeate II (20 x 275 kW, Eole Kafeate II, Kafeate site, Kone village, North of New Caledonia, 31st December 2005), Prony III (20 x 275 kW, Eole Prony III, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2006), Mont Mau (15 x 275 kW, Eole Mont Mau, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2007) and Touongo (18 x 275 kW, Eole Touongo, Prony site, Mont Dore village, South of New Caledonia, 31st December 2009). The total installed capacity of the project was 30.745 MW. The electricity generated from Prony & Mont Mau, Touongo wind farms and Kafeate wind farms are sold to EEC and Enercal respectively. The verification team has reviewed the power purchase agreements/6/ at the site The verification team determines the conformity of the actual project activity and its operation with the validated project design document. EPIC has, by means of a desk review and an on-site visit, assessed that all physical features of the proposed GS project activity proposed in the validated PDD are in place, and that the project participants have operated the GS project activity as per the validated PDD. Thus the verification team has concluded that the project activity was implemented and operated as per validated PDD, and that all physical features of the project are in place. The monitoring report for this monitoring period is in compliance with the monitoring plan of the validated PDD. The project activity was registered by applying the large scale methodology/7/ ACM 0002 version 16.0 (for the 2nd crediting period) and the verification was carried out in accordance with the applied methodology. It was confirmed during the site visit that the project activity during the current periodic verification is in accordance with the applicability criteria of the methodology.


It is the responsibility of EPIC to express an independent GHG verification opinion on the GHG emissions reductions and on the calculation of GHG emission reductions from the project for this monitoring period based on the reported emission reduction in the monitoring Report. EPIC‟s verification approach was based on the requirements as defined under the Kyoto Protocol, Marrakech accord, as well as those defined by the CDM Executive board. EPIC‟s approach was risk-based, drawing on an understanding of the risks associated with reported GHG emissions data and the controls in place to mitigate these. The examination includes assessment of evidence relevant to the amounts and disclosures in relation to the project‟s GHG emission reductions for this monitoring period. The verification team has planned and performed the work to obtain the information and explanations that is considered necessary to provide sufficient evidence for it to give reasonable assurance that the amount of calculated GHG emission reductions for this monitoring period were fairly stated. The verification team has verified that the information included in the revised monitoring report is correct and that the emission reduction achieved has been determined correctly. Based on the information seen and evaluated, the verification team confirms the following:

Project title/1/: Prony and Kafeate wind-farms, New Caledonia

GS ref/1/ no: 566

PDD/1/

Passport

Monitoring report/15/

Version 4.0 dated 7th November 2016 (for second crediting period)

Version 4.0 dated 21st August 2016 (for second crediting period)

Version 3.14.0, dated 12/09/201928/11/2019; 07th verification

Methodology used for verification/20/:

ACM0002, version 16.0 “Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable source

Applicable monitoring period/15/:

01/01/2016 to 31/12/2018 (including both days)

Emissions reductions verified/14/:

97,762 tCO2e

SECTION H. Certification statement

>>EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited (EPIC has carried out the seventh verification of the emission reductions that have been reported for the project titled “Prony and Kafeate wind-farms, New Caledonia” (GS reference number: 566), covering for the MR period 01/01/2016 to 31/12/2018.

The project participants are responsible for the collection of data in accordance with the monitoring plan and the reporting of GHG emissions reductions from the project activity. EPIC takes responsibility for issuance of an independent verification statement on the reported GHG emission reductions from the project activity. The verification was done on the basis of the baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0002, Version 16.0/20/, the validated PDD/1/ and the monitoring report (version 03.14.0)/15/ dated 28/11/201912/09/2019. The verification included checking whether the provisions of the monitoring methodology and the monitoring plan were consistently and appropriately applied and the collection of evidence supporting the reported data.


The emission reductions are calculated correctly and EPIC could certify that the emission reductions from the GS PA 566 “Prony and Kafeate wind-farms, New Caledonia” during the period 01/01/2016 to 31/12/2018 is 97,762 tonnes of CO2/14/ equivalent.


