Degirmenustu Validation Report - Signed

8/2/2019 Degirmenustu Validation Report - Signed

1/74

VCS 2007.1 Validation Report

Voluntary Carbon Standard 2007.1

Validation Report

18 November 2008

Validation Report:

Name of

Verification company:Date of the issue:

Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS 03.02.2011Report Title: Approved by:Validation of 40.0 MW DEGIRMENUSTUHydroelectric Power Plant

Ashok MammenClient: Project Title:Global Tan Energy UK 40.0 MW DEGIRMENUSTU Hydroelectric

Power PlantSummary:Bureau Veritas Certification has made the validation of 40.0 MW DEGIRMENUSTUHydroelectric Power Plant, in Kahramanmaras, Turkey.The project activity involves the installation of a 40 MW runoff-river hydro electric powerplant (HEPP) on Korsulu Creek in Sisne and Degirmenustu Villages in Kahramanmaras,Turkey.The project comes under Type-I Renewable Energy Project as per Appendix B of theprocedures for CDM project activities. The expected annual emission reduction is 62,386tons CO2/year. The crediting period of the project activity is 10 years, renewable twice for atotal of 30 years.The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the VCS projectdescription, the projects baseline study, monitoring plan and other relevant documents, andconsisted of the following five phases: i) desk review of the project design and the baselineand monitoring plan; ii) Review of the baseline methodology by the specialist and the


2/74


TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 41.1 Objective ..................................................................................................... 41.2 Scope and Criteria....................................................................................... 41.3 VCS Project Description .............................................................................. 41.4 Level of Assurance .................................................................................... 4

2 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................. 42.1 Review of Documents................................................................................ 5

2.2 Follow-up Interviews .................................................................................. 52.3 Resoulution of any material discrepancy.................................................... 53 VALIDATION FINDINGS.................................................................................... 5

3.1 Project Design ........................................................................................... 53.2 Baseline Identification................................................................................ 63.3 Monitoring Plan.......................................................................................... 83.4 Calculation of GHG Emissions................................................................... 83.5 Environmental Impact ................................................................................ 93.6 Comments by stakeholders........................................................................ 9

4 VALIDATION CONCLUSION........................................................................... 105 REFERENCES................................................................................................ 10

5.1. Documents............................................................................................... 105.2. Persons Interviewed .................................................................................11

ANNEX I Validators Competence......................................................................... 12ANNEX II - Validation Protocol ................................................................................ 13Table 1 Requirements Checklist ....................................................................... 13Table 2 Baseline and Monitoring Methodologies ACM0002 v11........................ 36

Table 3 Legal Requirements............................................................................. 62TABLE 5 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests .................. 62


3/74


Abbreviations List:

HEPP : Hydro Electric Power PlantCL : Clarification

CAR : Corrective Action Request

MP : Monitoring Plan

VCS : Voluntary Carbon Standard

VCU : Voluntary Carbon Unit

VER : Voluntary Emissions Reductions / Verified Emissions Reductions

PD : Project Description

EMRA : Electricity Market Regulatory Authority (EPDK)

EPDK : Elektrik Piyasasi Duzenleme Kurulu (EMRA)

TEIAS : Turkiye Elektrik Iletim A.S. (Turkish Electricity Transmission Company)

DSI : Devlet Su Isleri (State Hydraulic Works)PP : Project Participant

CDM : Clean Development Mechanism

HES : Hidro Elektrik Santrali (Hydro Electric Power Plant)


4/74


1 Introduction

This report summarizes the findings of the validation of the 40.0 MWDEGIRMENUSTU Hydroelectric Power Plant project, performed on the basis of VCS2007.1 criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations,monitoring and reporting.

1.1ObjectiveThe validation serves as project design verification and is a requirement of all

voluntary emission reduction projects. The validation is an independent thirdparty assessment of the project design. In particular, the project's baseline, themonitoring plan (MP), and the projects compliance with relevant VCS criteriawhich are validated in order to confirm that the project design, as documented,is sound and reasonable, and meets the stated requirements and identifiedcriteria. Validation is a requirement for all VCS projects and is seen asnecessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project andits intended generation of Voluntary Carbon Units (VCUs).

1.2Scope and CriteriaThe validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of theVCS project description, the projects baseline study and monitoring plan, theprojects investment analysis and other relevant documents. The information inthese documents is reviewed against the methodologies and tools that aregiven under the Clean Development Mechanism of Kyoto Protocol, VCS2007.1 rules and associated interpretations. The validation is not meant to

provide any consulting towards the client. However, stated requests forclarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of theproject design.

1.3VCS project DescriptionThe project activity involves the installation of a 40.0 MW DEGIRMENUSTUHydroelectric Power Plant on Korsulu Creek in Kahramanmara. The project

comes under Type I Renewable Energy Project as per Appendix B of theprocedures for CDM project activities. The objective of the project is togenerate electricity from a renewable source and supply it into the public gridwhich is dominated by fossil fuels. The project consists of a hard-fill weir,conveyance line, powerhouse,pelton turbines.The expected annual emissionreduction is 62,386 tons CO2. The crediting period of the project activity is 10years renewable twice for a total of 30 years


5/74


It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements of a VCS project isexpected to meet;

It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will documenthow a particular requirement has been validated and the result of thevalidation.

