CDM Verification Report Revision: 5.0 Effective Revision Date: 03 July 2014

PJRCES CDM Verification Report Revision: 5.0 Effective Revision Date: 03 July 2014

CDM VERIFICATION REPORT

EDF TRADING LIMITED (EDFT)

SOLAR POWER COMPANY 94 MW SOLAR PV PROJECT IN THAILAND

REPORT NO: C-2-C-01-L-0414-VE REVISION NO: 03

UNFCCC REF NO: 8625 MONITORING PERIOD: 01 JANUARY 2013 TO 31 MAY 2014 (BOTH DAYS INCLUDED)

PERRY JOHNSON REGISTRARS CARBON EMISSIONS SERVICES, INC 755 W. BIG BEAVER ROAD, SUITE 1380, TROY, MI 48084 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

Date of first issue: Project No: 19 May 2015 C-2-C-01-L-0414 Project Title: Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project Approved By and Date: Organizational unit: Bilal Anwar( 22 September 2015) Perry Johnson Registrars Carbon Emissions Services, Inc Client Name: Client ref.: EDF Trading Limited (EDFT) Crystal Cui Verification Summary: PJRCES Inc has performed the verification of the emission reductions reported for the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project in Thailand for the 1st monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 (both dates are included). The main purpose of the project is to use the renewable Solar resource to generate electricity. The proposed project has been registered at UNFCCC with registration no. 8625 on 12 December 2012. Verification period: 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 Crediting period: 01 January 2013 to 31 December 2019 (Twice Renewable) Date of MR made publicly 27 March 2015 available: Methodology(ies) used: ACM0002 (Grid connected renewable electricity generation) Version number: Version 12.2.0 Sectoral Scope: 01 Scale of the Project activity: Large Scale Small Scale In PJRCES’s opinion, the GHG emission reductions reported for the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project in Thailand in the monitoring report version 02 dated 12 August 2015, are fairly stated. The GHG emission reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the approved monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0, and the monitoring plan in the registered PDD, version 04.1 dated 26 November 2012.

Based on the information provided by Solar Power Company Limited and verified/evaluated by PJRCES, we confirm the following:

Baseline emissions: 94,560 tCO2e Project emissions: 0 tCO2e Leakage: 0 tCO2e

Total emission reductions during the current monitoring period (01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014): 94,560 tCO2 e.

Verification Team: Documentation Distribution: Team Leader Zhang Xiaojun Johnsen Team Member No distribution without permission from Sector Expert (TA-1.2) Zhang Xiaojun Johnsen the Client or responsible Independent Technical Review: organizational unit Technical Reviewer: Trainee Technical Reviewer: Limited distribution Date: 18 September 2015 Date: Nil Unrestricted distribution Name: Anjana Sharma Name: Nil Report No.: Rev. No. Date: C-2-C-01-L-0414-Ve 01 19 May 2015 02 16 September 2015 03 22 September 2015

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 2/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

ABBREVIATIONS AC Alternating Current BAU Business as usual BM Build Margin CAR Corrective Action Request CDM Clean Development Mechanism CEF Carbon Emission Factor CER Certified Emission Reduction CL Clarification request CM Combined Margin CO2 Carbon dioxide COD Commercial Operating Date DC Direct Current DNA Designated National Authority EGAT Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand EPC Engineering Procurement and Construction GHG Greenhouse gas(es) GPRS General Packet Radio Service GWP Global Warming Potential EB Executive Board FAR Forward Action Request IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MP Monitoring Plan PDD Project Design Document PEA Provincial Electricity Authority PJRCES Perry Johnson Registrars Carbon Emissions Services, Inc PPA Power Purchase Agreement PV Photovoltaic tCO2e Tonnes of Carbon dioxide equivalent UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VVS Validation and Verification Standard

MAIN DOCUMENTS REFERRED IN THIS REPORT Methodology (name / ACM0002 version 12.2.0 version) Scope 01 Technical Area 1.2 Registered PDD version 04.1 dated 26 November 2012 Published Monitoring Report version 01 dated 09 March 2015 Final Monitoring Report version 02 dated 12 August 2015 Project documentation link http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/Germanischer1354875235.84/view

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 3/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 OBJECTIVE 5 1.2 SCOPE 5 1.3 PROJECT ACTIVITY AND PERIOD COVERED 6 1.4 DETAILS REGARDING THE VERIFICATION TEAM (PARA 16 OF VVS, VER 9.0): 6

2. METHODOLOGY FOR VERIFICATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ...... 6 2.1 GENERAL APPROACH 6 2.2 DOCUMENT REVIEW 7 2.3 SITE VISIT 7 2.4 REPORT OF FINDINGS 7 2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY 9

3. VERIFICATION FINDINGS ...... 10 3.1 POST REGISTRATION CHANGES 10 3.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 10 3.4 COMPLIANCE OF MONITORING PLAN WITH MONITORING METHODOLOGY 13 3.5 COMPLIANCE OF MONITORING WITH MONITORING PLAN 14 3.6 COMPLETENESS OF MONITORING DATA AND PARAMETERS 16 3.7 ASSESSMENT OF THE DATA AND CALCULATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS 20 3.8 APPLICATION OF MATERIALITY IN VERIFICATION 23 3.9 QUALITY OF EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE EMISSION REDUCTIONS 24 3.10 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND QUALITY ASSURANCE 25 3.11 DEFAULT/FIXED VALUES 25 3.12 RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES IN THE MONITORING PLAN 25

4. VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION STATEMENT ...... 26

5. REFERENCES ...... 27

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 4/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

1. INTRODUCTION

EDF Trading Limited (EDFT) (hereafter referred as project proponent, PP) has contracted Perry Johnson Registrars Carbon Emissions Services, Inc (PJRCES) to carry out verification of emission reductions for Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project (hereafter referred as the project) in Thailand for the period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. This report contains the findings from the verification and a certification statement for the certified emission reductions during the period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014.

1.1 OBJECTIVE Verification is the periodic independent review and ex-post determination by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) of the monitored reductions in GHG emission that have occurred as a result of the registered CDM project activity during a defined verification period.

Certification is the written assurance by the DOE that, during a specific period in time, the project activity achieved the emission reductions as verified. The main objective of the verification activity is to ensure that the project activity meets the requirement of paragraph 62 of CDM modalities and procedures, and to ensure that project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD and reported emission reductions are real and measured and reported correctly. The verification process shall:

a) Ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered 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 and verifiable and in accordance with applicable CDM requirements.

c) Ensure that actual monitoring systems and procedures comply with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan and the approved methodology.

d) Evaluation of the data recorded and stored as per the monitoring methodology.

1.2 SCOPE The verification scope is:

 To verify that actual monitoring systems and procedures are in compliance with the monitoring systems and procedures described in the monitoring plan for the project activity.

 To evaluate the GHG emission reduction data and express a conclusion about whether the reported GHG emission reduction data is free from material misstatement.

 To verify that the reported GHG emission data is sufficiently supported by evidence.

The verification shall ensure that the reported emission reductions are complete and accurate in order to be certified.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 5/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

1.3 PROJECT ACTIVITY AND PERIOD COVERED Webhosting of Monitoring report: 27 March 2015

Desk review and verification planning: From 27 March 2015 to 11 May 2015

Site visit: From 11 May 2015 to 16 May 2015

Reporting, calculation checks and QA/QC: From 16 May 2015 to 22 September 2015

1.4 DETAILS REGARDING THE VERIFICATION TEAM (PARA 16 OF VVS, VER 9.0):

ROLE OF THE VERIFICATION TEAM

ASSESSMENT TEAM ROLE COMPETENCY TASK PERFORMED

ISIT

EVIEW

XPERT

E R

OST

REA

EPORT

ITE ITE

R ECHNICAL

ETH ETH

ESK

REPARATION

ECH

OUNTRY

NDEPENDENT

T C Zhang Xiaojun LV Johnsen Anjana Sharma ITR NA

2. METHODOLOGY FOR VERIFICATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS

2.1 GENERAL APPROACH PJRCES conducted a strategic review and thorough assessment of the project’s activities and processes in order to accrue a full understanding of: • Activities associated with all the sources contributing to the project emissions and emission reductions, including leakage if relevant; • Protocols used to estimate or measure GHG emissions from the sources; • Collection and handling of the data; • Control on the collection and handling of the data; • Means of verifying the reported data; and • Compilation of the monitoring report. The verification process was guided by a verification checklist which aims to ensure a transparent verification process (Appendix 1). This document provides information on how the emission reductions have been verified and how the verification findings have been reached.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 6/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

2.2 DOCUMENT REVIEW As part of the verification of emission reductions during the selected monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014, PJRCES has undertaken a detailed document review which is primarily related to the project implementation, the quality of metering equipment, calibration requirements, internal management controls, calculation procedures, the QA/QC procedures, and relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the CMP and the CDM Executive Board. PJRCES has reviewed the following documents, inter alia: a) Monitoring report for Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project for the period 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014, prepared by EDF Trading Limited /1/; b) Emission reduction calculations for the verification period under consideration, provided in the form of spread sheets submitted by EDF Trading Limited /2/; c) Registered Project Design Document (PDD) version 04.1 dated 26 November 2012 /24/, the monitoring plan as described in the registered PDD /24/, by Carbon Bridge Pte Ltd; d) The final validation report, GL Report No. 233, version No. 06, 06 December 2012 /25/, prepared by GL; e) The applied monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/. f) Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard, Version 9.0 issued by the CDM Executive Board /22/. g) Additional background documents related to the project performance /7/~/18/, and relevant decisions, clarifications and guidance from the CMP and the CDM Executive Board /23/.

A complete list of documents reviewed is contained in the Section 5 of the report.

2.3 SITE VISIT PJRCES carried out the site visit from 11 May 2015 to 16 May 2015, upon Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project located at Provinces of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Sakon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom and Khon Kaen/Thailand. The details of the personnel interviewed in the site visit have been detailed in section 5, references /28/ /29/. During the site visit, PJRCES verified the following: a) Implementation status of the project, monitoring plan and staff training records; b) Visual inspection on key physical components and configuration of the operation and monitoring system; c) Physical inspection of the control room, instrument room, step-up station; d) Reviewing the production log book, metering records, receipts and invoice for cross check with the collated data; e) Competence of the calibration entity and review of the calibration certificates with the validity for the current monitoring period, the accuracy of the meters; f) Assumption adopted and calculation of the project emission, baseline emission and leakage; g) QA/QC procedures. The verification team has performed the verification based on the recommendations in the CDM EB’s Validation and Verification Standard (VVS), version 9.0.

2.4 REPORT OF FINDINGS Findings established during the verification may be: A Corrective Action Request (CAR) which should be issued, where:

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 7/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

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 that 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 have not been resolved by the project participants

A Clarification (CL) which should be issued, where information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met.

A forward action requests (FAR) should be issued, where reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period.

Four CLs (CL 1 CL 2 CL 3 CL 4) was raised by verification team, which have been adequately addressed (including one FAR from validation of the project) by the project participants (refer to Appendix 1) and incorporated in the updated monitoring report of version 02 dated 12 August 2015 /1/.

One FAR (FAR 1) was raised in this verification period.

The main changes between the web-hosted MR, version 01 dated 09 March 2015 and the final MR, version 02 dated 12 August 2015 submitted for issuance are as follows:

Table 1 Difference between web-hosted MR and final MR MR Version and Date Main changes and reason for revision version 01 dated 09 Original version published on the UNFCCC CDM website March 2015 version 02 dated 12 Revision based on the findings: August 2015  Full integration of COD (commercial operation date) for all 12 sub-projects;  Justification of the more actual emissions achieved over the estimated emissions for the same counterpart period;  Addition of information of accuracy and calibration of meters for all twelve sites, and using the maximum permissible error of the meters (instrument) wherever the meters can not be calibrated as per indications stipulated from monitoring plan of registered PDD;  Monthly electricity data for each sub-project was provided for transparency.