Appendix 1. Abbreviations

Abbreviations Full texts

ACM Approved Consolidated Methodology

CAR Corrective Action Request

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CEF Carbon Emission Factor

CR Clarification Request

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

DOE Designated Operational Entity

ESSPL EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited

ER Emission Reduction

FAR Forward Action Request

GHG Greenhouse gas(es)

GSCP Global Stakeholders Consultation Process

GSF Gold Standard Foundation

GSS Grid Sub-Station

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

kW Kilo Watts

LoA Letter of Approval

MoV Means of Verification

ODA Official Development Assistance

PDD Project Design Document

PLF Plant Load Factor

PP Project Participant

PPA Power Purchase Agreement

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VER Verified Emission Reductions

VPAC Vergnet Pacific


Appendix 2. Competence of team members and technical reviewers

The following validation team has been assigned to carry out the verification of the project.

Name Mr. A. Prabu Das Dr G Vishnu Nikkam

Role Auditor- Team Leader Technical Reviewer

Competence in relevant sectors

Sector 1 and Sector 13 including TA 1.1. and TA 13.1

TA 3.1 & TA 1.1

Responsibility Document review, DVR preparation, DVR resolution, FVR preparation

Technical review

Mr. A Prabu Das, holds a Master of Technology degree in Energy Conservation and Management and Bachelor of Technology Degree in Petro-chemical Technology. He is a certified Energy Auditor by Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), Government of India. He has around 11 years of work experience in Design of biomass Power plants, preparing Techno Economic Feasibility Reports (TEFR), carrying out energy audits, of which last eight years have been in CDM/GS/VCS consultancy and validation/verification services. He has participated in the validation / verification of various CDM/VCS/GS/GHG and sustainability projects globally. He is a qualified approved GS auditor as per GS requirements.

Dr. G. Vishnu, holds a Masters and Doctorate in Environmental Science. He has around 12 years of experience in the field of research and consultancy related to water, wastewater, solid waste management systems, implementation of new, Cleaner Production technologies and biomass assessment studies. He has more than eight years‟ experience in validation verification of more than seventy CDM, projects and has undergone extensive training on GHG validation and verification. He is a qualified approved GS auditor as per GS requirements.


Appendix 3. Documents reviewed or referenced

No. Author Title References to the

document

Provider

1 GS Screenshot for supporting the date of registration of the project as GS on 20th April 2010

1 Publicly available

2 GS/ UNFCCC

Validation and Verification Standard, version 02.0 Gold Standard Requirements version 2.2 http://www.goldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GSv2.2_Requirements.pdf Gold Standard Toolkit version 2.2 http://www.goldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GSv2.2_Toolkit.pdf


3 GS Registered PDD version 4.0 dated 7th November 2016 (for second crediting period) Registered GS passport version 4.0 dated 21st August 2016 (for second crediting period) Previous verification reports


4 PP Initial Monitoring report and Final Monitoring report, version 3.14.0

4 PP

5 PP Commissioning certificates 5 PP 6 PP Power purchase agreements 6 PP 7 UNFCC

C Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources ACM0002 Version 16.0 https https://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/0/X/6/0X6IERWMG92J7V3B8OTKFSL1QZH5PA/EB81_repan09_ACM0002_ver16.0_clean.pdf?t=TFZ8cHhyZDNnfDCpI2yRaS2GDqqfTs_DP849


8 UNFCCC

Guidelines for Application of materiality in verifications version 2.0 https://cdm.unfccc.int/sunsetcms/storage/contents/stored-file20150225171039008/iss_guid08.pdf


9 ENERCAL/EEC

Monthly invoices for Prony II, Prony III, Mont Mau, Touongo, Kafeate I& Kafeate II wind farms for the monitoring period

9 PP

10 PP HR information regarding employment details 10 PP 11 PP Operational logsheets-electricity for Prony II, Prony III, Mont