2.1 Review of DocumentThe Project Description (PD) submitted by Global Tan Energy Limited (GTE)and additional background documents related to the project design andbaseline, i.e. Host Country Law, VCS Project Description Template, Approved

Methodology and tools under the CDM of Kyoto Protocol, Clarifications (CL)and Corrective Action Requests (CAR) on validation requirements werereviewed.

To address Bureau Veritas Certification corrective action requests andclarification requests, GTE revised the PD several times, PD version 04 (dd03.02.2011) being the last version which was submitted to the validation teamin 03.02.2011. After further clarifications all corrective action requests andclarification requests were closed in 03.02.2011.

All documents were reviewed under the requirements of the CDMMethodologies as these methodologies are approved under the VCS.

2.2 Follow-up InterviewsBetween August 2010 and January 2011 Bureau Veritas Certificationperformed interviews with GTE, Deirmenst Enerji retim Ticaret ve SanayiA.S. and local stakeholders regarding the Grid emission factor, Investment

Analysis, project specific questions and Clarification and Corrective ActionsRequests documented in the validation protocol. A list of the personsinterviewed is given under section 5.2 of this report. After the discussions, thevalidation team closed on 10.01.2011 all documented CL and CAR in thevalidation protocol.

2.3 Resolution of any material discrepancyDuring the validation there were no material discrepancies that were identified.

3 Validation Findings

3.1 Project DesignBureau Veritas Certification recognizes that project is helping the host country in


6/74


be produced. The technical information about the project activity is confirmed throughproject feasibility, license, site visit and TEAIS approval.

Project duration, crediting time and project start date

The project started to generate emission reductions on 09 April 2009 which is thecommissioning date. It is confirmed through TEIAS approval. Crediting periodselected as 10 years and it will be renewed twice.

The expected operational life time of the project activity is 45 years which isconfirmed through the generation license.

Ownership

The original electricity generation license for the project has been awarded toDegirmenustu Enerji Uretim Ticaret ve Sanayi A.. by the Turkish Energy MarketRegulatory Authority and the copy of the generation license has been added toannex 6 of the PDD.

The project did not participate in any other GHG emission reduction program. Thevalidation team approves that there is no double counting involved in this projectactivity during this validation.

Eligibility of the project activity under VCS

The project category is included in the sectoral scope 1 Energy Industry Renewable Sources according to the UNFCCC definition.The project is a 40 MW HEPP and it uses renewable sources to produce electricity.Since the installed capacity of the planned HEPP is larger than 15 MW; it is a largescale renewable energy project activity according to the Decision 17/ CP.7 Article 6.As per the justifications given above, the project activity is eligible under VCS.

The project is not a grouped project.

3.2 Baseline

Approval of the baseline methodology,The baseline for 40 MW Degirmenustu Hydroelectric Power Plant project is

established by using the UNFCCC official methodology ACM0002, version 11,namely Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricitygeneration from renewable sources.

For the calculation of the grid emission factor, UNFCCC Methodological ToolTool to Calculate Emission Factor of an Electricity System version 01.1 is used.

For the assessment and demonstration of additionality UNFCCC Methodological


7/74


The choice of methodology ACM0002 / Version 11 is justified as the proposedproject activity meets relevant applicability criteria. The applicability criterias

validated through TEIAS web site, project feasibility and the production license.The baseline scenario was applied correctly and the justification for the choice ofthe baseline methodology is found appropriate by the validation team.

Appropriate setting of baseline scenarioThe baseline scenario has been identified as Electricity delivered to the grid by theproject would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected

power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in thecombined margin (CM) calculations described in the Tool to calculate the emissionfactor for an electricity system

The defined baseline scenario is in line with the methodology as the project activity isthe installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant.

As the project activity is not a retrofit or replacement of existing grid-connectedrenewable power plant, the step-wise procedure to identify the baseline given in ACM

0002 version 11 is not used for this project activity.The above setting of the baseline scenario is found appropriate by the validationteam.

Assessment and demonstration of additionalityThe assessment and demonstration of additionality of the project is done by usingUNFCCC Methodological Tool Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of

Additionality, Version 05.2. In applying this tool under Step 1 only realistic alternativedefined as Implementation of a thermal power plant to deliver electricity in order tomeet the electricity demand. The alternative found realistic and applicable by laws.

Investment Analysis has been carried out for the project activity. Benchmark Analysishas been selected to demonstrate investment analysis. The project input values areused from the feasibility of the project activity. The key parameters and theirreferences listed below,

Installed Capacity: Generation Licence dd. 16.05.2006Grid Connected Output: Feasibility Report dd. August 2007Capital Investment: Feasibility Report dd. August 2007Tariff: EPDK http://www.epdk.gov.tr/mevzuat/diger/yenilenebilir/yenilenebilir.doc

Regarding to the in estment anal sis eq it IRR calc lated as % 9 01 The


8/74


According to the TEIAS statistics, share of HEPPs in total installed capacity of Turkeyis about 32.8% whereas share of HEPPs in total generation has been realized as

about 18.6% in 2007.Under common practice analysis it is confirmed through official TEIAS web page that,there exists no similar project and the proposed project is significantly different fromthe existing plants in terms of installed capacity and ownership, therefore the projectis not considered as a common practice for Turkey.

Participation of private sector in the electricity generation from hydropower plants is avery new concept in Turkey. Facing the growing demand for electricity and lackingthe capital to realize hydro investment, the State outsourced the construction of thoseplants through licenses. Also the new capacity from privately owned hydro facilitiesrepresents a small fraction of new facilities added to Turkeys capacity every year.