The monitoring report, version 01 dated 09 March 2015, has been made publicly available on the CDM website. After reviewing the revised monitoring report, version 02 dated 12 August 2015 , PJRCES issued this final verification report and opinion.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 8/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

2.5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Title of the Project Activity Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project

Participating Parties Host Party - Thailand; Annex I Party - France

Project Participants Solar Power Company Limited from Thailand; EDF Trading Limited (EDFT) from France

UNFCCC Registration No. 8625

Registration Date 12 December 2012

Baseline and Monitoring methodology: ACM0002 version 12.2.0

Location of the Project Activity Provinces of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Sakon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom and Khon Kaen/Thailand The geographical coordinates of the KR1 N15.190839, Don Chomphu sub-district, Non Sung district, Project site E102.345426 Nakhon Ratchasima KR3 N15.603615, Sam Muang sub-district, Sida district, Nakhon E102.559482 Ratchasima KR4 N14.818147, Tha Ang sub-district, Chok Chai district, Nakhon E102.162027 Ratchasima KR5 N15.555964, Kud Jok sub-district, Bua Yai district, Nakhon E102.514386 Ratchasima

KR7 N15.108934, Dan Nai sub-district, Dankhunthot district, Nakhon E101.887995 Ratchasima KR8 N15.556219, Kud Jok sub-district, Bua Yai district, Nakhon E102.518308 Ratchasima KR9 N14.871650, Sung Noen sub-district, Sung Noen district, Nakhon E101.810404 Ratchasima SN1 N17.533129, Bann Thon sub-district, Sawang Daen Din district, E103.492867 Sakon Nakhon NP1 N17.298907, Mahachai sub-district, Pla Pak district, Nakhon E104.449129 Phanom KK3 N16.760799, Nam Pong sub-district, Namphong district, Khon E102.808201 Kaen KK4 N16.606141, Nong pai sub-district, Chumphae district, Khon Kaen E102.111868

KK5 N16.287709, Thapra sub-district, Mueang district, Khon Kaen E102.789753

Project’s Crediting Period 01 January 2013 to 31 December 2019 (Twice Renewable)

Annual estimated emission reduction, 56,063 t CO2e in registered PDD

Verification Period 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 (1st Monitoring)

The project activity involves implementation and operation of a 81.53 MW DC of PV capacity at twelve sites. It is designed to generate 109,213 MWhe/year of electricity.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 9/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

3. VERIFICATION FINDINGS

3.1 POST REGISTRATION CHANGES Through the document review and the onsite visit, the assessment team confirms that the project was implemented strictly according to the registered monitoring plan and applied methodology. There are no post registration changes to this project activity.

3.1.1 TEMPORARY DEVIATIONS FROM REGISTERED MONITORING PLAN OR APPLIED METHODOLOGY There were no temporary deviations from the project activity as described in registered PDD/24/.

3.1.2 CORRECTION There were no corrections to the project information.

3.1.3 PERMANENT CHANGES FROM REGISTERED MONITORING PLAN OR APPLIED METHODOLOGY There were no permanent changes from the registered monitoring plan and applied methodology in this monitoring period.

3.1.4 CHANGES TO PROJECT DESIGN OF REGISTERED PROJECT ACTIVITY There were no changes to the project design of the registered project activity in this monitoring period.

3.1.5 CHANGES TO START DATE OF CREDITING PERIOD There were no changes to the start date of the crediting period. 3.2 REMAINING ISSUES, CARS, FARS FROM PREVIOUS VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION This monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 is the first verification period of the project. No remaining issues were identified in the validation report.

3.3 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The project is a newly built grid-connected Solar power plant, located in Provinces of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Sakon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom and Khon Kaen/Thailand.

During the verification, an on-site visit was carried out. Based on this on-site visit and the reviewed project documentation, the verification team confirms that the realized technology, the project equipment, as well as the monitoring and metering equipment, has been implemented and operated as described in the registered PDD /24/. The implementation status and actual operation are descriped in details as the following:

[Photovoltaic System] The project is located in Provinces of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Sakon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom and Khon Kaen/Thailand. The project is a large-scale Greenfield Solar PV-based renewable electricity generation plant. It involves installation of 81.53 MW DC of PV capacity at twelve sites, using high efficiency multicrystalline photovoltaic modules, falling into three categories /3/: 1) 174,960 KD210GH- 2PU poly-crystalline modules with a power rating of 210 Wp DC; 2) 155,520 KD240GH-2PB poly- crystalline modules with a power rating of 240 Wp DC and 3) 31,104 KD240GH-4PB poly-crystalline

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 10/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0 modules with a power rating of 240 Wp DC. Those high efficiency multicrystalline photovoltaic modules are from Kyocera, Japan for converting sunlight into electrical power. Total grid output capacity is 70.56 MW-AC as per the power purchase agreement (PPA) signed with PEA /11/, while the installed capacity of the inverters is 78.41 MW-AC /3/. Specific details of the mainly employed technology /3/ /11/ are summarized as follows: Technical information of the modules Solar PV modules Sites KR1, KR3, KR4, KR7, KR5, KR8, KK3, KK4 KR9 SN1 and NP1 and KK5 Manufacturer Kyocera, Japan Kyocera, Japan Kyocera, Japan Model number KD210GH-2PU KD240GH-2PB KD240GH-4PB Cell type Multicrystalline Multicrystalline Multicrystalline silicon silicon silicon Maximum Power Voltage 26.6 29.8 29.8 (V) Maximum Power Current 7.90 8.06 8.06 (A) Rated power (Wp/unit) 210 Wp DC 240 Wp DC 240 Wp DC Units Installed (number) 174,960=29,160*6 155,520=31,104*5 31,104 Total PV capacity (MW- 6.12 7.46 7.46 DC) Annual degradation rate 0.5 0.5 0.5 (%)

Solar Inverter Manufacturer SMA Model SMC11000TL Rated output power (W) 11,000 W Nominal AC voltage / range (V) 220-240 / 180-260 Rated output current (A) 48 Efficiency (%) 98.0 KR1, KR3, KR4, KR7, SN1 and NP1 Units Installed (number) 540 Total PV capacity (MW-DC) 5.94 KR5, KR8, KK3, KK4, KK5 and KR9 Units Installed (number) 648 Total PV capacity (MW-DC) 7.13

Generic information of the project Site PV capacity Inverter capacity PPA capacity (subproject) (MW-DC) (MW-AC) (MW-AC) KR1 6.12 5.94 5.88 KR3 6.12 5.94 5.88 KR4 6.12 5.94 5.88 KR5 7.46 7.13 5.88 KR7 6.12 5.94 5.88 KR8 7.46 7.13 5.88 KR9 7.46 7.13 5.88 SN1 6.12 5.94 5.88 NP1 6.12 5.94 5.88 KK3 7.46 7.13 5.88 KK4 7.46 7.13 5.88

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 11/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

KK5 7.46 7.13 5.88 Total 81.53 MW DC of PV 78.41 70.56 capacity at twelve sites* * The project titled “Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project”, deviates from actually installed 81.53 MW DC of PV capacity at twelve sites. This has been justified both in PDD and validaiton report, as 4 of 16 sites are excluded from original planning.

For the project implementation, the COD (Commercial Operating Date) and installed capaities for 12 sites /17/ have been listed in the following table and those dates have been verified by the verification team. Sites Original implementation plan in registered Actual Implementation PDD COD installed MWp COD installed MWp capacity capacity KR1 2010-04-19 6.12 MWp 19/04/2010 6.12 MWp KR3 2012-03-09 6.12 MWp 09/03/2012 6.12 MWp KR4 2012-05-14 6.12 MWp 14/05/2012 6.12 MWp KR5 / 7.46 MWp 11/01/2013 7.46 MWp KR7 2012-05-31 6.12 MWp 30/05/2012 6.12 MWp KR8 / 7.46 MWp 11/01/2013 7.46 MWp KR9 / 7.46 MWp 11/01/2013 7.46 MWp SN1 2011-02-17 6.12 MWp 17/02/2011 6.12 MWp NP1 2011-03-29 6.12 MWp 29/03/2011 6.12 MWp KK3 / 7.46 MWp 11/01/2013 7.46 MWp KK4 / 7.46 MWp 11/01/2013 7.46 MWp KK5 / 7.46 MWp 11/01/2013 7.46 MWp So the first commercial operation among the twelve sites was on 19 April 2010 (KR1).

[Power Supply/Import System]

The electrical output from the PV arrays is fed via cables to a bank of inverters that convert the direct current (DC) generated by the PV arrays into alternating current (AC). The generated electrical AC power is then passed through the 22kV transmission line to the delivery point.

[Metering System]

Two meters were installed at each of twelve sites: 1) PEA meter 1 to continuously monitor Electricity exported to the grid (EGfacility,export,y); and 2) PEA meter 2 to continuously monitor Electricity imported from the grid (EGfacility,auxiliary,y). Both meters’ monthly reading can be cross-checked against official receipts of sold electricity. - The error specified by the meter manufacturer will not exceed +/- 0.5%. - The meters will be calibrated in accordance with the specifications of the local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer specification. Where no such calibration frequency is specified, the meters will be calibrated once per year.

[Operation and Maintenance of the current monitoring period] During the monitoring period, the project has generally been in good and continuous operation, and this was confirmed by PJRCES through interview and review of plant operation and maintenance records /15/. Based on the site visit, it can be confirmed that all physical features of the project activity have been fully implemented in accordance with the regsitered PDD /24/ and the monitoring equipment was installed as

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 12/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0 described in the approved monitoring plan /24/. The project activity was also confirmed to be fully operational in accordance with the registered PDD /24/. There was no request for notification of change or request for approval of change from the project activity as described in the registered PDD /24/. The information provided in the monitoring report sections correctly states the implementation and operational status of the project activity.

Opinion As per paragraph 383 of VVS version 9.0, PJRCES is able to confirm that the project implementation of the proposed CDM project activity is in accordance with the description in the registered PDD /24/. The verification team confirms through physical site inspection and document review that:  All physical features for the proposed CDM project activity including data collection systems and storage systems have been implemented in accordance with the registered PDD /24/;  The implementation of the Project is consistent with the registered PDD /24/, except part ex-post expansion of some of the project sites.  The Project is operated as per the registered PDD /24/.  Information provided in the MR is in accordance with that stated in the registered PDD /24/.

3.4 COMPLIANCE OF MONITORING PLAN WITH MONITORING METHODOLOGY PJRCES is able to confirm that the approved baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” has been correctly applied for the proposed project activity. Compliance Verification Activities Verification Findings Question Is the The verification team As required by the monitoring methodology ACM0002 monitoring plan reviewed the monitoring version 12.2.0 “Consolidated baseline methodology for in compliance plan in the registered grid-connected electricity generation from renewable with the applied PDD and compared it sources”, parameters needed to be monitored for the methodology? against the requirements project: of the applied  EGfacility,y -Quantity of net electricity generation methodology and the supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid; tools referred in the methodology.  EGfacility,export,y - Quantity of electricity generated and supplied to the grid by the project;

 EGfacility,auxiliary,y - Quantity of electricity imported from the grid by the project plant The quantity of electricity supplied to the grid and imported from gird have been reasonably and appropriately taken into consideration in the monitoring plan of the registered PDD /24/, which was also correctly incorporated in the monitoing report version 02 dated 12 August 2015 /1/. PJRCES confirms that appropriate provisions are included for the organization and management structure, monitoring and reporting procedures, measuring instruments, staff training, QA/QC procedures, data management and improvement. Monitoring processes for the data and parameters, which are required to be monitored by the methodology, are included in the monitoring plan. The application of the monitoring methodology was found

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 13/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

to be appropriate and PJRCES confirms that the monitoring plan is consistent with the requirements of applied methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/. Opinion PJRCES confirms that the monitoring plan as described in the registered PDD /24/ is in accordance with approved monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 applied for the CDM project activity.

3.5 COMPLIANCE OF MONITORING WITH MONITORING PLAN The actual monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD /24/. The monitoring and recording frequency in line with the monitoring plan and the requirement of the methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0, have been applied for the project operations.

The project is generating electricity which is fed into the national grid (Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA)). An agreement between the project owner (Solar Power Company Limited) and the grid company (Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA)) provides all relevant requirements for the connection of the power plant to the grid /11/.