Mau, Touongo, Kafeate I&II wind farms for the monitoring period 11 PP

12 PP, Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien

Logsheets for reporting bird deaths covering the monitoring period “Study on Impact on birds” by Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien conducted during 23rd March to 21st August 2015

12 PP

13 Enercal Calibration certificates for electricity meters installed at Prony II, Prony III, Mont Mau, Touongo, Kafeate I&II wind farms

13 PP

14 x-rates Website wrt Euro/USD exchange rate http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/hist2012.html


15 Investing.com

https://in.investing.com/commodities/crude-oil-historical-data 15 Publicly

available 16 Observa

toire-energie.gouv.nc, Thewindpower

http://www.observatoire-energie.gouv.nc/public/database/

http://www.thewindpower.net


http://www.goldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GSv2.2_Requirements.pdf

http://www.goldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/GSv2.2_Requirements.pdf

http://www.goldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GSv2.2_Toolkit.pdf

http://www.goldstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GSv2.2_Toolkit.pdf

https://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/0/X/6/0X6IERWMG92J7V3B8OTKFSL1QZH5PA/EB81_repan09_ACM0002_ver16.0_clean.pdf?t=TFZ8cHhyZDNnfDCpI2yRaS2GDqqfTs_DP849



https://cdm.unfccc.int/sunsetcms/storage/contents/stored-file20150225171039008/iss_guid08.pdf

https://cdm.unfccc.int/sunsetcms/storage/contents/stored-file20150225171039008/iss_guid08.pdf

http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/hist2012.html

https://in.investing.com/commodities/crude-oil-historical-data

http://www.observatoire-energie.gouv.nc/public/database/

http://www.thewindpower.net/


17 Observatory of Renewable Energy

Email communication from Observatory of Renewable Energy dated 14

th June 2016 confirming that no wind farm operated by

PP is registered under EECS system.

17 PP

18 PP Emission reduction spreadsheet ver 2.0 18 PP

19 Vergnet E-mail communication dated 20th

June 2019 in support of number of wind farms maintained by Vergnet

19 PP


Appendix 4. Clarification requests, corrective action requests and forward action requests

Table 1. Remaining FAR from validation and/or previous verifications

FAR ID xx Section no. Date: DD/MM/YYYY

Description of FAR

NA

Project participant response Date: DD/MM/YYYY

NA

Documentation provided by project participant

NA

DOE assessment Date: DD/MM/YYYY

NA

Table 2. CL from this verification

CL ID 01 Section no. E.9 Date: 13/06/2019

Description of CL

The indicator for the s.no GS4 and GS5 are indicated same, clarify?

Project participant response Date: 06/08/2019

The indicator numbers and name are in line with the registered passport and hence cannot be changed. The name of indicators of GS4 and GS5 are same, however the parameter for each is different.


Nil

DOE assessment Date: 26/08/2019

The explanation provided by the PP is accepted CL01 Closed


Description of CL

For the indicator “RECS check”, it is not clear what “GS6,2011= test positive” mean?


As per the GS indicator the “GS,2011= test positive” means that the RECS check has been passed and is positive and that the project is not double accounted in the RECS.


RECS check document proofs have been submitted. The proofs show that France has discontinued its EECS system and thus no project has been registered after 2011.


The explanation provided in support of RECS check and the evidence submitted is found to be acceptable to the verification team CL02 Closed


Description of CL

It is observed from site visit that few wind turbines are burnt down and severely damaged due to high wind, beyond repair – but the operational status of those wind turbines are not transparently reported in the MR – PP to clarify. Eg for Kafeate-I wind turbine 7 was damaged in 2014, Kafeate-II wind turbine 38 and 39 are not operated from April 2018 and turbine 42 was burnt down in nov 2016.