It is concluded that the electricity generation from HEPP business is not a commonpractice.

3.3Monitoring Plan

Approval of the monitoring methodology:

The consolidated monitoring methodology for grid connected generationfrom renewable sources named as Approved Monitoring MethodologyACM0002 / Version 11 is applied. All the applicability conditions of themonitoring methodology are the same as the application conditions of thebaseline methodology which are given under section 3.2 of this validation

report. The data will be archived electronically and be kept at least for 2years after the end of the last crediting period. All measurements will beconducted with calibrated measurement equipment according to relevantindustry standards.

Correct application and justification of the selected monitoring methodology:

The justification of the choice is explained in section 3.2 of this validation report.The monitoring methodology is applied correctly and appropriately.

Information about monitoring plan is as follows:The monitoring plan includes the monitoring of 3 parameters, the main parameterin the monitoring plan is the quantity of the net electricity, which is delivered tothe grid, and this parameter will be the basis for the emission reductioncalculations. The other parameters are the installed capacity and the maximumlake area


9/74


Anthropogenic emission reduction is a function of the expected net amount ofelectricity produced, for the given project, which amounts 114,26 Gwh per annum.

The annual baseline emissions amount to 62,386 tCO2e. Over the period of tenyears, the total amount of baseline emissions will reach 623,860 tCO2e.

The emission factor calculation has been clearly demonstrated with the emissioncalculation excel sheet. The calculations have been done in line with the Tool tocalculate the emission factor for an electricity system, Version 02. OM is calculatedas 0,654 tco2/MWh and BM is calculated as 0,439 tco2/mwh. The combined marginis the average of the OM and BM so the emission factor used for the emissionreduction calculations is defined as 0,546 tco2/mwh.

The appropriateness of the source, sink and reservoir:

According to ACM0002 / Version 11 if the power density (PD) of the hydropower plant is above 10 W / m2 and project emissions from the reservoir is0. The only emission source defined by the PP is emissions from the dieselgenerator. It will be calculated regarding to Tool to calculate project orleakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion during crediting period.

The correctness and transparency of formulas and factors used,

The formulas and factors used in the calculation of GHG emissions arefound to be transparent and correct by the validation team. The emissionfactors of fuels which are used in the calculations are taken from the IPCCdefault values at the lower limit of uncertainty at a 95% confidence intervalas provided in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol.2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCCGuidelines on National GHG Inventories, as suggested by themethodology.

The assumptions made for estimating GHG emission reductionsThe only assumption is the one about project emissions from the reservoirwhich is assumed to be zero as per the methodology. Other unknownparameters like the emission factors of fuels are taken from the IPCCvalues as mentioned above.

Uncertainties

There are no uncertainties in the calculations.

3.5 Environmental ImpactPre EIA report has been prepared and the EIA is not required certificate hasbeen send to project owner.Under eia impacts on water resources, habitat, hazardous wastes and solid

h b di d D i i i i i i fi d h j i i li


10/74


4 Validation conclusion

Bureau Veritas Certification has made the validation of 40 MW Degirmenustu HydroElectric Power Plant in Kahramanmara Turkey.

The validation was performed on the basis of VCS criteria and host country criteriaand also on the criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoringand reporting.

The validation consisted of the following three phases:

i) Desk review of the project design and the baseline and monitoring plan;

ii) Review of the baseline methodology by the specialist and the validator

iii) Review of the investment analysis by the specialist and the validator

iv) Follow-up interviews and on site visit;

v) Resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final validationreport and opinion

Project participant/s used the latest tool for demonstration of the additionality. In linewith this tool, the PD provides investment analysis to determine that the projectactivity itself is not the baseline scenario.

By generating electricity using renewable energy, the project is likely to result inreductions of GHG emissions partially displacing the electricity that would have beengenerated using fossil fuels. Emission reductions attributable to the project are henceadditional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity. Given thatthe project is implemented and maintained as designed, the project is likely to

achieve the estimated amount of emission reductions. The review of the ProjectDescription (Version 1 dd. 26.07.2010 to Version 4 dd. 03.02.2011), the site visit andthe subsequent follow-up interviews (please see the list of the persons interviewedunder section 5.2 of this report) have provided Bureau Veritas Certification withsufficient evidence to determine the fulfillment of stated criteria. The ProjectDescription was subsequently revised as Version 04 dated 03 February 2011 toresolve the issues that have risen during the interviews and subsequent interactions.

In our opinion, the project correctly applies and meets the relevant VCS requirements

and the relevant host country criteria. The validation is based on the informationmade available to us and the engagement conditions detailed in this report. .

5 REFERENCES5.1. Documents


11/74


3. Investment Analysis IRR Calculation Sheetdd.30.06.2010

dd.09.12.2010dd.07.01.2011

4. System Connection and Usage Agreement 2006

5. Contract for preparing PDD dd.26.11.2006

6. Generation License dd.16.05.2006

7. Environmental Impact Assessment 2006

8. EIA Exemption Letter 25.05.20069. Subcontractor Agreement dd. 10.01.2007

10. Project Feasibility dd. August 2007

11. Guarantee Certificate 31.12.2007

12. Provisional Acceptance dd. 09.04.2009

13. EPDK http://www.epdk.gov.tr/mevzuat/diger/yenilenebilir/yenilenebilir.doc

14. Approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM 0002version 11.

15. UNFCCCs Methodological Tool: Tool for the demonstration and assessmentof additionality, version 05.2

16. UNFCCCs Methodological Tool: Tool to calculate the emission factor for anelectricity system, version 01.1

17. VCS PD Template 19 November 200718. VCS Validation Report Template 19 November 2007

19. Voluntary Carbon Standard 2007.1

5.2. Persons Interviewed

List persons interviewed during the validation and site visit, or persons thatcontributed with other information that are not included in the documents listedabove.