The application of the monitoring plan for the verification period is summarized in this section. The information flow and the values in the monitoring report were verified as follows: Compliance Verification Activities Verification Findings Question Are all monitoring The verification team PJRCES confirms that parameters required to be parameters as reviewed the monitoring monitored include: required by the plan in the registered  EG -Quantity of net electricity generation monitoring plan PDD and compared it facility,y supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid; covered in the against the required monitoring report parameteres of the  EGfacility,export,y - Quantity of electricity for the verification applied methodology and generated and supplied to the grid by the period under the tools referred in the project; consideration? methodology.  EGfacility,auxiliary,y - Quantity of electricity imported from the grid by the project plant. These parameters are correctly monitored as per the requirements of the ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/ and the registered monitoring plan. Does the The verification team PJRCES confirms that no additional parameters are monitoring report reviewed the monitoring monitored which are included in the registered cover the plan in the registered monitoring plan. monitoring of PDD and compared it additional (if any) against the required parameters parameteres of the included in the applied methodology and monitoring plan to the tools referred in the ensure the methodology. accuracy and conservativeness of the emission reduction calculations?

Is the monitoring The verification team The monitoring data was continuously measured and

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 14/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0 and recording reviewed the monitoring monthly recorded, and reported on a monthly basis. frequency of each plan in the registered Data records are filed electronically each month and of the parameters PDD and compared it kept at least for 2 years after the end of the crediting in line with the against the required period or the last issuance of CERs, whichever occurs monitoring plan? parameteres of the later. applied methodology and PJRCES confirms that frequency of monitoring data is the tools referred in the in line with the monitoring plan. methodology. Is the accuracy The verification team The calibration of the meters have been verified to be and accuracy reviewed the monitoring in full compliance with the monitoring plan in the check requirement plan in the registered registered PDD /24/, which is illustrated in the C.5.2 of of each of the PDD and compared it Appendix I in this report. monitoring against the required PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 at each site were equipment in line parameteres of the calibrated by a qualified third party Provincial with monitoring applied methodology and Electricity Authority (PEA) /13/ /14/. The valid plan? the tools referred in the calibration certificates /13/ /14/ confirmed the proper methodology. functioning of monitoring meters during the selected monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 /13/ /14/. The calibration of the electricity meters involved in EGfacility, export,y has not covered the whole monitoring period, thus PP adopts the maximum permissible error (-0.5%) to calibrate the measured value of EGfacility,export,y whenever it is out of the needed calibration. This is deemed to be conservative. The calibration of the electricity meters involved in EGfacility,auxiliary,y has not covered the whole monitoring period, thus PP adopts the maximum permissible error (+0.5%) to calibrate the measured value of EGfacility,auxiliary,y whenever it is out of the needed calibration. This is deemed to be conservative. Is complete set of Based on the review of PJRCES confirms that a complete set of data for this data available for documentation provided, monitoring period is available to be monitored and are all the and the site visit, in accordance with the registered monitoring plan. parameters? PJRCES evaluated the The electricity monitoring data has been verified to be data for this monitoring continuously measured and recorded on the monthy period. basis /7/ /8/. Based on the physical site inspection, the data monitoring and recording were deemed to be in order /7/ /8/. PJRCES verification team assessed the monitoring of each parameter stated in the monitoring plan. All parameters monitored and reported were verified to be in line with the monitoring plan. Monitoring report lists each parameter required by the monitoring plan and the information flow (i.e. data generation, aggregation, recording, calculation and reporting) for these parameters is provided in the monitoring report.

Opinion PJRCES is able to confirm that the actual monitoring is in compliance with the monitoring plan as contained in the registered PDD /24/, and all parameters stated in the monitoring plan of the registered PDD are monitored and reported appropriately.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 15/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

3.6 COMPLETENESS OF MONITORING DATA AND PARAMETERS As per the monitoring plan of the registered PDD /24/, quantity of electricity supplied/downloaded by the project to/from the EGAT (EGfacility,y, EGfacility,export,y and EGfacility,auxiliary,y) shall be monitored for the determination of the baseline emissions.

Data / Parameter EGfacility,y Data unit MWh Description Net electricity supplied by the project to the EGAT Measured /Calculated calculated by the difference of exports to the grid and imports from the grid. /Default: EGfacility,y= EGfacility,export,y- EGfacility,auxiliary,y Reporting frequency Calculated Source of data Monitoring records /7/ /8/ and electricity monthly sale receipts /9/ were checked QA/QC Procedures QA/QC procedures conducted on site was verified via review of following Applied, including documents: calibration  Monthly reading records both for export /7/ and import /8/

 Sale receipts /9/

 Calibration reports /13/ /14/

 Employee CDM and operation training record /16/

 Daily operation and maintenance record /15/

 CDM Monitoring Management Manual /10/ Findings No issues special were found. Conclusions PJRCES confirmed that  The equipment for monitoring has an appropriate accuracy and has been controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan /24/.  The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /24/.  QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /24/.

Data / Parameter EGfacility,export,y Data unit MWh Description Quantity of electricity supplied by the Project to the grid in year, y Measured /Calculated Measured by electricity meter /Default: Reporting frequency: Continuously measured and recorded monthly; Source of data PJRCES reviewed whether the measurement devices used for measurement of this parameter have been installed and operated as required in the monitoring plan. a) Equipment specification In the monitoring plan /24/, it is stated that “The error specified by the meter manufacturer will not exceed +/- 0.5%”. Site (subproject) Meter serial Meter No accuracy KR1-PEA meter 1 20962867 0.5s

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 16/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

KR3-PEA meter 1 27737038 0.5s KR4-PEA meter 1 27738217 0.5s KR5-PEA meter 1 20665044 0.5s KR7-PEA meter 1 90315295 0.5s KR8-PEA meter 1 27573257 0.5s KR9-PEA meter 1 212296740 0.5s SN1-PEA meter 1 18322308 0.5s NP1-PEA meter 1 18324517 0.5s KK3-PEA meter 1 212296735 0.5s KK4-PEA meter 1 212296737 0.5s KK5-PEA meter 1 212296739 0.5s During the site visit, PJRCES has checked the equipment installed to monitor this parameter, and confirms that PEA meter 1 is installed at each site boundary, to monitor the electricity exports to the grid by the project. If the PEA meter 1 of each site has failure, or loss of the data, those will be recorded in an operation log with details of such fault and length of the time over the length of the time. No meter was replaced or repaired due to the malfunction during the current monitoring period. The accuracy class of the PEA meter 1 is 0.5S. All aspects of the installation of the meter and the monitoring procedures were found to be consistent with the monitoring plan /24/. b) Calibration In the monitoring plan /24/, it is stated that “The meters will be calibrated in accordance with the specifications of the local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer specification. Where no such calibration frequency is specified, the meters will be calibrated once per year”. Based on review of calibration records /13/ /14/, PJRCES confirms that the calibration for this equipment was carried out once per year. The relevant information on the calibration has been shown in the table below: Site (subproject) Meter serial Date of Valid until No calibration KR1-PEA meter 1 13/12/2012 12/12/2013 20962867 03/12/2013 02/12/2014 KR3-PEA meter 1 27737038 16/07/2015 15/07/2016 KR4-PEA meter 1 27738217 08/11/2013 07/11/2014 KR5-PEA meter 1 20665044 25/10/2013 24/10/2014 KR7-PEA meter 1 90315295 12/11/2013 11/11/2014 KR8-PEA meter 1 27573257 25/10/2013 24/10/2014 KR9-PEA meter 1 212296740 08/12/2013 07/12/2014 SN1-PEA meter 1 08/10/2012 07/10/2013 18322308 17/10/2013 16/10/2014 NP1-PEA meter 1 18324517 18/10/2013 17/10/2014 KK3-PEA meter 1 212296735 17/09/2013 16/09/2014 KK4-PEA meter 1 212296737 12/09/2013 11/09/2014 KK5-PEA meter 1 212296739 11/09/2013 10/09/2014

The calibration of the electricity meters involved in EGfacility,export,y has not covered the whole monitoring period, thus PP adopts the maximum permissible error (-0.5%) to calibrate the measured value of EGfacility,export,y whenever it is out of the needed calibration. This is deemed to be conservative. c) Measurement/reading/recording frequency The monitoring plan /24/ requires this parameter to be continuously

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 17/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

monitored and recorded monthly. Based on the site visit, PJRCES confirms that the electricity exports has been continually measured and monthly recorded, which is in compliance with the requirements in the ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/. d) The values in the monitoring report verified The values in the monitoring report have been verified against all meter reading records (both manual and electronic recordings) /7/ /8/, then cross- checked with the electricity sale receipts /9/ applicable for the entire monitoring period. PJRCES can confirm correctness of the applied values. QA/QC Procedures QA/QC procedures conducted on site was verified via review of following Applied, including documents: calibration  Sale receipts /9/

 Calibration reports as described above /13/ /14/

 Employee CDM and operation training record /16/

 Daily operation and maintenance record /15/

 CDM Monitoring Management Manual /10/ Findings The measurement device is consistent with the monitoring plan in the registered PDD /24/. The monitoring values were cross-checked against electricity sale receipts /9/ to be consistent. No issues special were found. Conclusions PJRCES confirmed that  The equipment for monitoring has an appropriate accuracy and has been controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan /24/.  The monitoring results have been recorded consistently as per the approved frequency in the monitoring plan /24/.  QA/QC procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan /24/.

Data / Parameter EGfacility,auxiliary,y Data unit MWh Description Quantity of electricity delivered to the Project from the grid in year y Measured /Calculated Measured by electricity meter /Default: Reporting frequency: Continuously measured and recorded monthly; Source of data PJRCES reviewed whether the measurement devices used for measurement of this parameter have been installed and operated as required in the monitoring plan. a) Equipment specification In the monitoring plan /24/, it is stated that “The error specified by the meter manufacturer will not exceed +/- 0.5%”. Site (subproject) Meter serial Meter No accuracy KR1-PEA meter 2 20962861 0.5s 15852073 0.5s KR3-PEA meter 2 27622165 0.5s

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 18/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

KR4-PEA meter 2 27738218 0.5s KR5-PEA meter 2 20665037 0.5s KR7-PEA meter 2 28113540 0.5s KR8-PEA meter 2 19936466 0.5s KR9-PEA meter 2 20962887 0.5s SN1-PEA meter 2 20665427 0.5s NP1-PEA meter 2 18323200 0.5s KK3-PEA meter 2 20962990 0.5s KK4-PEA meter 2 15851114 0.5s KK5-PEA meter 2 20962996 0.5s

During the site visit, PJRCES has checked the equipment installed to monitor this parameter, and confirms that PEA meter 2 is installed at each site boundary, to monitor the electricity imports from the grid by the project. If the PEA meter 2 of each site has failure, or loss of the data, those will be recorded in an operation log with details of such fault and length of the time over the length of the time. PEA meter 2 of KR1 was replaced on 23 November 23 2013. The accuracy class of the PEA meter 2 is 0.5S. All aspects of the installation of the meter and the monitoring procedures were found to be consistent with the monitoring plan /24/. b) Calibration In the monitoring plan /24/, it is stated that “The meters will be calibrated in accordance with the specifications of the local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer specification. Where no such calibration frequency is specified, the meters will be calibrated once per year”. Based on review of calibration records /13/ /14/, PJRCES confirms that the calibration for this equipment was carried out once per year. The relevant information on the calibration has been shown in the table below: Site (subproject) Meter serial Date of Valid until No calibration KR1-PEA meter 2 20962861 09/01/2013 08/01/2014 15852073 14/07/2015 13/07/2016 KR3-PEA meter 2 27622165 16/07/2015 15/07/2016 KR4-PEA meter 2 27738218 13/07/2015 12/07/2016 KR5-PEA meter 2 20665037 15/07/2015 14/07/2016 KR7-PEA meter 2 28113540 14/07/2015 13/07/2016 KR8-PEA meter 2 19936466 15/07/2015 14/07/2016 KR9-PEA meter 2 20962887 13/07/2015 12/07/2016 SN1-PEA meter 2 20665427 08/07/2015 07/07/2016 NP1-PEA meter 2 18323200 07/07/2015 06/07/2016 KK3-PEA meter 2 20962990 09/07/2015 08/07/2016 KK4-PEA meter 2 15851114 10/07/2015 09/07/2016 KK5-PEA meter 2 20962996 09/07/2015 08/07/2016

The calibration of the electricity meters involved in EGfacility,auxiliary,y has not covered the whole monitoring period, thus PP adopts the maximum permissible error (+0.5%) to calibrate the measured value of EGfacility,auxiliary,y whenever it is out of the needed calibration. This is deemed to be conservative. c) Measurement/reading/recording frequency The monitoring plan /24/ requires this parameter to be continuously monitored and recorded monthly. Based on the site visit, PJRCES confirms

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 19/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

that the electricity imports has been continually measured and monthly recorded, which is in compliance with the requirements in the ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/. d) The values in the monitoring report verified The values in the monitoring report have been verified against all meter reading records (both manual and electronic recordings) /7/ /8/, then cross- checked with the electricity sale receipts /9/ applicable for the entire monitoring period. PJRCES can confirm correctness of the applied values. QA/QC Procedures QA/QC procedures conducted on site was verified via review of following Applied, including documents: calibration  Sale receipts /9/

 Calibration reports as described above /13/ /14/

 Employee CDM and operation training record /16/

 Daily operation and maintenance record /15/

Opinion PJRCES confirms that the monitoring has been undertaken as per the approved monitoring plan in the registered PDD /24/. The monitoring frequency is correct and all necessary equipment is in place. The accuracy of each equipment is as per the applied standards which results into correct and most conservative calculation of emission reductions.