Operational status of the wind turbines as mentioned have been reported in the MR


Revised MR



Revised MR indicate the operational status of the wind turbines in the wind farms, and the information provided is inline with the operational record maintained at the site and also as per the on-site observation of the verification team CL03 Closed

Table 3. CAR from this verification

CAR ID 01 Section no. E.1 Date: 13/06/2019

Description of CAR

The current monitoring period falls under second crediting period, wherein the methodology version as per the validated PDD is ACM0002, ver 16.0 but the version indicated in MR (Page 5 and 20) is not as per the validated PDD ver 4.0


The version numbers of the methodology ACM0002 have now been corrected and are in line with the registered PDD as dated 7

th November 2016.


Revised MR


The typographical error in the previous MR is corrected in the revised MR and is accepted. CAR01 Closed

CAR ID 02 Section no. E.6.2 Date: 13/06/2019

Description of CAR

Section 3.4 of MR mentions that all meters in the project activity are SL7000 from Actaris, but onsite visit for the meter with S.no 65008603 reveals that it is from ITRON and not from Actaris


The meter number 65008603 is installed at Kafeate 1 site and is a check/control meter of ITRON used for recording and measuring purposes of energy imports and exports. The main meter at Kafeate is 33034902 which records the energy imports and exports and belong to Actaris and is of SL7000 class 0.5S. The details of other meters on the site are provided in the MR.


Check meter details are reported in the MR.


The explanation provided by PP is accepted as the main meters (billing meters) of this project activity are of

type SL7000 from Actaris. The meter with S.no 65008603 is the check meter from ITRON. CAR02 Closed


Description of CAR

MR mentions that calibration is done at 5 years once frequency, but calibration certificates in support of the claim for all the wind farms is not submitted. Further sec 3.4 of MR mentions supporting emails have been provided to DoE, however no such evidences are submitted


Except Kafeate 1 and 2 site, all calibrations for the rest of the sites have been conducted in 2016, by EEC which is valid for this monitoring period and the same have been submitted. For Kafeate 1 and 2, the last calibrations have been done on 16

th July 2012 by Enercal which is not valid for

this monitoring period. Hence, a maximum permissible error of 0.5% has been considered for the non-calibrating period (11/07/2017 - 31/12/2018 as the error during the latest calibration certificate dated 16/07/2019, is within the permissible limit. This is in line with VVS version 2.0 para 366a of EB 93 annex 5. The July 2012 calibration certificate for Kafeate 1 and 2 have also been submitted. As for section 3.4 of MR, it has been revised and corrected.


The latest calibration certificate for Kafeate conducted on 16th July 2019 has been submitted.



Calibration related information along with its validity for each of the wind farms in the project activity is presented in the revised MR. For Kafeate 1 and 2, error has been considered for the delay period of 11/07/2017 - 31/12/2018 and the approach of applying max permissible error of 0.5% is acceptable to the verification team, as the recent submitted calibration certificate dated 16/07/2019 report that the meters were functioning within permissible limits. Since the delay period is extended upto 16/07/2019, which is beyond the current MR period a FAR (FAR02) is raised to adjust the ER calculation in the next monitoring period. CAR03 Closed (FAR 02 is opened)


Description of CAR

For the indicator „Air quality’, specific consumption of the power plant consider the min value observed between the years 2002 and 2006, considering the monitoring is between 2016-2018, PP to explain the

relevance of the data considered. similar observation is made for the parameter “Balance of payments and investment”


The methodology used to calculate “Air quality” and “Balance of payments and investment” are done on the basis of formulae provided by GS in which the most of the parameters emerge out to be ex-ante and fixed for the crediting period. The only input parameters that are changed with years are electricity generation which is taken from monthly invoices submitted by Alizes Energie and parameters such as dollar to euro rate conversion and oil barrel price which are taken from public domain sources as mentioned in the ER sheet.


For the parameter Air Quality and Balance of Payments and Investment, input parameter called „Specific consumption‟ is fixed at the time of validation for the entire crediting period as per the latest passport and previous verification report. All rest parameters are monitored for the latest data as provided in the MR and ER


Following is the changes submitted in the revised MR:-

For the indicator „Air Quality‟ – SCn (Specific consumption of the power plant) is fixed among the crediting period and is chosen as the minimum value observed between 2012 and 2015, sourced from ENERCAL For the indicator „Balance of payments and investment’ - SCm (Oil specific consumption) of power plant m in g/kWh is calculated as per the recent year data from ENERCAL between 2010 to 2015 Since the recent data is used from ENERCAL, an authorised entity in New Caledonia, the submission is accepted by the verification team.