1. Mr. M.Kemal Demirkol, Global Tan Energy

2. Ms. Zeren Erik, Global Tan Energy

3. Mr. Abdullah Evliya Operational Manager of Deirmenst HEPP

4. Mustafa Bebek Head of Emirler Village


12/74


ANNEX I Validators Competence

Internal Technical Reviewer : Ashok Mammen - PhD (Oils & Lubricants)Bureau Veritas Certification - Internal Technical Reviewer

Over 20 years of experience in chemical and petrochemical field. Dr. Mammen is alead auditor for environment, safety and quality management systems. He is also alead verifier and tutor for GHG projects and has been involved in the validation andverification processes of more than 60 CDM/JI/VCS and other GHG projects.

Baseline Specialist : Mrs. Yildiz Arikan -( Assoc. Professor Dr)

Sabanc University, Faculty of Management, Orhanl, Tuzla, 34956, Istanbul, Turkey.

Yldz Arkan is an Electrical engineer and is working at Sabanc University . She hassupported thesis related with energy . Also she has been conducting researchstudies on energy including CO2 Emission Research Studies. Academically, YldizArkan is working also on GHG project since 2005

Investment Analysis Specialist : Murat Gencer

Bureau Veritas Certification Financial Expert.

Murat Gencer, consultant and a trainer, has over 11 years of experience in FMCG,software development and banking sectors. He is specialized in project finance,financial modelling, risk management and MS Excel Applications.

Ms. Bade Cebeci - Environmental EngineerBureau Veritas Certification SAS Lead Verifier

Bade Cebeci has over 10 years experience in environmental sicences and auditing.She is an auditor in EMS&QMS&OHS. She is a verifier for GHG Emission ReductionProjects

Verifier : Ms. Burcu Mutman Environmental EngineerBureau Veritas Certification Senior Technical Specialist

Burcu Mutman is an auditor for environment, safety and quality managementsystems. She is also lead verifier for GHG projects, she has been involved in thevalidation and verification processes of more then 10 projects.


13/74


13

Annex 2 - Validation Protocol

TABLE 1 VALIDATION REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE VOLUNTARY CARBON STANDARD 2007.1

CHECKLIST QUESTION Ref. item COMMENTSDraftConcl

FinalConcl


14/74


14

CHECKLIST QUESTION Ref. item COMMENTSDraft

Concl

Final

Concl1. VCS Program specific issuesa. Have the project(s) created another form of

environmental credit (for example renewableenergy certificates)?

VCS 3.1 No, the project does not create any other form ofenvironmental credit. IT is also stated in section F.2of the PD.

OK OK

b. If yes, have the project participants provided aletter from the program operator that the credithas not been used and has been cancelled from

the relevant programthe?

VCS 3.1 n.a. OK OK

c. Are the VCS PD, monitoring reports, and otherdocuments required under the VCS Program inEnglish?

VCS 3.2 Please provide the translation of EIA ApprovalLetter and the Generation License.

CL1 OK

2. Project level requirements

a. General requirementsa. Have the project proponent applied an approved

VCS Program methodology or a methodologyfrom an approved GHG Program based on thelist of current VCS Program approved GHGPrograms and methodologies as set out onwww.v-c-s.org?

VCS 5.2 The project proponent applied approved CDM

Methodology ACM0002 Version 11 which isapplicable under VCS.

OK OK

b. Is the Project Start Date before 1 January 2002?(If yes, a CAR shall be raised as the Project StartDate for non-AFOLU projects for the VCS 2007.1

shall not be before 1 January 2002)

VCS 5.2.1 No, the project start date is defined as 09/04/2009. OK OK

c. Will this validation be completed within two yearsof the Project Start Date? If not, was thisvalidation contracted before 19 November 2008?(If yes validation shall be completed by 19November 2009 and proof of contracting prior to19 November 2008 shall be provided)

VCS 5.2.1 Regarding to the VCS requirements validation ofthis project shall be completed before 01/05/2011.

OK OK


15/74


15


Concl

Final

Concld. Is the earliest Project Crediting Period Start Dateunder the VCS 2007.1 28 March 2006 for non-

AFOLU projects and 1 January 2002 for AFOLU

projects ?

VCS 5.2.1 The crediting period start date is 01/05/2009 andproject proponent applied VCS 2007.1 rules.

OK OK

e. Does the project reduce GHG emissions fromactivities that are included in an emissionstrading program; or take place in a jurisdiction or

sector in which binding limits are established onGHG emissions?

VCS 5.2.1 No, the project does not reduce GHG emissionsfrom activities that are included in an emissionstrading program; or take place in a jurisdiction or

sector in which binding limits are established onGHG emissions.