3.7 ASSESSMENT OF THE DATA AND CALCULATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS

3.7.1 DATA FLOW The electricity meters (PEA meter 1) continuously measure the electricity exported to the grid /13/ and electricity meters (PEA meter 2) continuously measure the electricity imported from the grid /14/. On a daily basis (three times, at 6 o’clock, 12 o’clock and 18 o’clock), Solar Power Company Limited personnel check and record readings of the electricity meters as part of routine operation /5/ /6/ /10/. On the last day of each month, Solar Power Company Limited prepares and submits monthly monitoring data to PEA for review and confirmation by sign, whereby the same is then used for billing purposes /7/ /8/ /9/ /10/. PJRCES confirms that a complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 20/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

As per the monitoring plan and internal procedures /10/, the monitoring data collected are archived electronically and would be kept at least for 2 years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs, whichever occurs later /7/ /8/.

In accordance to the paragraph 402 of VVS version 9.0, the verification team confirms that: (a) A complete set of data required for the determination of emission reduction in this monitoring period were available. The most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been adopted for the data monitored in compliance with the registered monitoring plan in registered PDD.

(b) The methods and formulae for calculating emissions reduction have been correctly followed.

(c) Calculation of baseline and project emissions has been carried out in accordance with the formula and methods described in the registered PDD and the applied methodology.

3.7.2 CALCULATION OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS

According to the applied methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/, the emission reductions during the monitoring period are determined as the difference between baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage:

ERy = BEy - PEy - Ly

Baseline emission reduction

Baseline emissions (BEy in tCO2) are the product of the baseline emissions factor (EFgrid,CM,y in tCO2/MWh) times the net electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid (EGfacilily,y in MWh). EGfacility,y is calculated based on the difference of electricity exported to the grid and imported from the grid, which are calculated based on the reading records of electricity exported to the grid and imported from the grid.

BEy = EGfacility,y × EFgrid,CM,y

According to the registered PDD /24/, the baseline emission factor of the project (EFgrid,CM,y) is fixed ex- ante as 0.5554 tCO2e/MWh for the first crediting period, based on the report published by Thailand Greenhouse Gas Organization (i.e. host country DNA) –“The Study of emission factor for an electricity system in Thailand”.

The electricity exported to and imported from the grid was derived from the PEA meter 1 (export meter) and PEA meter 2 (import meter) respectively at each site of twelve project sties during the period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. Furthermore, it is noted that the complete data of meter readings /5/ /6/ were available and assessed by PJRCES as evidence to confirm the projects’ net electricity fed into the grid and accordingly determine emission reductions. All electricity bills/sale receipts /9/ were also provided for the purpose of cross-checking, whereby the figures shown therein were compared and deemed completely consistent with meter readings /7/ /8/ as reproduced in the final version of the monitoring report /1/ /2/. In all, the verification team concludes that sufficient evidences and reliable data records are provided for the reported results and that the reported emissions have been assessed as reasonable. The calculation and/or reporting of actual emission reductions can thus be accepted by PJRCES.

In addressing the delay in calibrations with respect to the calculation of emission reductions, PJRCES has assessed and can confirm that the provisions of VVS paragraph 395 have been correctly followed.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 21/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

Below table indicates how the correction factor has been determined. The maximum permissible error of the meters (instrument) wherever the meters can not be calibrated as per indications stipulated from monitoring plan of registered PDD. Parameter Meter ID Meter accuracy Error identified during Correction factor to (maximum delayed calibration be applied as per the permissible error of VVS the instrument)

Electricity PEA +/-0.5% -0.5% (1-Maximum export to the meter 1 permissible error) = grid in year y 0.995 (EGfacility,export, y) Electricity PEA +/-0.5% +0.5% (1+Maximum import from the meter 2 permissible error) = grid in year y 1.005 (EGfacility, aux, y) From this, PJRCES can therefore confirm that the correction factor has been applied in a conservative manner, in that the adjusted measured values of the delayed calibration have resulted in fewer claimed emission reductions and that the correction factor has been applied for all measured values during the period between the scheduled date of calibration and the actual date of calibration.

Minimum values (between the monitoring records /7/ and receipt /9/) for the electricity supplied to grid and maximum values for the electricity imported between the nonitoring records /7/ and receipt /9/ from grid were selected to keep the net outcome of electricity claimed to be conservative.

It has been verified that the electricity exported to the grid is 170,281.75 MWh and the imported power to the project is 26.01 MWh during the monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. The net amount of electricity supplied to the grid is 170,255.74 MWh and therefore the claimed emission reductions reported in the selected monitoring period are as follows:

BEy = EGfacility,y × EFgrid,CM,y = 170,255.74* 0.5554 = 94,560 tCO2e.

If broken into two periods: 1) Net electricity delivery up to 31/12/2012 is 0 MWh; 2) Net electricity delivery from 01/01/2013 to 31 May 2014 is 170,255.74 MWh.

PJRCES confirms that the calculation method of the baseline emission in the monitoring report and ER calculation spreadsheet is in compliance with the registered PDD /24/ and ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/.

Project emissions

The project emissions are regarded as zero according to the methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/.

Leakage

There are no leakages that need to be considered in applying the methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 /21/.

Emission reductions

Therefore, the emission reductions in this monitoring period are:

ERy = BEy - PEy - Ly = 94,560 - 0 - 0 = 94,560 tCO2e.

ERy,upto 31/12/2012=0× 0.5554 =0 tCO2e

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 22/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

ERy,from 01/01/2013=170,255.74× 0.5554 =94,560 tCO2e

ERy= 170,255.74× 0.5554 =94,560 tCO2e

Total Year-Wise emission reductions: Emission Reductions Period (tCO2e) Up to 31 December 2012 0 From 1 January 2013 onwards 94,560 PJRCES confirms that appropriate methods and formulae for calculating baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage have been followed, and the assumptions, emission factors and default values that are applied in the calculation have been justified.

Opinion In accordance to the paragraph 402 of VVS version 9.0, the verification team confirms that: (d) A complete set of data required for the determination of emission reduction in this monitoring period were available. The most conservative assumption theoretically possible has been adopted for the data monitored in compliance with the registered monitoring plan in registered PDD /24/. (e) The methods and formulae for calculating emissions reduction have been correctly followed. (f) Calculation of baseline and project emissions has been carried out in accordance with the formula and methods described in the registered PDD /24/ and the applied methodology.

3.7.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN ESTIMATE AND ACTUAL EMISSION REDUCTION According to the Project Standard /23/, the MR contains the comparison of the actual emission reduction claimed in the monitoring period with the annual estimate in the registered PDD /24/.

The estimation of emission reductions for the monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 is correctly calculated as 84,415 tCO2e as per the estimation made in the registered PDD /24/.

The actual emission reduction has been verified as 94,560 tCO2e for the same period. The actual emission reduction are higher (12%) than average estimated ER (84,415 tCO2e) of this period. And this variation of 12 % will definitely not impact the additionallity of the project. The higher emission reductions are majorly attributable by the higher irradiance ratio and higher performance ratio (11% higher compared with Mott MacDonald LTA Report-the data source in PDD) /20/ during this monitoring period. Taking into consideration these factors, it could be concluded that the actual ER verified (while higher than that estimated ex-ante in the registered PDD) is well within the variation expected due to climatic conditions and practical operation of solar power plant. PJRCES also deemed that there are no other information provided in the MR that is different from that stated in the PDD and has caused an increase in estimated of the ER in the current monitoring period or is highly likely to increase the ER estimates in the future monitoring period.

3.8 APPLICATION OF MATERIALITY IN VERIFICATION In order to detect errors, omissions or misstatements in emission reductions or removals being claimed by project participants in the monitoring report, the materiality have been applied by PJRCES in

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 23/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0 verification based on the provisions in the Guidelines on the Application of Materiality in Verifications, Version 02.0 /26/. (a) The project is a large-scale CDM project activity achieving total emission reductions of <300,000

tons of CO2e per year; as such, a 2 per cent materiality thresholds is applied. (b) In planning the verification, PJRCES is able to understand the environment in which the project activity operates, the sources of project emissions within the project boundary and the leakage, the monitoring activities, the equipment used to monitor or measure activity data, the origin and application of data used to calculate or measure the emissions, data flow, the internal quality control system, and the overall organization with respect to monitoring and reporting. (c) In conducting the verification, the risk assessment has been conducted by the verification team during the on-site physical inspection. Based on the site visit, verification team is able to confirm that the quality controls on the data management have been effectively performed /10/. The use of spreadsheets shows the adequate controls related to data updates, version tracking, traceability and security. In order to make sure the accuracy of monitoring data, the calibration of the meters have been conducted by the accredited third-party organizations in accordance with the relevant calibration standards. (d) During the course of the verification, no errors related to the materiality threshold of 2 per cent have been identified in the data set. PJRCES confirms that the claimed emission reductions are free from material errors, omissions or misstatements, with a reasonable level of assurance, and proceeds with the verification as defined in the verification plan.

3.9 QUALITY OF EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE EMISSION REDUCTIONS As per paragraph 402 (a) of VVS version 9.0, PJRCES confirms that a complete set of data for this monitoring period is available to be monitored and are in accordance with the monitoring plan in registered PDD /24/. Critical parameters used for the determination of the emission reductios are elaborated in the section 3.6 above. PJRCES compared the electricity exported and imported data reported in the monitoring report for selected months with the monthly statistics records /7/ /8/ /9/ kept at the project office. The reported data matched the monthly statistical records of electricity exported and imported. It has been verified by PJRCES on site that the data are complete for the whole monitoring period. These evidences enabled PJRCES to verify that the total net amount of electricity export is 170,255.74 MWh and the resulting emission reduction are 94,560 tCO2e. The net amount of electricity delivery to grid and the resulting emission reductions are correctly reported in the monitoring report /1/. Through the document review and physical inspection on site, PJRCES can confirm that all necessary documentation were collected, referenced and aggregated and were easily accessible in hard-copy and electronic format. Measurements are performed by calibrated equipment, and the key data were cross- checked via other sources, such as sales records. No assumptions are used that have any material influence on reported emission reductions. As outlined above, the input data for calculating the emission reductions, the calculating process and the result are complete and transparent. Therefore, PJRCES is able to confirm the accuracy of the emission reductions.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 24/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

3.10 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND QUALITY ASSURANCE Based on the site visit, the management system for the project operations is in place. The management of the project activity has implemented a quality management system to monitor the performance and ability of the project to deliver the emission reductions. Monitoring Manual /10/ is established with detailed responsibility allocated. In the manual, the organization structure with the responsibilities, personnel competencies, monitoring procedure and monitoring management have been properly identified and put in place. By interviewing with some staff, site visit and records check, it can be confirmed that the monitoring management system is implemented following the Monitoring Manual /10/ and other records /15/ were checked. As per paraphrase 390 (b)-iv of VVS version 9.0, PJRCES confirms that the responsibilities and authorities in the management and operational system for monitoring and reporting are in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan in registered PDD /24/.