CAR04 Closed


Description of CAR

PP to submit the evidence in support of the value considered for the parameter “Quantitative employment and income generation”


Evidence submitted


Employment data sheet


The verification team has reviewed the employment data sheet submitted, and the revised MR is reviewed to be inline with the evidence submitted and thus accepted. CAR05 Closed


Description of CAR


PP to submit the following evidence :- 1. A letter from the RECS showing that none of Alizes Energie‟s wind-farm in NC are benefiting from

green certificates revenues

2. Training records for employees and workers

3. calibration standard followed for the calibration of electricity meters 4. contract copy between Alizes Energie‟s and the Vergenet Pacific 5. List of Diesel Generator sets used in each site along with the rated capacity and fuel consumption 6. Commissioning date of each of the wind turbine in the project activity


1. RECS letter submitted 2. The client conducts regular trainings and capacity buildings workshops related to safety, operations

and maintenance for its employees.. 3. Calibration certificates for all sites by EEC have been provided and the standard is reported in the

MR. For Kafeate 1 and 2, the last calibrations have been done on 16th July 2012 by Enercal which is not valid for this monitoring period. Hence, a maximum permissible error of 0.5% has been considered for the non-calibrating period (11/07/2016 - 31/12/2018 as the error during the latest calibration certificate dated 16/07/2019, is within the permissible limit. This is in line with VVS version 2.0 para 366a of EB 93 annex 5. The July 2012 calibration certificate for Kafeate 1 and 2 have also been submitted.

4. Contract letter submitted 5. Alizes Energie has a specific contract with EEC, the national electricity grid supplier, which provide

generators to limit the power of the grid during a peak demand, only during the summer months of New Caledonia (November to April). The generators are also used to provide electricity to EEC‟s customers in case of blackout or during grid maintenance. These generators have a separate energy meters and are installed on six different points of the national grid. Hence, the diesel generators are completely independent of the project site and are part of contract between EEC and Alizes Energie.

6. Commissioning dates provided Documentation provided by project participant

1. RECS Email 2. Calibration Certificates 3. Contract Letter 4. Commissioning dates


Evidences submitted are reviewed to be meeting the requirement and accepted. CAR06 Closed


Description of CAR

PP to explain why check meter details for the site 1) Mont Mau 2) Prony 2 are not provided in the MR, site visit reveals that 4 meters in total are used in Kafeate 1 and 2, but only two meters are indicated in the MR


Details of all meters (check and main) have been provided in the MR now.


revised MR


Details of the main and check meters for all the wind farms are provided in the revised MR and is accepted. CAR07 Closed

Table 4. FAR from this verification

FAR ID 01 Section No. E.3 Date: 13/06/2019

Description of FAR

It was informed by PP that wind turbines of Prony II is planned for capacity expansion to 275kW from the present 220kW and an application to the Govt for approval is made – PP to explain the planned schedule of capacity expansion of the wind farms belonging to the project activity and submit the relevant evidence for the future verifications.



Due to various turbines being burnt down, the PP is planning to replace the turbines and at the same time apply for capacity expansion. During the next verification, the PP will provide the status of approval process made to Government and all necessary details. Hence, this FAR will be taken up in detail in the next verification.



FAR ID 02 Section No. E.8.1 Date: 13/06/2019

Description of FAR

For Kafeate 1and 2 - Since the calibration delay period is extended upto 16/07/2019, ER calculation should account for the delay in the next monitoring period


During the next verification, the PP will ensure that calibration delay period is accounted for in the next verification.