OK OK

f. If yes, have the project proponents providedevidence that the reductions or removalsgenerated by the project have or will not be usedin the emissions trading program or for thepurpose of demonstrating compliance with thebinding limits that are in place in that jurisdictionor sector? [Such evidence could include: a letterfrom the program operator or designated nationalauthority that emissions allowances (or otherGHG credits used in the program) equivalent tothe reductions or removals generated by theproject have been cancelled from the program; ornational cap as applicable or; purchase andcancellation of GHG allowances equivalent to theGHG emissions reductions or removals

generated by the project related to the programor national cap]

VCS 5.2.1 n.a. OK OK

g. Have project proponents claimed GHG creditsfrom one project under more than one GHGProgram? (If yes, a CAR shall be raised, asProject proponents shall not claim GHG creditsfrom one project under more than one GHG

VCS 5.2.1 No, project proponents has not claimed GHGcredits from one project under more than one GHGProgram.

OK OK


16/74


16


Concl

Final

ConclProgram)h. Was this project rejected by other GHG

Programs?VCS 5.2.2 No, the project was not rejected by other GHG

Programs and it is stated under section F.3 of thePD.

OK OK

i. If yes, have project proponents: VCS 5.2.2i. clearly stated in its VCS PD all GHG Programs

for which the project has applied for credits and

why the project was rejected? (Suchinformation shall not be deemed commerciallysensitive information


ii. provided the VCS Program validator andverifier, VCS Program project database andVCS Program Registry with the actual rejectiondocument(s) including any additionalexplanations?


j. Is this a renewal of the Project Crediting Period? VCS 5.2.3 No, this is the first validation. OK OKk. If yes have a VCS Program approved validator

determined that the original project baselinescenario(s) and additionality is still valid or hasbeen updated taking account of new data andchanged VCS Program requirements whereapplicable?


b. Standards and factors

d. Do standards and factors used to derive GHGemission data as well as any supporting data foradditionality and baseline scenario(s) meet thefollowing requirements:

VCS 5.5

i. be publicly available from a reputable andrecognised source (e.g. IPCC,publishedGovernment data etc)?

VCS 5.5 Yes, all parameters are publicly available fromgovernmental sources or IPCC.

OK OK


17/74


17


Concl

Final

Conclii. be reviewed as part of its publication by arecognised competent organization?

Yes, reviewed as part of its publication by arecognised competent organization

OK OK

c. Project groupinga. Is this a grouped project? VCS 5.6 No, the project is a single site project. OK OKb. If yes , was this grouped project described in one

VCS PD?VCS 5.6 n.a. OK OK

c. Does this PD include a description of the central

GHG information system and controls associatedwith the project and its monitoring?

VCS 5.6 n.a. OK OK

d. What is the sampling carried out by the VCSverifier?

VCS 5.6 n.a. OK OK

e. Have the sampling of a grouped project takenaccount of any sub groups and associatedactivities within each sub group?

VCS 5.6 n.a. OK OK

f. Do this project, which intends to apply for the

VCS Program VCUs as part of a grouped projectalso comply with the VCS Program requirementsfor grouped projects, detailed in the most recentversion of the Program Guidelines 2007.1 onwww.v-c-s.org?

VCS 5.6 n.a. OK OK

d. Content of the VCS PDa. Is the PDD used as a basis for validation

prepared in accordance with the latest template

and guidance from the VCS?

VCS 5.7 Project proponent used the CDM PDD template dd.28 July 2006 which is the latest version during

submission of the documents for the validation.

OK OK

b. Is there a project title? PDtemp

1.1. The title of the project is 40.0 MWDEGIRMENUSTU Hydroelectric Power Plant.

OK OK

c. Type/Category of the project PDtemp

1.2 The project category is Energy Industry Renewable Sources according to the UNFCCCdefinitions and this is stated in section A.4.2. of thePD.

OK OK


18/74


18


Concl

Final

Concli. Is it defined wether the project category is partof a GHG program that has been approved bythe VCS Board?

PDtemp

1.2 The project category is defined regarding to theUNFCCC.

OK OK

ii. Is it specified if the project is a Groupedproject?

PDtemp

1.2 The project is a single site and it is stated in sectionA.4.2 of the PD.

OK OK

d. Is the amount of emission reductions over thecrediting period estimated, including project size?

(Micro project: Less than 5,000 tonnes CO2equivalent emissions reductions per year; MegaProject: More than 1,000,000 tonnes CO2equivalent emissions reductions per year)

PDtemp

1.3 Yes, the amount of emission reductions during thecrediting period estimated as 623860 tCO2.

Regarding to the estimated emission reductionsproject is neither a micro project nor mega project.This is stated in section A.4.2 of the PD.

OK

e. Is a brief description of the project provided? PDtemp

1.4 Yes, a brief description of the project provided.insection A.2 of the PD. The project is a run-off riverproject which will fed to the national grid.

OK OK

f. Is the project location, including geographic andphysical information allowing the uniqueidentification and delineation of the specificextent of the project, and including GPS projectboundaries, provided?

PDtemp

1.5 Yes, project is in Mediterranean Region,Kahramanmara Province and Sisne and Deirmenst Villages. The coordinates of the weir andpowerhouse is also provided and verified duringsite visit.

OK OK

g. Duration of the project activity/crediting period PDtemp

1.6 The crediting period will be valid for 10 years whichis in line with VCS 2007.1 rules.

OK OK

i. Is the project start date, i.e., the date onwhich the project began reducing orremoving GHG emissions*, provided?