3.11 DEFAULT/FIXED VALUES According to the description in section B.6.3 of registered PDD /24/, the emission factor of the project is determined ex-ante and fixed at 0.5554 tCO2e/MWh for the first crediting period, which was applied consistently in this monitoring period.

3.12 RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGES IN THE MONITORING PLAN No recommendation for future changes to the monitoring plan against that in registered PDD /24/ is made during this periodic verification.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 25/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

4. VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

PJRCES has performed the verification of the emission reductions that have been reported for the “Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project” in “Thailand” during the period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. The project is registered CDM project with UNFCCC Registration Reference No. 8625 on 12 December 2012. The project participants are responsible for the collection of data and reporting the GHG emission reductions on the basis set out within the project’s monitoring plan in the registered PDD and the applied methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0. PJRCES’s verification approach basically included the desk review of the project design (as stated in the registered CDM PDD), site verification of reported emission and resolution of outstanding issues and issuance of final verification report. PJRCES also requested for the evidences, relevant information and explanations that were considered necessary to give a reasonable assurance for the reported emission reductions during the period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. In PJRCES’s opinion, the GHG emission reductions for the “Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project in “Thailand” are fairly stated in the monitoring report, version 02 dated 12 August 2015. The GHG emission reductions were calculated correctly on the basis of the baseline and monitoring methodology “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” ACM0002 version 12.2.0, and monitoring plan as included in the registered PDD. Based on the information provided and verified, PJRCES is able to certify the following statement: Report Period: From 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014

Verified GHG emission reductions or removals in the above reporting period:

GHG Emission Reductions or Removals tCO2e Baseline Emissions 94,560 Project Emissions 0 Leakage 0 Net GHG emission reductions or removals 94,560

Total Year-Wise emission reductions: Emission Reductions Period (tCO2e) 01 January 2013- 31 December 2012 0 01 January 2013 - 31 May 2014 94,560 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 94,560

Lead Verifier Final Approver PJRCES PJRCES China USA

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 26/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

5. REFERENCES

Type 1: Documents that are related directly to the emission reductions verified during verification period under consideration:

No. Type of document. /1/ EDF Trading Limited: Monitoring Report for Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project, Monitoring Period: 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014, version 01 dated 09 March 2015 and final version 02 dated 12 August 2015. /2/ EDF Trading Limited: Emission reduction calculation spreadsheet for the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project during the monitoring period from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014 /3/ PV modules Kyocera, Japan: Technical specification KD210GH-2PU, KD240GH-2PB and KD240GH-4PB Inverter SMA, Inverter Specification SMC 9000TL-10 / 10000TL-10 / 11000TL-10” /4/ Solar Power Company Limited: line diagrams of each site /5/ Solar Power Company Limited: Daily reading records for the electricity supplied to the Grid, from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. /6/ Solar Power Company Limited: Daily reading records for the electricity imported from the Grid, from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. /7/ Solar Power Company Limited: Monthly aggregation for the electricity supplied to the Grid, from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. /8/ Solar Power Company Limited: Monthly aggregation for the electricity imported from the Grid, from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. /9/ Solar Power Company Limited: Electricity sale receipts for the electricity delivered to the Grid from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014.

Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA): Monthly receipts for Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014.

/10/ Solar Power Company Limited: CDM Monitoring Manual for Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project, completed in June 2013. /11/ Solar Power Company Limited and Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA): Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and their addendums for all sites of the project Site (subproject) PPA Addendum to PPA KR1 (ref: VSPP-PEA-007/2552) 15/05/2009 09/12/2009 KR3 (ref: VSPP-PEA-319/2552) 08/01/2010 21/03/2011 KR4 (ref: VSPP-PEA-320/2552) 08/01/2010 30/09/2010 KR5 (ref: VSPP-PEA-341/2552) 08/01/2010 30/09/2010 KR7 (ref: VSPP-PEA-321/2552) 08/01/2010 30/09/2010 KR8 (ref: VSPP-PEA-317/2552) 08/01/2010 21/03/2011 KR9 (ref: VSPP-PEA-331/2552) 08/01/2010 30/09/2010 SN1 (ref: VSPP-PEA-009/2552) 19/06/2009 30/09/2010 NP1 (ref: VSPP-PEA-103/2552) 18/06/2009 30/09/2010 KK3 (ref: VSPP-PEA-324/2552) 08/01/2010 30/09/2010 KK4 (ref: VSPP-PEA-337/2552) 08/01/2010 21/03/2011 KK5 (ref: VSPP-PEA-322/2552) 08/01/2010 30/09/2010

/12/ Certificate of Metrological Authorization to The Metrological Verification Institution for Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA)

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 27/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

/13/ Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA): Calibration certificate for the PEA meter 1 (Model/Type: Type/MK6) Site (subproject) Meter serial Date of Valid until No calibration KR1-PEA meter 1 13/12/2012 12/12/2013 20962867 03/12/2013 02/12/2014 KR3-PEA meter 1 27737038 16/07/2015 15/07/2016 KR4-PEA meter 1 27738217 08/11/2013 07/11/2014 KR5-PEA meter 1 20665044 25/10/2013 24/10/2014 KR7-PEA meter 1 90315295 12/11/2013 11/11/2014 KR8-PEA meter 1 27573257 25/10/2013 24/10/2014 KR9-PEA meter 1 212296740 08/12/2013 07/12/2014 SN1-PEA meter 1 08/10/2012 07/10/2013 18322308 17/10/2013 16/10/2014 NP1-PEA meter 1 18324517 18/10/2013 17/10/2014 KK3-PEA meter 1 212296735 17/09/2013 16/09/2014 KK4-PEA meter 1 212296737 12/09/2013 11/09/2014 KK5-PEA meter 1 212296739 11/09/2013 10/09/2014

/14/ Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA): Calibration certificate for the PEA meter 2 (Model/Type: Type/MK6/MK6N) Site (subproject) Meter serial Date of Valid until No calibration KR1-PEA meter 2 20962861 09/01/2013 08/01/2014 15852073 14/07/2015 13/07/2016 KR3-PEA meter 2 27622165 16/07/2015 15/07/2016 KR4-PEA meter 2 27738218 13/07/2015 12/07/2016 KR5-PEA meter 2 20665037 15/07/2015 14/07/2016 KR7-PEA meter 2 28113540 14/07/2015 13/07/2016 KR8-PEA meter 2 19936466 15/07/2015 14/07/2016 KR9-PEA meter 2 20962887 13/07/2015 12/07/2016 SN1-PEA meter 2 20665427 08/07/2015 07/07/2016 NP1-PEA meter 2 18323200 07/07/2015 06/07/2016 KK3-PEA meter 2 20962990 09/07/2015 08/07/2016 KK4-PEA meter 2 15851114 10/07/2015 09/07/2016 KK5-PEA meter 2 20962996 09/07/2015 08/07/2016

/15/ Solar Power Company Limited: Daily operation and maintenance record for modules and inverters from 01 January 2013 to 31 May 2014. /16/ Solar Power Company Limited: CDM monitoring training plan and records. /17/ Solar Power Company Limited: Documents to support implementation timeline for all sites Site (subproject) Expected COD Actual COD KR1 2010-04-19 19/04/2010 KR3 2012-03-09 09/03/2012 KR4 2012-05-14 14/05/2012 KR5 11/01/2013 KR7 2012-05-31 30/05/2012 KR8 11/01/2013 KR9 11/01/2013 SN1 2011-02-17 17/02/2011 NP1 2011-03-29 29/03/2011 KK3 11/01/2013 KK4 11/01/2013 KK5 11/01/2013

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 28/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

/18/ Solar Power Company Limited: Notice on organization structure establishment for CDM monitoring /19/ PJRCES and EDF Trading Limited: verification contract, of 18 March 2015 /20/ IRR, energy-irradiation & PR

Type 2: Documents used as background documents to verify the project’s baseline, design or the methodology used to calculate emission reductions.

No. Type of document. /21/ CDM Executive Board: Approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”, ACM0002 version 12.2.0. /22/ CDM Executive Board: Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Standard, Version 9.0, 20 February 2015 https://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/e/x/t/extfile-20150225165216290- accr_stan02.pdf/accr_stan02.pdf?t=U258bm5sZzZvfDAemtFM1VNEYw67jhUNPIdf /23/ CDM Executive Board: Project Standard version 09.0 CDM-EB65-A05-STAN 20 February 2015 http://cdm.unfccc.int/filestorage/e/x/t/extfile-20150225165200470- reg_stan01.pdf/reg_stan01.pdf?t=Nm18bm5sZHNhfDBeBudn0QNzNG5AeSg4rspj /24/ Carbon Bridge Pte Ltd: Project Design Document (PDD) for the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project, version 04.1 dated 26 November 2012. /25/ GL: CDM Validation report for the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project, GL Report No. 233, version No. 06, 06 December 2012. /26/ CDM Executive Board: Guidelines on the Application of Materiality in Verifications, Version 02.0, dated 20 February 2015. /27/ CDM Executive Board: “Guidelines on completeness check of requests for issuance” (EB 48 Annex 68)

List of persons interviewed during the site visit:

No Name of the Designation Company Issues discussed. person /28/ Dr. Alisa Project Manager Solar Power - Power supplied to and Khunchornyak Company Limited imported from the grid; ong - Meter accuracy and calibration; Dr. Sutus - Monitoring report; rukspollmuang - Calculation of the carbon emission reductions;

/29/ Julia Lee CDM Manager EDF Trading - Data collection, aggregation Suchai Limited and uncertainty; Lertpichet - Calibration of the meters; - QA/QC of the data; - CDM monitoring manual; - CDM training plan;

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 29/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

APPENDIX I

VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 30/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

Verification protocol Table 1: Requirement checklist: VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL A. General Verification Approach

A.1. Has PP signed a PS§261; PJRCES OK OK contractual PCP§208 Proposal and agreement with VVS§346 Contract with Decision PJRCES has contractual Agreement with PP. The signing date of contract is PP /19/ PJRCES? If yes, 3/CMP.1 - on 18 March 2015. Please mention the §62 of date of signing of contract.

A.2. Confirm verification PS§261 PJRCES was accredited for the verification function and Sectoral scope 1, PJRCES's OK OK function by means of in line with the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project. accreditation review of sectoral scope(s) of the project activity.

A.3. Has the monitoring VVS§347; UNFCCC web OK OK report been made PCP§209; publically available by PCP§211; MR version 01 dated 09 March 2015 has been made publically available on Decision the UNFCCC web on 27 March 2015. PJRCES? 3/CMP.1 - http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/Germanischer1354875235.84/view §§62 & 27(h) A.4. Is CDM project under VVS§347 PDD /24/ OK OK verification a large MR /1/ Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project is a large-scale project. scale project activity? If yes, confirm the

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 31/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL following:

a. Has PJRCES VVS§347 Validation performed the PJRCES did not perform validation of the CDM project activity under report validation of the verification. /25/ large-scale CDM DOE performing the validation of the CDM project activity under verification project activity? is GL

b. Has PJRCES VVS§347 OK OK been granted a prior approval from CDM EB to perform N/A verification of large-scale CDM project activity?

B. Project Details

B.1. Specify registration VVS§353(a) UNFCCC web OK OK date of the CDM project under Registration date of the project is on 12 December 2012. verification with CDM EB

B.2. Specify title of the VVS§353(a) PDD /24/ OK OK registered CDM Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV Project was registered on 12 MR /1/ December 2012. project activity along It was confirmed that MR refers to the same version of PDD. with its date and

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 32/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL version

B.3. Has project applied VVS§353(a) UNFCCC web OK OK for any revision in By checking the project information available under UNFCCC CDM website; Monitoring Plan? it was confirmed that the project was not applied for any revision in MP.

B.4. Specify version VVS§353(b) Validation OK OK number and date of report GL is the DOE who performed the validation of the project and the CDM /25/ the final validation validation report is GL Report No. 233, version No. 06, 06 December 2012. report

B.5. Specify version VVS§353(c) PDD /24/ OK OK number and date of MR /1/ previous verification This is the 1st verification of the project activity. report, if any.