Appendix 5:

Parameters Justification by the validation team

Emission reductions (ERy) As per the applied methodology, Emission reductions are calculated as follows. ERy = BEy – PEy-Ley Where BEy – Baseline emissions PEy- Project emissions LEy- Leakage emissions The calculation of each parameter is detailed below.

Baseline Emissions: CO2 emission from electricity generation in fossil fuel fired power plants that is displaced due to the project activity

As per the registered PDD/3/, the baseline scenario of the proposed project is the delivery of electricity supplied to the New Caledonian grid which would be generated by the operation of the grid connected power plants. The verification team based on onsite observation and review of the monthly invoices/8/ and concluded that the electricity generated from Prony, Mont Mau & Touongo wind farms and Kafeate wind farms is sold to the EEC and Enercal respectively and hence baseline scenario and baseline emission approach is correct. The verification team also observed from onsite that the voltage at which electricity is sold; grid connection is consistent with that of registered PDD. Hence accepted. As per the registered PDD, the baseline emissions are calculated as follows. BEy = EGy, facility x EFgrid,CM,y The calculation of each parameter is described below

Electricity supplied by the proposed power plant to the national grid (EIy) - 1,07,432.71 MWh

Based on the onsite observation, the verification team has found that the electricity generated from the project is supplied to the New Caledonian grid at the 33 kV voltage level. The generation voltage of the each of the wind turbines is observed to be 400 V which is stepped up to 33 kV by transformers. The metering system includes the main metering system installed at the substation which calculates electricity supplied to the grid. The main meter is used for billing and invoicing. For Prony II, Prony III, Mont Mau and Touongo wind farms, the meter records the net electricity exported to the grid whereas for Kafeate I& Kafeate II, Enercal invoices separately the electricity imported and exported to the grid. The net electricity exported is therefore calculated as the difference between the two values. During the on the onsite visit, the verification team observed the following monitoring procedure practiced at the projects sites. The measurement frequency is on an hourly basis and continuously recorded and the data is frequently transferred to an electronic database maintained at the project site. The verification team has reviewed the operational logsheets/11/ for all the wind farms. Daily cumulative and monthly cumulative will then be calculated. The measuring frequency is in accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology. Enercal and EEC reads and checks the electric energy meters and records the data periodically. Alizes personnel compile the monthly recorded data of the electricity supplied to the grid and provide the monthly electricity data to Enercal and EEC. Enercal and EEC confirm the amount of electricity exported by the project owner after verification. The monthly invoice/9/ is being prepared by the project owner based on the data collected based on the joint readings. The verification team has collected all the hourly data, daily data and monthly data and crosschecked with the invoices and found that data are correct and


consistent. The verification team has reviewed the invoices/9/ and observed that electricity declared supplied to the grid by the invoices is the actual amount of electricity supplied to the grid and no accounting factor is incorporated while invoicing. The registered PDD does not define the accuracy of the meters however; the accuracy of the meters is maintained atleast 0.5s. The verification team has checked the calibration certificates/13/ for meters against their meter number, serial number, date of calibration, validity, actual error and calibrating entity and found that actual error of the meters is less than the maximum permissible errors and meters are having sufficient calibration validity covering this monitoring period, except for Kafeate I and II whose calibration is delayed for the period 11/07/2017 to 31/12/2018. For the delay period, the max permissible error of 0.5% is applied since the recent calibration certificate reported that meters were functioning within permissible limits. Based on the above findings, the verification team was able to conclude that electricity used for emission reductions in this monitoring period are recorded from meters which are having sufficient accuracy and calibration validity hence QA/QC of the meters is thus ensured. As per the registered PDD, it was envisaged that net electricity from the project activity would be 1,09,863 MWh during the monitoring period. But the actual net electricity is 107,432 MWh which is a decrease of 11.01% from the estimate.

CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation (EFy) – 0.910

It is determined at the time of validation and it remains same for the entire crediting periods.