PDtemp

1.6 Yes, project start date is stated as 01/05/2009when the project started to the emission reductions.Please provide the copy final acceptance of the

project.

CL2 OK

ii. Is the crediting period start date, i.e., thedate the first monitoring period commenced,provided? (VCS project crediting period: Amaximum of ten years which may berenewed at most two times)

PDtemp

1.6 Yes, the crediting period start date is stated as01/05/2009.

OK OK

h. Are the conditions prior to project initiation PD 1.7 Please provide information in PD about the project CL3 OK


19/74


19


Concl

Final

Conclprovided? temp area prior to project initiationi. Is a description of how the project will achieve

GHG emission reductions and/or removalenhancements provided?

PDtemp

1.8 Yes, project will achieve GHG emission reductionsby generating electricity from a renewable source.The project is run off river type hydroelectric powerplant.

OK OK

j. Are project technologies, products, services andthe expected level of activity described?

PDtemp

1.9 The technical description of the project activity hasbeen provided in section A.4.3 of the PD.

OK OK

k. Does the VCS PD include identification ofrelevant local laws and regulations related to theproject and demonstration of compliance withthem?

PDtemp 1.10 Yes, PD includes identification of relevant locallaws in section D.2 of the PD. Generation license,EIA Approval has been attached to the PD. Pleaseprovide the water usage right.

CL4 OK

l. Are risks that may substantially affect theprojects GHG emission reductions or removalenhancements idendified?

PDtemp

1.11 No, the risks that may substantially affect theprojects GHG emission reductions or removalenhancements are not identified.

CL5 OK

m. Is confirmation that the project was notimplemented to create GHG emissions primarilyfor the purpose of its subsequent removal ordestruction demonstred?

PDtemp

1.12 In PD section F.1 it is clearly stated that projectdoes not create any GHG emissions primarily. Theproject is a new hydro electrical power plant.

OK OK

n. Has the project created another form ofenvironmental credit (for example renewableenergy certificates)?

PDtemp

1.13 In section F.2 it is clearly stated that project doesnot create other form of environmental credit.

OK OK

o. If yes, has the proponent provided a letter fromthe program operator that the credit has not beenused and has been cancelled from the relevant

program?

PDtemp

1.13 n.a. OK OK

p. Was the project rejected under other GHGprograms (if applicable)

PDtemp

1.14 No, the project did not rejected under other GHGprogrammes and it is stated in section F.3 of thePD.

OK OK

q. If yes, does the project: PDtemp

1.14 n.a. OK OK

i. clearly state in its VCS PD all GHG programs PD 1.14 n.a. OK OK


20/74


20


Concl

Final

Conclfor which the project has applied for credits andwhy the project was rejected? (Suchinformation shall not be deemed commerciallysensitive information)

temp

ii. provide the VCS verifier and Registry with theactual rejection document(s) includingexplanation?

PDtemp

1.14 n.a. OK OK

r. Are project proponents roles and responsibilities,including contact information of the projectproponent, other project participants provided?

PDtemp

1.15 Project participants are defined as DeirmenstEnerji retim Ticaret ve San. A.. and Global TanEnergy Limited. The responsibilities of the projectparticipant defined in section B.7.2 of the PD.

OK OK

s. Is any information relevant for the eligibility of theproject and quantification of emission reductionsor removal enhancements, including legislative,technical, economic, sectoral, social,environmental, geographic, site-specific and

temporal information provided?

PDtemp

1.16 Yes, information for the eligibility of the project andquantification of ER information has been provided.

OK OK

t. Is there any commercially sensitive infromationthat has been excluded from the public version ofthe VCS PD that will be displayed on the VCSProject Database?

PDtemp

1.17 In section F.6 it is stated that there is nocommercially sensitive information.

OK OK

u. If yes, was it listed? PDtemp

1.17 n.a. OK OK

v. Are title and reference of the VCS methodology

applied to the project activity and explanation ofmethodology choices provided?

PD

temp

2.1 In section B.2 selected methodology defined as

ACM0002 Version 11 and the applicability of themethodology has been provided.

OK OK

w. Does the project use one of the VCS programapproved project methodologies and provideinformation relevant to methodology deviations ormethodology revisions?

PDtemp

2.1 The project uses approved CDM MethodologyACM0002 Version 11 which is applicable underVCS 2007.1.

OK OK

x. Are the choice of the methodology and its PD 2.2 Yes, the project generated electricity from a OK OK


21/74


21


Concl

Final

Conclapplicability to the project activity justified? temp renewable source and fed national grid. Themethodology is applicable since project is gridconnected renewable electricity generation project,does not involve switching fossil fuel and the powerdensity is higher than 4w/m2.

y. Are GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs identifiedfor the baseline scenario and for the project?

PDtemp

2.3 Yes, in table 3 of the PD GHG sources has beenidentified for both project and the baseline.

OK OK

z. Is it described how the baseline scenario isidentified and the identified baseline scenario?

PDtemp

2.4 Baseline scenario is identified in line with themethodology ACM0002. In PD section B.4 baselineidentified as Electricity delivered to the grid by theproject would have otherwise been generated bythe operation of grid-connected power plants andby the addition of new generation sources, asreflected in the combined margin (CM) calculationsdescribed in the Tool to calculate the emissionfactor for an electricity system

OK OK

aa. Has the project proponent selected the mostreasonable baseline scenario for the project?