B.6. Specify monitoring VVS§353(d) PDD /24/ OK OK methodology applied MR /1/ “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity by the CDM project generation from renewable sources” ACM0002 version 12.2.0 activity

B.7. Does Monitoring VVS§353(e) UNFCCC OK OK report prepared by PP PS§258 MR PS§260 follows the most The most recent MR template available at UNFCCC CDM website is version recent Monitoring 05.1. and the Monitoring Report has been prepared using the recent Report form available available MR template in UNFCCC CDM website at UNFCCC CDM website?

B.8. Does registered CDM VVS§353(e) By checking project information in section B.6.2 and section B.7.1 of OK OK registered CDM PDD. It was confirmed that the CDM project activity does

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 33/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL project activity refer to not refer to IPCC reports, data on electricity generation in the national grid any other information or laboratory analysis and national regulations. and references relevant to project activity’s emission reductions?

(e.g. IPCC reports, data on electricity generation in the national grid or laboratory analysis and national regulations) B.9. Has PP addressed VVS§354 PDD /24/ OK OK any FARs, if any, Validation identified during There is one FAR identified during the validation by checking previous report /25/

validation or previous reports (validation and/or verification) and PP has addressed the FAR. verification(s)?

C. Compliance of the project implementation with the registered project design document (Section 9.4.1 of VVSv9.0)

C.1. Has the VVS§383(a) Yes. Through the on-site inspection, all physical features of the project Site visit OK OK implementation and VVS§386 activity as proposed in the registered CDM PDD have been verified to be in PDD /24/ CL 1 operation of the place. MR /1/ project activity been The project activity is a grid-connected Solar power generation plant,

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 34/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL conducted in located at Provinces of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Sakon Nakhon, accordance with the Nakhon Phanom and Khon Kaen/Thailand. The electricity generated from description contained the project is supplied to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), which has been verified by the Power Purchase Agreement /11/. in registered PDD and/or any approved The project activity has an installed capacity of 81.53 MW DC of PV capacity at twelve sites. During the site visit, PRJCES checked the name revised PDD? plates and technical parameter of the Solar PV installed at the project site and confirms that the major technical parameters of the Solar PV are in line with the details provided in the registered PDD. The electricity generated by the Solar modules is delivered to the EGAT, which has been verified to be in line with the registered PDD. In PDD, the site KR9 has the PV unit type of KD240GH-4PB, while in MR it is KD240GH-2PB, clarification is requested for this. COD (commercial operation date) of some among 12 projects were not given in the registered PDD. Currently with the full operation of all twelve projects, the COD of all projects are available to complement project status. C.2. Is there any deviation VVS§383(b) Verification team can confirm that there is no deviation observed. And there PDD /24/ O K OK or proposed or actual is no deviation/ changes proposed by PP in implementation or operation of MR /1/ FAR 1 changes in the the project activity by referring section B.2.1 of MR. Six sites (KR1, KR3, KR4, KR7, SN1 and NP1) with total PV capacity (MW- implementation or DC) of 6.12 each, has undergone capacity expansion to total PV capacity operation of the (MW-DC) of 7.46 each after 31 May 2014. During the next monitoring project activity? period, this should be confirmed and reflected in the revised PDD.

C.3. Is/are deviation(s) or VVS§383(b) N/A PDD /24/ OK OK the proposed or MR /1/ actual changes in the implementation or operation of project activity, if any, comply with requirements of

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 35/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL Project Standard?

C.4. Was an on-site visit VVS§384 The on-site visit was carried out from 11 May 2015 to 16 May 2015. This PDD /24/ OK OK conducted? If not, PCP§184 was carried out 14 days after the web-hosting of MR at UNFCCC CDM MR /1/ justify the rationale of website as per CDM Project Cycle Procedure. Site visit The geo-coordinates are checked to be same with that mentioned in the the decision. registered PDD. The project activity is a grid-connected solar power generation plant, located at Provinces of Nakhon Ratchasima (Korat), Sakon Nakhon, Nakhon Phanom and Khon Kaen/Thailand. The location is same as that mentioned in the registered PDD. C.5. Are all physical VVS§384 Yes, the PP has operated the Solar Power Company 94 MW Solar PV PDD /24/ OK OK features of the project Project as per the registered PDD. MR /1/ activity in the Solar PV modules Site visit registered PDD in Sites KR1, KR3, KR4, KR7, KR5, KR8, KK3, KR9 place? SN1 and NP1 KK4 and KK5 Manufacturer Kyocera, Japan Kyocera, Japan Kyocera, Japan Model number KD210GH-2PU KD240GH-2PB KD240GH- 4PB Cell type Multicrystalline silicon Multicrystalline Multicrystalline silicon silicon Maximum Power 26.6 29.8 29.8 Voltage (V) Maximum Power 7.90 8.06 8.06 Current (A) Rated power (Wp/unit) 210 Wp DC 240 Wp DC 240 Wp DC Units Installed 174,960=29,160*6 155,520=31,104*5 31,104 (number) Total PV capacity (MW- 6.12 7.46 7.46 DC) Annual degradation 0.5 0.5 0.5 rate (%)

C.6. Have the project VVS§385(a) From MR, it was confirmed that the above mentioned information is Commissioning OK OK participants operated accurately described in section B.1 and as per the registered CDM PDD. minutes CL 1 the project activity as PJRCES confirms that the project activity is completely operational and has been implemented in accordance with the registered PDD. per the registered COD (commercial operation date) of some among 12 projects were not

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 36/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL PDD or any approved given in the registered PDD. Currently with the full operation of all twelve revised PDD? Assess projects, the COD of all projects are available to complement project status. and confirm following

a. Starting date of operation b. Phased implementation c. Delayed implementation

C.7. Is there any increase VVS§385(c) The actual emission reduction has been verified as 94,560 tCO2e for the ER sheet /2/ OK OK in the estimates of the same period. The actual emission reduction are higher (12%) than average PDD /24/ CL 2 emission reductions estimated ER (84,415 tCO2e) of this period, as mentioned in section E.5/ MR /1/ E.6 of MR. in the current

monitoring period as The actual electricity generation variation for this monitoring period is 12% compared to that more than the estimated in PDD, then whether this variation will impact the stated in the additionallity of the project. Clarification for the reason behind such registered PDD? difference is required.

C.8. In case the estimated VVS§385(c) The actual electricity generation variation for this monitoring period is 12% ER sheet /2/ OK OK emission reduction in more than the estimated in PDD, then whether this variation will impact the PDD /24/ CL 2 the current monitoring additionallity of the project. Clarification for the reason behind such MR /1/ difference is required. period is more than that estimated in the registered PDD, please clarify the reason behind such difference.

D. Compliance of the

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 37/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology including applicable tool(s) and the standardized baseline. (Section 9.4.2 of VVSv9.0)

D.1. Is the monitoring plan VVS§386 The proposed project activity in the registered CDM PDD applied the ACM0002 OK OK of the project activity “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity version 12.2.0 in accordance with generation from renewable sources” ACM0002 version 12.2.0 PDD /24/ The actual monitoring has been carried out in accordance with the MR /1/ the applied monitoring plan in the registered PDD. methodology and, The electricity meters (PEA meter 1) continuously measure the electricity where applicable, the exported to the grid /13/ and electricity meters (PEA meter 2) continuously applied standardized measure the electricity imported from the grid /14/. On a daily basis (three baseline? times, at 6 o’clock, 12 o’clock and 18 o’clock), Solar Power Company Limited personnel check and record readings of the electricity meters as part of routine operation /5/ /6/ /10/. On the last day of each month, Solar Power Company Limited prepares and submits monthly monitoring data to PEA for review and confirmation by sign, whereby the same is then used for billing purposes /7/ /8/ /9/ /10/. PJRCES confirms that a complete set of data for the specified monitoring period is available. In case of fault, EGAT will be alarmed by the notification system to ensure malfunction is identified promptly.

In section B.7.1 of registered CDM PDD, those parameters are monitored. Thus PJRCES confirms that the monitoring plan as described in the registered PDD is in accordance with approved monitoring methodology ACM0002 version 12.2.0 applied for the CDM project activity.

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 38/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL D.2. Is the monitoring plan VVS§386 N/A ACM0002 OK OK of the project activity version 12.2.0 in accordance with /21/ PDD /24/ the applicable tools?

D.3. Keeping compliance VVS§387 It was checked and confirmed that the compliance of monitoring is in ACM0002 OK OK of monitoring in mind, compliance with registered PDD and monitoring methodology. version 12.2.0 determine whether /21/ PDD /24/ the project

implementation is in accordance with the provisions of the registered PDD and/or an approved revised PDD.

D.4. During the validation, VVS§387 There are no additional monitoring parameters identified, that has not been ACM0002 OK OK is/are there any specified in the applied methodology for the project activity. version 12.2.0 additional monitoring /21/ PDD /24/ parameters identified,

that has not been specified in the applied methodology or, where applicable, standardized baseline (specifically in case of SSC project activities)

E. Compliance of monitoring activities with the

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 39/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL registered monitoring plan (Section 9.4.3 of VVSv9.0)

E.1. Determine whether VVS§389 By referring to section D.2 of MR with the registered CDM PDD. ACM0002 OK OK monitoring of VVS§390(a) It was confirmed the list of parameters included in the MR are identical with version 12.2.0 parameters related to Decision those in registered PDD. /21/ 3/CMP.1, PDD /24/ GHG emissions Annex, §56 MR /1/ reductions in the project activity has been implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD or any accepted revised monitoring plan.

E.2. Determine whether all VVS§390(b) All parameters stated in the monitoring plan are monitored. ACM0002 parameters stated in VVS§390(d) version 12.2.0 the monitoring plan VVS§390(e) /21/ PDD /24/ and relevant Board MR /1/ decisions have been monitored and updated as applicable, including:

a. Project emission VVS§390(b) Since the project is a zero-emission solar power generation project, no ACM0002 OK OK parameters? – (i) emission from the project activity was identified. Hence, no parameter is version 12.2.0 VVS§390(d) considered to be monitored for the project emission calculations. /21/

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 40/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL VVS§390(e) PDD /24/ MR /1/

Add data/ parameter Since the project is a zero-emission solar power generation project, no ACM0002 OK OK emission from the project activity was identified. Hence, no parameter is version 12.2.0 considered to be monitored for the project emission calculations. /21/ PDD /24/ MR /1/

b. Baseline emission VVS§390(b) ACM0002 OK OK As per the monitoring plan of the registered PDD /24/, quantity of electricity – (ii) version 12.2.0 parameters? supplied/downloaded by the project to/from the EGAT (EG , VVS§390(d) facility,y /21/ EG and EG ) shall be monitored for the determination of VVS§390(e) facility,export,y facility,auxiliary,y PDD /24/ the baseline emissions. MR /1/ Add data/ parameter The ex-post monitoring parameters have been shown in the table below: ACM0002 OK OK version 12.2.0 CL 3 As listed in Validated PDD As observed on-site /21/ FAR 1 PDD /24/ Installed capacity Installed capacity MR /1/  81.53 MW DC of PV  81.53 MW DC of PV capacity at twelve sites capacity at twelve sites Electricity meter at each of PEA meter 1 of each site:0.5s twelve sites PEA meter 2 of each site:0.5s PEA meter 1 of each site:0.5s The metering instruments are in PEA meter 2 of each site:0.5s accordance with the regulations.

Calibration Frequency Calibration Frequency  Manufacturer’s  Manufacturer’s specification specification

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 41/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL Six sites (KR1, KR3, KR4, KR7, SN1 and NP1) with total PV capacity (MW- DC) of 6.12 each, has undergone capacity expansion to total PV capacity (MW-DC) of 7.46 each after 31 May 2014. During the next monitoring period, this should be confirmed and reflected in the revised PDD.

Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 of each site was not presented in the MR. Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the whole monitoring period, leading to discount of that part of metering electricity. The responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting have been verified to be in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan. c. Leakage VVS§390(b) No leakage emissions are considered as per the methodology. Hence, no ACM0002 parameters? – (iii) parameter is considered to be monitored for the leakage emission version 12.2.0 VVS§390(d) calculations. /21/ VVS§390(e) PDD /24/ MR /1/ Add data/ parameter No leakage emissions are considered as per the methodology. Hence, no ACM0002 OK OK parameter is considered to be monitored for the leakage emission version 12.2.0 calculations. /21/ PDD /24/ MR /1/ E.3. Management and VVS§390(b) By referring section C of MR and section B.7.3 and Appendix 5 of CDM ACM0002 OK OK operational system: PDD (new format). version 12.2.0 /21/ Confirm following: PDD /24/ MR /1/ a. Is/are monitoring PS§246 The management of the project activity has implemented a quality Monitoring OK OK system described management system to monitor the performance and ability of the project to Manual /10/ adequately? deliver the emission reductions. Monitoring Manual /10/ is established with detailed responsibility allocated. In the manual, the organization structure with the responsibilities, personnel competencies, monitoring procedure and

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 42/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL monitoring management have been properly identified and put in place. b. Is/are line PS§246 Yes, PP provided line diagrams showing all relevant monitoring points and line diagrams OK OK diagrams those monitoring points are same with those in the registered CDM PDD. /4/ provided showing all relevant monitoring points?

c. Is/are data PS§250 The data collection procedure (information flow including data generation, Monitoring OK OK collection aggregation, recording, calculations and reporting) mentioned in MR are Manual /10/ procedure complete when comparing with registered CDM PDD, specifically with QA/ QC procedure mentioned in registered CDM PDD. (information flow including data generation, aggregation, recording, calculations and reporting) described adequately and implemented?

d. Are organizational PS§246 The organizational structure, roles and responsibilities of personnel involved Monitoring OK OK structure, roles VVS§390(b) in monitoring are well detailed. Manual /10/ and – (iv) Notice on organization responsibilities for structure monitoring and reporting in accordance with the

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 43/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan?

e. Is/are emergency PS§250 The emergency procedures were followed in case of any emergency during Daily operation OK OK procedures VVS§390(b) the monitoring period and relevant records were reviewed during physical and adequately – (iv) site inspection for checking compliance. maintenance record /15/ described?

E.4. Is/are equipment(s) VVS§390(c) Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 of each site was not presented ACM0002 OK OK used for monitoring in in the MR. version 12.2.0 CL 3 accordance with Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the /21/ whole monitoring period, leading to discount of that part of metering PDD /24/ section 6 below and is electricity. MR /1/ controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan, the applied methodology, the Board guidance, local/national standards, or as per the manufacturer’s specification?

F. Compliance with calibration frequency requirements for measuring instruments (Section

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 44/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL 9.4.4 of VVSv9.0)

F.1. Is calibration of those VVS§394 Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 of each site was not presented ACM0002 CL 3 OK measuring in the MR. version 12.2.0 OK equipments that have Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the /21/ whole monitoring period, leading to discount of that part of metering PDD /24/ an impact on the electricity. MR /1/ claimed emission reductions conducted by the project participants at a frequency specified in the applied monitoring methodology and/or the monitoring plan?

Add equipment N/A F.2. During verification of VVS§395 Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 of each site was not presented ACM0002 OK OK a certain monitoring in the MR. version 12.2.0 CL 3 period, has calibration Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the /21/ whole monitoring period, leading to discount of that part of metering PDD /24/ been delayed and has electricity. Thus applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to MR /1/ calibration has been the measured values is necessary. implemented after the monitoring period in consideration (i.e. the results of delayed calibration are available)?

F.3. If yes, is the following VVS§395 Yes. Thus applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the ACM0002 OK OK conservative measured values is necessary. version 12.2.0

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 45/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL approach adopted in /21/ the calculation of PDD /24/ emission reductions? MR /1/

a. Applying the VVS§395(a) Yes. Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the ACM0002 OK OK maximum measured values is necessary. version 12.2.0 permissible error /21/ PDD /24/ of the instrument MR /1/ 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 within permissible limit of error; or

b. Applying the error VVS§395(b) Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured ACM0002 OK OK identified in the values is necessary. version 12.2.0 delayed /21/ PDD /24/ calibration test, if

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 46/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL the error is MR /1/ beyond the maximum permissible error of the measuring equipment.

F.4. Has the error has VVS§396 been applied:

a. In a conservative VVS§396(a) Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured ACM0002 OK OK manner, such that values is necessary. version 12.2.0 the adjusted /21/ PDD /24/ measured values MR /1/ of the delayed calibration shall result in fewer claimed emission reductions?

b. Applying the error VVS§396(b) Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured ACM0002 OK OK identified in the values is necessary. version 12.2.0 delayed /21/ PDD /24/ calibration test, if MR /1/ the error is beyond the maximum permissible error of the measuring

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 47/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL equipment.

F.5. In cases where the VVS§397 Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the measured ACM0002 OK OK results of the delayed values is necessary. version 12.2.0 calibration are not /21/ PDD /24/ available, or the MR /1/ 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 iii above?

F.6. Is it possible for the VVS§398 Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 of each site was not presented ACM0002 OK project participants to in the MR. version 12.2.0 conduct the Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the /21/ whole monitoring period, leading to discount of that part of metering PDD /24/ calibration at a electricity. Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the MR /1/ frequency specified measured values is necessary. by either the applied

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 48/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL methodology, guidance provided by the Board, and/or the registered monitoring plan?

F.7. If no, were the VVS§398 No. ACM0002 OK OK requirements for post version 12.2.0 registration changes, /21/ PDD /24/ in section of 9.5 of the MR /1/ VVS, followed?

F.8. Do the monitoring VVS§399 No. ACM0002 OK OK methodologies or the version 12.2.0 monitoring plan /21/ PDD /24/ specify any MR /1/ requirements for calibration frequency for measuring equipments?

F.9. If no, are the VVS§399 Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA meter 2 of each site was not presented ACM0002 OK OK equipments calibrated in the MR. version 12.2.0 CL 3 either in accordance Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the /21/ whole monitoring period, leading to discount of that part of metering PDD /24/ with the specifications electricity. Applying the maximum permissible error of the instrument to the MR /1/ of the local/national measured values is necessary. standards, or as per the manufacturer’s specification?

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 49/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL F.10. If neither VVS§399 N/A ACM0002 OK OK local/national version 12.2.0 standards nor the /21/ PDD /24/ manufacturer’s MR /1/ specification are available, were international standards used?

G. Assessment of data and VVS§402  Verification team shall assess the data and calculations of GHG calculation of emission emission reductions achieved by/resulting from the project activity by reductions (Section the application of the selected methodology and, where applicable, the 9.4.5 of VVSv9.0) selected standardized baseline.

G.1. Is a complete set of VVS§402(a) The parameters have a complete set of data available, such that: ACM0002 OK OK data for the specified version 12.2.0 CL 4 Data of electricity exported and imported are manually recorded on a daily monitoring period is /21/ basis /5/ /6/ PDD /24/ available? Monthly statistics form of electricity exported to and imported from grid from MR /1/ EGAT created by Solar Power Company Limited /7/ /8/; The monitoring and reporting of electricity data is also in accordance with the well-established operational procedures stated in management manual /10/. The excel sheet did not provide monthly electricity data, which is basis for the emission calculation. G.2. Is information VVS§402(b) All the data of electricity exports and electricity imports are then cross ACM0002 OK OK provided in the checked through the monthly receipts of sales to EGAT. All original records, version 12.2.0 monitoring report electricity sale receipts and monthly ESRs /7/ /8/ /9/ have been verified by /21/ PJRCES during the site visit. PDD /24/ been cross-checked MR /1/ with other sources

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 50/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis?

G.3. Have calculations of VVS§402(c) Since the project is a zero-emission solar power generation project, no ACM0002 OK OK baseline emissions, project emissions and no leakage emissions need to be considered, which version 12.2.0 and project activity has been verified to be in line with the applied methodology ACM0002 /21/ version 12.2.0 /21/. The emission reductions are therefore calculated as PDD /24/ emissions and follows: MR /1/ leakage, as appropriate, been ERy=BEy-PEy-Ly=EGfacility,y×EFgrid,CM,y=(EGfacility,export,y– carried out in EGfacility,auxiliary,y)×EFgrid,CM,y accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology?

G.4. Have any VVS§402(d) N/A OK OK assumptions used in emission calculations been justified?

G.5. Have appropriate VVS§402(e) EFy is the emission factor of the grid (tCO2/MWh), which was determined ex- ACM0002 OK OK

emission factors, ante and validated at 0.5554 tCO2/MWh and will not be updated during the version 12.2.0 IPCC default values first crediting period. /21/ PDD /24/ and other reference MR /1/ values been correctly The applied emission factors are sourced from the national vintage of electricity and energy books and are publically interpreted.

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 51/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL applied? The emission reduction is calculated as 94,560 tCO2e for the monitoring period under verification. G.6. For a registered CDM VVS§402(f) N/A ACM0002 OK OK project activity using PS§251 version 12.2.0 an approved /21/ PDD /24/ standardized baseline MR /1/ that standardizes baseline emissions,

Determine whether the standardized value(s) of the parameter(s) was(were) applied using the correct version of the applied standardized baseline in accordance with the Project standard based on following G.7. For a registered CDM VVS§402(f) N/A ACM0002 OK OK project activity using PS§252 version 12.2.0 an approved /21/ PDD /24/ standardized baseline MR /1/ that standardizes baseline emissions and the selected type of crediting period is renewable,

Determine whether the standardized

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 52/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL value(s) of the parameter(s) was(were) applied using the correct version of the applied standardized baseline in accordance with the Project standard based on following H. Post-Registration Changes This section to be filled only in case PJRCES, Inc has been appointed as (Section 9.5 of VVSv9.0) DOE for assessing Post-registration changes.

H.1. Temporary deviations from the registered monitoring plan and/or monitoring methodology (Section 9.5.1 of VVSv9.0)

a. Confirm whether VVS§404 N/A ACM0002 OK OK PJRCES Inc. PS§269 version 12.2.0 contracted by PP /21/ PDD /24/ to validate post- MR /1/ registration changes, is accredited to the validation function for the specific CDM sectoral

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 53/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL scope.

b. Clarify Do VVS§330 N/A ACM0002 OK OK changes require version 12.2.0 prior approval by /21/ PDD /24/ the Board in MR /1/ accordance with Appendix 1 of CDM Project Standard?

c. Confirm the following:

i. Is there any PS§268 N/A ACM0002 OK OK change version 12.2.0 regarding the /21/ PDD /24/ modalities or MR /1/ information in the MoC statement or its Annexes after a request for registration has been submitted?

ii. Has PP PS§268 N/A ACM0002 OK OK revised the version 12.2.0

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 54/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL MoC /21/ statement in PDD /24/ accordance MR /1/ with the Project Cycle procedure?

d. Has, PP identified VVS§406 N/A ACM0002 OK OK and documented PS§267 version 12.2.0 any actual or /21/ PDD /24/ proposed MR /1/ changes to the operation, implementation and/or monitoring the registered CDM project activity taking into account the types of changes described in appendix 1 of CDM Project Standard?

e. Do the changes VVS§405 N/A ACM0002 OK OK proposed in the VVS§406 version 12.2.0 registered PS§267 /21/ PDD /24/ monitoring plan MR /1/ identified as

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 55/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL changes which does not require prior approval from the Board in accordance with Appendix 1 of CDM Project Standard?

f. If project PS§272 N/A ACM0002 OK OK participants are version 12.2.0 temporarily /21/ PDD /24/ unable to monitor MR /1/ the registered CDM project activity in accordance with the registered monitoring plan or the applied methodology, confirm following

i. Has PP PS§272 N/A ACM0002 OK OK described the version 12.2.0 nature, extent /21/ PDD /24/ and duration MR /1/ of the non- conforming

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 56/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL monitoring?

ii. Cases where PS N/A ACM0002 OK OK PP has not Appendix 1 version 12.2.0 monitored or /21/ PDD /24/ is unable to MR /1/ produce the evidence related to baseline emissions parameter(s) – determine whether prior approval from Board is required?