Baseline emissions As per the registered PDD/3/, the baseline emissions are calculated as follows. BEy = EIy x EFy = 1,07,432.71 MWh * 0.910 tCO2/MWh = 97,762 tCO2

Project emissions (PEy) - 0 As per the registered PDD/3/, project emissions is nil for a wind project

Leakage (LEy) - 0 As per the applied methodology/7/, no leakage emissions are considered

Emission reductions (ERy)/18/ - 97,762 tCO2

As per the applied methodology/7/, Emission reductions are calculated as follows. ERy = BEy – PEy-LEy Based on the above findings, the verification concluded the monitoring plan of the project activity is in accordance with the applied methodology including applicable tools and the monitoring of parameters related to the GHG emissions reductions in the project activity has been implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD/3/ and GS passport/3/. The verification team was to conform that the data and calculations of GHG emission reductions achieved resulting from the project activity complied with the selected approved methodology

GS1-Indicator: Air quality Monitored Parameter: Sulphur emission avoided by heavy oil consumption in New Caledonia

As per the GS passport/3/, Sulphur emission avoided by heavy oil consumption in New Caledonia is calculated as follows

GS1,y = Ely * %S * (SCn * EGn,y) /GEN,y /1000 Where : -> Ely = annual production of the wind-farm included in the bundle


(MWh) -> %S = sulfur content of heavy-oil in NC (the value is comprised between 1 and 3,5%; 1% is chosen for the calculations as it gives conservative value) -> SCn = Specific consumption of the power plant n (gram of Heavy oil/ kWh)

- SCNépoui= 214

- SCDoniambo = 296

- SCDucus Gt = 320

SCn is fixed among the crediting period and is chosen as the minimum value observed between 2012 and 2015 sourced from ENERCAL. -> GEN,y = annual electric production in NC -> EGn,y = annual electric production of the power plants using fossil fuel.

Annual electricity production of the windfarm included in the bundle (EGy) - 1,07,432.71 MWh

Refer section “Electricity supplied by the proposed power plant to the national grid (EIy)” above for analysis

Sulphur emission avoided by heavy oil consumption in New Caledonia –

Period Tonnes of Sulfur

avoided 01/01/2016-31/12/2016 48.17

01/01/2017-31/12/2017 39.21

01/01/2018-31/12/2018 39.41

Total 126.79

The verification team has checked the calculation and found that the quantity of sulphur avoided from combustion due to the project activity is calculated correctly. The amount of sulphur avoided shows the positive impact of the project activity towards sustainability development. As per the GS passport/3/, it was envisaged that GS1 from the project activity would be 84.2 tonnes/year. As the GS1 depends on the actual net electricity which is less than the envisaged one, the verification team has accepted the actual scenario.

GS2- Indicator: Quantitative employment and income generation Monitored Parameter: People employed by PP in NC or by one of its subsidiaries:-

1 for Prony I & II

5 for Kafeate I & II

5 for Prony 3/ Mont Mau

2 for Touongo

12 for Alizés Energie and Vergnet

As per the GS passport/3/, it would be monitored once a year based on HR information/10/ provided by companies in the wind sector in New Caledonia. The verification team has reviewed the HR information/10/ during on-site visit and found the people employed by Alizes Energie or one of its subsidiaries are 25, the number of employment is the same for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. People employed includes people employed in Vergnet Administration and technical department, people employed at the project wind farms. During onsite visit, the verification team has interviewed people employed by Alizes and was able to confirm that quantitative employment and income generation has improved due to the project activity. The information of the people interviewed is detailed in section 2.0 of this report. As per the GS passport, it was envisaged that GS2 from the project activity would be more than 16 every year. Since the indicator GS2 of the project achieved the target every year in this monitoring period, the verification team has accepted the actual scenario.

GS3- Indicator: Balance of payments and investment Monitored Parameter: Estimated avoided energy imports

As per the GS passport, estimated avoided energy imports are monitored as follows. GS3y = Ely x ∑ (SCm x EGm,y) / ∑ EGm,y x €/$y /Density of oil x Barrel price


Annual electricity production of the windfarm included in the bundle (Ely)

Refer section above for analysis

Specific consumption of oil /kWh generated from the power plants m in New Caledonia (SCm)

Annual electricity production of the power plants „m‟ using fossil fuel in the year

Euro/USD exchange (€/$y)

Year Y €/$y

2016 0.9

2017 0.88

2018 0.84

The verification team has reviewed the weblink used by the PP and accepted the value as correct.