PDtemp

2.4 Yes, baseline is defined as required in themethodology.

OK OK

bb. Does it reflect what most likely would haveoccurred in the absence of the project?

PDtemp

2.4 Yes, it reflects what most likely would haveoccurred in the absence of the project.

OK OK

cc. Is it described how the emissions of GHG bysource in baseline scenario are reduced belowthose that would have occurred in the absence ofthe project activity (assessment and

demonstration of additionality)?

PDtemp

2.5 The assessment and demonstration of theadditionality has been described in section B.5 ofthe PD.

OK OK

dd. Has the project proponent demonstated, in theVCS PD, in addition to describing how the projectmeets the VCS methodology, that the project isadditional based on one of the tests, the projecttest, the performance test, and technology test?

PDtemp

2.5 No, the project proponent demonstrates theadditionality with CDM Methodological ToolAssessment and Demonstration of Additionality.

OK

ee. Are title and reference of the VCS methodology PD 3.1 The CDM approved methodology ACM0002 OK OK


22/74


22


Concl

Final

Concl(which includes the monitoring requirements)applied to the project activity and explanation ofmethodology choices provided?

temp Version 11 has been used for the monitoring. Insection

ff. Is monitoring, including estimation, modelling,measurement or calculation approaches desbrideincluding:

PDtemp

3.2 OK

i. Purpose of monitoring? PDtemp

3.2 Yes, the purpose of the monitoring has beendefined under section B.7.2. It is stated thatMonitoring is a key procedure to verify the real andmeasurable emission reductions from the proposedproject. To guarantee the proposed projects real,measurable and long-term GHG emissionreductions, the monitoring plan is established.

OK OK

ii. Types of data and information to bereported, including units of measurement?

PDtemp

3.2 Electricity generation, Capacity of the project andarea of the reservoir when it is full will be monitoredin each year during the crediting period.

OK OK

iii. Origin of the data? PDtemp

3.2 Source of the datas has been identified in sectionB.7.1 of the PD.

OK OK

iv. Monitoring, including estimation, modelling,measurement or calculation approaches?

PDtemp

3.2 Monitoring approaches of the parameters has beenidentified in data/parameter tables in section B.7.

OK OK

v. Monitoring times and periods, consideringthe needs of intended users?

PDtemp

3.2 Monitoring times has been identified as monthly forElectricity generation and yearly for capacity andarea.

OK OK

vi. Monitoring roles and responsibilities ? PD

temp

3.2 Monitoring roles and responsibilities has been

identified in section B.7.2 of the PD. GTE will beresponsible to prepare the monitoring report andproject manager from Deirmenst Elektrik A..will be responsible to collect the needed datas.

OK OK

vii. Managing data quality? PDtemp

3.2 The main parameter will be the generatedelectricity for the project activity and the datas willbe monitored with official records.

OK OK

VCS 2007 1 V lid ti R t


23/74


23


Concl

Final

Conclgg. Are data and parameters monitored/selectingrelevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs formonitoring or estimating GHG emissions andremovals described in the tabular form including:

PDtemp

3.3 OK

i. Data unit? PDtemp

3.3 Yes, data units are given in section B.7.1 of the PD.(MWh, W, m2)

OK OK

ii. Description? PDtemp

3.3 Description of the parameters given in sectionB.7.1 of the PD.

OK OK

iii. Source of data to be used? PDtemp

3.3 Sources of the datas has been identified as Netelectricity delivered to the grid and project site forCap and full lake area.

OK OK

iv. Value of data applied for the purpose ofcalculating expected emissions reductions?

PDtemp

3.3 EGfacility,y parameter table is not in line withACM0002 Version 11. Please correct.

CAR1 OK

v. Description of measurement methods andprocedures to be applied?

PDtemp

3.3 Refer to car1 CAR1 OK

vi. QA/QC procedures to be applied? PDtemp

3.3 QA/QC procedures has been identified in line withthe methodology.

OK OK

vii. Any comment? PDtemp

3.3 Comment has been given for the Apj. OK OK

hh. Is the monitoring plan described? PDtemp

3.4 Yes, the monitoring plan described in section B.7.2of the PD.

OK OK

ii. Are methodological choices explained? PDtemp

4.1 Yes, methodological choices are explained in thePD.

OK OK

jj. Are GHG emissions and/or removals for the

baseline scenario quantified?

PD

temp

4.2 Since this is the validation, estimated emission

reductions has been quantified.

OK OK

kk. Are GHG emissions and/or removals for theproject quantified?

PDtemp

4.3 The project does not create any ghg emissions. OK OK

ll. Are GHG emission reductions and removalenhancements for the GHG project quantified?

PDtemp

4.4 n.a. OK OK

mm. Was a summary of environmental impact ISO 5.2.k The project has environmental impact assessment CL6 OK

VCS 2007 1 Validation Report


24/74


24


Concl

Final

Conclassessment, when such an assessment isrequired by applicable legislation or regulation,provided? ISO14064-2, 5.2.k

14064-2

is not required certificate. Please provide the pre-EIA.

nn. Were relevant outcomes from stakeholderconsultations and mechanisms for on-goingcommunication provided?

PDtemp

6 No stakeholder consultation was done.Please provide the mechanisms for on goingcommunication with stakeholders.

CL7 OK

oo. Were chronological plan for the date of initiatingproject activities, date of terminating the project,frequency of monitoring and reporting and theproject period, including relevant project activitiesin each step of the GHG project cycle provided?