iii. Cases where PS N/A ACM0002 OK OK PP has not Appendix 1 version 12.2.0 monitored or /21/ PDD /24/ is unable to MR /1/ produce the evidence related to project emissions parameter(s) – determine whether prior

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 57/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL approval from Board is required?

iv. Has PP PS§268 N/A ACM0002 OK OK proposed version 12.2.0 alternative /21/ PDD /24/ monitoring of MR /1/ the project activity in the monitoring report?

v. Has PP VVS§383(b) N/A ACM0002 OK OK informed the PS§273 (a) version 12.2.0 DOE /21/ PDD /24/ contracted for MR /1/ performing verification of the monitoring period during which they were unable to monitor the registered CDM project activity in accordance with the registered

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 58/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL monitoring plan or the applied methodology.

vi. Did PP VVS§383(b) N/A ACM0002 OK OK request any PS§273(b) version 12.2.0 DOE at any /21/ PDD /24/ time prior to MR /1/ the commenceme nt of verification of a monitoring period to assess the proposed alternative monitoring of the project activity.

vii. Determine VVS§411 N/A ACM0002 OK OK whether PS§274 version 12.2.0 deviation is /21/ PDD /24/ likely to lead MR /1/ to a reduction in the accuracy of the calculation

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 59/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL of emission reductions?

viii. Determine VVS§416 N/A ACM0002 OK OK exact period version 12.2.0 for which /21/ PDD /24/ deviation MR /1/ applies

H.2. Corrections (Section 9.5.2 of VVSv9.0)

a. Is there any VVS§420 No ACM0002 OK OK corrections made version 12.2.0 to the project /21/ PDD /24/MR information or the /1/ parameters determined at validation by PP and identified during verification?

b. Do such PS No ACM0002 OK OK corrections affect Appendix 1; version 12.2.0 the design of the §1 /21/ PDD /24/ registered project MR /1/ activity?

c. Is the corrected VVS§410(a) N/A ACM0002 OK OK version 12.2.0

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 60/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL information /21/ accurately reflects PDD /24/ the actual project MR /1/ information?

d. Is the corrected VVS§410(b) N/A ACM0002 OK OK parameter(s) in version 12.2.0 accordance with /21/ PDD /24/ the applied MR /1/ methodology?

H.3. Change in the Start date of the crediting period (Section 9.5.3 of VVSv9.0)

a. Does PP wish to VVS§410 N/A ACM0002 OK OK change the start version 12.2.0 date of the /21/ PDD /24/ crediting period in MR /1/ accordance with section 13.8 of CDM Project Standard?

b. Confirm if the VVS§410 N/A ACM0002 OK OK change in the version 12.2.0 start date of /21/ PDD /24/ crediting period MR /1/ results in the less

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 61/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

VERIFICATION REQUIREMENT REF. §§ VERIFICATION TEAM COMMENTS CONCLUSION CHECKLIST VVS COMMENTS EVIDENCE DRAFT FINAL conservative baseline.

TABLE 2: RESOLUTION OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN TABLE 1 OF THE VALIDATION CHECKLIST

DRAFT REPORT CLARIFICATION REQUESTS, CORRECTIVE ACTION SUMMARY OF PP RESPONSE VERIFICATION TEAM ASSESSMENT REQUESTS CAR/CL № DESCRIPTION OF CAR/CL REFERENCE CL 1 Assessment: 01 C.1. It was a typo in MR version 01. OK Date: 19 May 2015 The PV unit type of KR9 is KD240GH- In PDD, the site KR9 has the PV unit 4PB which has been revised in MR The typo has been corrected in the final type of KD240GH-4PB, while in MR it version 02. MR. is KD240GH-2PB, clarification is requested for this. COD date according to ERC Letter of COD dates have been added in the final COD (commercial operation date) of 12 project sites has been added in MR. some among 12 projects were not Table B.2 of MR version 02. given in the registered PDD. Currently with the full operation of all twelve projects, the COD of all projects are CL 1 is closed. available to complement project status. Thus PP was requested to provide the actual COD of each sites in the reivsed PDD. CL 2 Assessment: 01 C.7. The emission reductions achieved OK Date: 19 May 2015 during this monitoring period are 12% Though the emission reductions higher than the estimates in the achieved is 12% higher than the The actual emission reductions registered PDD which was resulted estimates, this doesn’t impact the variation for this monitoring period is from higher irradiation and higher additionality of the proposed project, 12% more than the that estimated in performance ratio (11% higher which is quite important issue of concern.

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 62/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

DRAFT REPORT CLARIFICATION REQUESTS, CORRECTIVE ACTION SUMMARY OF PP RESPONSE VERIFICATION TEAM ASSESSMENT REQUESTS CAR/CL № DESCRIPTION OF CAR/CL REFERENCE PDD, then whether this variation will compared with Mott MacDonald LTA impact the additionallity of the project. Report-the data source in PDD), and CL 2 is closed. was not impact the additionality of the Clarification for the reason behind such Project. difference is required.

The MR dated 09/03/2015 has provide the comparison for the actual estimated emission and the actual values for the current monitoring period (01/012013-31/05/2014) , but not split into yearly comparison between the estimated and actual. CL 3 Assessment: 01 E.2. Calibration information for all the OK Date: 19 May 2015 E.4. electricity meters involved in Calibration of PEA meter 1 and PEA F.1. EGfacility,export,y and EGfacility,auxiliary,y have Calibration information has been meter 2 of each site was not presented F.2. been added in Table D.1 and Table correctly added in the final MR. in the MR. F.9. D.2 of MR version 02. Onsite check confirmed that some of the meter calibration cannot cover the The maximum permissible error The maximum permissible error accrued whole monitoring period, thus applying (±0.5%) has been considered during from the miss of the calibration of meters the maximum permissible error of the calculation. Please see ER has been applied for the calculation of instrument to the measured values is spreadsheet version 02 for detail emissions, which is acceptable for necessary. information. verifiers.

CL 3 is closed. CL 4 Assessment: 01 G.1. Monthly monitoring data of OK Date: 19 May 2015 EGfacility,export,y and EGfacility,auxiliary,y have Monthly data for electricity has been The monitoring plan in PDD section been provided in ER spreadsheet provided in the ER spreadsheet. B7.1 clearly indicates that 12 sites are version 02. separately monitored and reported. CL 4 is closed. However, the monitoring report does not include the monthly values of the

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 63/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

DRAFT REPORT CLARIFICATION REQUESTS, CORRECTIVE ACTION SUMMARY OF PP RESPONSE VERIFICATION TEAM ASSESSMENT REQUESTS CAR/CL № DESCRIPTION OF CAR/CL REFERENCE

parameters EGfacility,export,y, EGfacility,auxiliary,y and EGfacility,y for each of the12 sites separately as required by the monitoring plan in the PDD. The monitored results from the meters for export and import of electricity were neither recorded nor referenced in the monitoring report.

DRAFT REPORT FORWARD ACTION REQUEST SUMMARY OF PP RESPONSE VERIFICATION TEAM ASSESSMENT FAR № DESCRIPTION OF FAR REFERENCE FAR 1-2 Assessment: 01 C.2. Date: 19 May 2015 Six sites (KR1, KR3, KR4, KR7, SN1 and NP1) with total PV capacity (MW- DC) of 6.12 each, has undergone capacity expansion to total PV capacity (MW-DC) of 7.46 each after 31 May 2014. During the next monitoring period, this should be confirmed and reflected in the revised PDD.

PREVIOUS FORWARD ACTION REQUEST FROM PDD OR VALIDATION SUMMARY OF PP RESPONSE VERIFICATION TEAM ASSESSMENT REPORT FAR № DESCRIPTION OF FAR REFERENCE FAR 1-1 Assessment: 01 The final The final QA-QC procedures are OK Date: 04/06/2012 validation consistent with the key principles The QA-QC procedures were Since it is stated that final QA-QC report, GL described in the PDD and the applied established in the management of the procedures will not be confirmed until Report No. methodology. project, and this was observed onsite. CDM registration of the project, FAR is 233, version The QA-QC was well followed in the

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 64/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVS V9.0

PREVIOUS FORWARD ACTION REQUEST FROM PDD OR VALIDATION SUMMARY OF PP RESPONSE VERIFICATION TEAM ASSESSMENT REPORT FAR № DESCRIPTION OF FAR REFERENCE raised as to ensure the same will not No. 06, 06 daily work. deviate from the key principles December FAR 1-1 is closed. described in the PDD and required by 2012 /25/, the applied methodology. prepared by GL

Form: F-06.13. VVS Revision: 6.0 Issue date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 65/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVSV7.0

APPENDIX II Curriculum Vitae of verification team

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 66/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVSV7.0

Name: Zhang Xiaojun Johnsen Role: Validator/verifier and team leader Competency Profile: holds a Master Degree in Metallurgical Physical Chemistry and obtained his MBA in project management. Also he majored in Chemistry, which involves organic, inorganic, structure and analysis chemistry as bachelor degree. He has an overall experience of 26 years. Johnsen had an overall experience of 4 years in glass manufacturing industry covering production, energy efficiency improvement and commissioning. Later on he gained combined experience of more than 15 years in the iron and steel industry, while he worked as researcher and management personnel in Central Iron and Steel Institute, the sector covering the refractory, iron & steel, waste heat recovery, solid waste disposal, waste fuel treatment, waste energy efficiency and relevant environmental affairs. His experience also covers the fields of environmental management, resource conservation and cleaner production in various manufacturing and metallurgical industries. He has also gained the experience in Management System Audits such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001 standards in various industrial sectors for more than 3 years for industrial plants. Johnsen has experience of more than 4 years in validation and verification of numerous CDM projects from his current and previous companies (PJRCES and DNV). Over the years, he has worked in over 80 projects in Vietnam and internationally, in various sectors including Renewable Energy (biomass, hydro & solar energy projects), Waste heat recovery projects, Raw material substitution projects in the cement sector, Blended cement projects, Coal Mine Methane projects (CMM) and biodiesel projects. He has experience in working in wide range of standards – regulated and voluntary markets. For financial analysis and investment, he has gained the relevant knowledge through his MBA course; and through the feasibility case study in the iron and steel sector while he worked as management personnel, he gradually gained concerted experience in cost accounting, financial analysis and investment input parameter assessment. His qualification, industrial and investment experience and experience in CDM demonstrate him sufficient sectoral competence in “Glass”, “Iron and Steel” and “Energy Generation from Renewable Energy Sources”.

Name: Anjana Sharma Role: Validator/verifier/ Independent Technical Reviewer Competency Profile: Anjana Sharma holds a Bachelor in Chemical Engineering. She has a combined experience of 14 years. Prior to her entry into the CDM world, she worked for 3 years in Chlor-Alkali industry wherein she was involved mainly in the plant operations, energy conservation measures and QMS. During her stint in industry, her technical responsibilities included involvement in day-to-day plant operations, analysis of consumption of different inputs to the Chlor-Alkali process (primarily the

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 67/68 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION REPORT – VVSV7.0

raw material, power, fuels like FO/HSD for boilers etc) on daily basis and preparation of consolidated monthly report. Based on that, she, in consultation with Head of Works, would identify the potential areas of improvement and presenting the same to the management. Being the member of Technical Services Cell of the company, she was actively involved in market research for the energy efficient technologies for the Chlor-Alkali process. Apart from above technical part, she was also an internal auditor for ISO 9001. She has been trained as an internal auditor for QMS as well as Lead Auditor for QMS (ISO 9001) and EMS (ISO 14001). Her experience in CDM includes 9 years in validation and verification of projects in regulated as well as non-regulated market. Prior to joining PJRCDM, she worked as a CDM Validator and Technical Reviewer at DNV for 4 years. She has handled validation and verification of numerous CDM projects, both in India & abroad in different areas like renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste heat recovery, waste handling and disposal (especially landfill gas recovery and utilization, and waste solar treatment), fuel switch etc. Her sufficient sectoral competence in renewable energy based energy generation, energy efficiency and waste handling and disposal is sufficiently demonstrated through her education qualification, industry experience and experience in CDM.

Form: F-06.13-vvs Revision: 6.0 Issue Date: 22 November 2013 Revision date: 27 February 2015 68/68