Density of oil =850 gram/litre

It is fixed at the time of validation and it remains the same each year during this monitoring period also.

Barrel pricey

Year Y Barrel price,y

2016 44.47

2017 51.86

2018 64.54

The verification team has reviewed the weblink used by the PP and accepted the value as correct.

GS3y- Estimated avoided energy imports

Year Y Energy imports avoided (Euros)

2016 3.6 Million

2017 4.2 Million

2018 5.6 Million

The verification team has checked the calculation and found that the energy imports avoided due to the project activity is calculated correctly. The amount of heavy oil imports avoided shows the positive impact of the project activity towards sustainability development. As per the GS passport, it was envisaged that GS3 from the project activity would be Euro 7 Million/year. As the GS3 depends on the actual net electricity which is less than the envisaged one, the verification team has accepted the actual scenario

GS4- Indicator: Technology transfer and technological self-reliance

As per the GS passport/3/, the technology self-reliance indicator is a measurement of how the know-how developed around Alizes‟s wind-farms has been exported in the rest of the pacific region. Vergnet and its affiliate company have installed wind farms using the similar technology such as models GEV MP and GEV 26/220 all over the Pacific. This demonstrates that the Vergnet team has been able to export its know-how and services abroad. The “technology transfer and technological” will be measured as the number of windfarm maintained by the Vergnet based in other countries. The verification team has reviewed the wind power website/16/ which shows how the technology is spreading to other countries.

GS5- Indicator: Technology transfer and technological self-reliance Parameter: Number of Vergnet windfarm in the Pacific maintained by the Vergnet Pacific‟s team based in NC – 4 wind farms

As per the GS passport, Number of Vergnet windfarm in the Pacific maintained by the Vergnet based in NC will be monitored with the email communication provided by Vergnet itself. The verification team has reviewed the e-mail communication/19/ dated 20th June 2019 and found that number of wind farms maintained by Vergnet is 4.

GS6-Indicator: RECs check

As per the GS passport, it is to be monitored at every verification period. The verification team has reviewed the email


Parameter: Status of the wind-farms from the bundle under the RECS - RECs are not availed

communication/17/ from Observatory of Renewable Energy dated 14th June 2016 confirming that no wind farm operated by PP is registered under EECS system. As per the e-mail, the EECS France system has not been active in France since 31 December 2011, and no more certificates have been issued since that date and no more sites are registered in the system. Based on the email communications, the verification team was able to conclude that the project has not received any green certificates for this verification period also.

GS7- Indicator: Impact of Kafeate I&II on birds Parameter: Monitored dead birds (and other animals) on the wind-farm site – Zero deaths

The verification team was able to observe from the onsite visit that there is no bird in the vicinity of the site, as it does not fall under bird migratory corridor. The same was also confirmed during the on-site interviews with the plant personnel and local stakeholders. Further, the Study/12/ conducted by “Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien” on Impact on birds during 23rd March to 21st August 2015, also conformed the same. It is assessed that field personnel inspects the site daily to check the bird deaths and record the information in the log books/12/. As per the log books, there were no bird deaths found during the monitoring period.

Grievance mechanism Result: No grievances

During the onsite visit, the verification team interviewed local stakeholders and confirmed that local stakeholders are satisfied about the project and have do not have any negative comments. They informed the team that they welcome such projects. They are of the positive opinion on the roads constructed due to the project activity. They do not have any grievances from the project as such and are aware of the grievance mechanism and how to contact the PP in case of grievances. The avenues to record grievances such as e-mail, telephone, authorised contact etc also did not receive any comments. The verification team has observed that the project activity is located in inhabited areas and there is no visible impact on human activities