PDtemp

7 The start date of the project defined as 01/05/2009.The monitoring frequency of the monitoring andreporting of the project did not identified.

CL8 OK

pp. Was evidence of proof of title provided throughone of the following:

PDtemp

8.1 OK

i. a right of use arising or granted understatute, regulation or decree by acompetent authority?

PDtemp

8.1 In Annex 6 of the PD genetation licence has beenprovided for the company Deirmenst Enerjiretim Ticaret ve Sanayi A...

OK OK

ii. a right of use arising under law? PDtemp


OK OK

iii. a right of use arising by virtue of a propertyor contractual right in the plant, equipmentor process that generates GHG emissionreductions and/or removals (where therightincludes the right of use of such

reductions or removals and the projectproponent hasnot been divested of suchright of use)?

PDtemp


OK OK

iv. a right of use arising by virtue of a propertyor contractual right in the land, vegetation orconservational or management process thatgenerates GHG emission reductions and/or

PDtemp


OK OK



25/74


25


Concl

Final

Conclremovals (where such right includes theright of use of such reductions or removalsand the project proponent has not beendivested of such right of use)?

v. an enforceable and irrevocable agreementwith the holder of the property orcontractual right in the plant, equipment orprocess that generates GHG emissionreductions and/or removals which vests theright of use in the project proponent?

In Annex 6 of the PD genetation licence has beenprovided for the company Deirmenst Enerjiretim Ticaret ve Sanayi A...

OK OK

vi. an enforceable and irrevocable agreementwith the holder of the property orcontractual right in the land, vegetation orconservational or management process thatgenerates GHG emission reductions orremovals which vests the right of use in the

project proponent?

In Annex 6 of the PD genetation licence has beenprovided for the company Deirmenst Enerjiretim Ticaret ve Sanayi A...

OK OK

qq. Does the project reduce GHG emissions fromactivities that participate in an emissions tradingprogram, or take place in a jurisdiction or sectorin which binding limits are established on GHGemissions?

PDtemp

8.2 The project does not reduce GHG emissions fromactivities that participate in an emissions tradingprogram, or take place in a jurisdiction or sector inwhich binding limits are established on GHGemissions.

OK OK

rr. If yes, have project proponents providedevidence that the reductions or removals

generated by the project have or will not be usedin the Program or jurisdiction for the purpose ofdemonstrating compliance, such as:

PDtemp

8.2 n.a. OK OK

i. a letter from the Program operator ordesignated national authority that emissionsallowances (or other GHG credits used inthe Program) equivalent to the

PDtemp

8.2 n.a. OK OK



26/74


26


FinalConcl

reductions/removals generated by theproject have been cancelled from theProgram; or national cap as applicable?

ii. purchase and cancellation of GHGallowances equivalent to thereductions/removals generated by theproject related to the Program or nationalcap?

PDtemp

8.2 n.a. OK OK

e. Additionalitya. Has the project proponent demonstrated that the

project is additional using one of the following tests:

Test 1 - The project test; Test 2 Performance test;

Test 3 Technology test?

VCS 5.8 The project proponent used CDM MethodologicalTool Assessment and Demonstration ofAdditionality.

OK OK

b. If the project proponent used Test 1: VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OKi. Step 1 Regulatory Surplus - Is the project

mandated by any systematically enforcedlaw, statute or other regulatory framework?Laws, statutes, regulatory frameworks orpolicies implemented since 11 November2001 that give comparative advantage toless emissions-intensive technologies oractivities relative to more emissions-intensive technologies or activities need notbe taken into account. Laws, statutes,regulatory frameworks or policiesimplemented since 11 December 1997 thatgive comparative advantage to moreemissions-intensive technologies oractivities relative to lessemissions-intensivetechnologies or activities shall not be taken

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK



27/74


27


FinalConcl

into account. (If yes a CAR shall be issuedand the project shall be deemed nonadditional).

ii. Step 2 Implementation Barriers Doesthe project face one (or more) distinctbarrier(s) compared with barriers faced byalternative projects?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

i. Investment Barrier Does theproject face capital or investmentreturn constraints that can beovercome by the additionalrevenues associated with thegeneration of VCUs?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

ii. Technological Barriers Does theproject face technology-relatedbarriers to its implementation?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

iii. Institutional barriers Does theproject face financial,organizational, cultural or socialbarriers that the VCU revenuestream can help overcome?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

iii. Step 3 Common Practice VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OKi. Is project type common practice

in sector/region, compared with

projects that have received nocarbon finance?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

ii. if it is common practice, have theproject proponents identifiedbarriers faced compared withexisting projects?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

iii. Is the demonstration that the VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK



28/74


28


FinalConcl

project is not common practicebased on guidance in the GHGProtocol for Project Accounting,Chapter 7?

1. Was data on all baselinecandidates within thegeographic area collected?

GHGPROTOCOL

7.4.2AND7.6

n.a. OK OK

2. Was a relative percentagefor each differenttechnology or practicecalculated? (Commonpractice refers to thepredominant technologiesor practices in a givenmarket, as determined bythe degree to which those

technologies or practiceshave penetrated themarket (defined by aspecified geographic area).This percentage could bebased on the number ofplantsor sites using eachtechnology or practice, or

could be weighted by theproportion of the totaloutput for the market that isattributed to eachtechnology or practice.)

GHG

PROTOCOL

7.4.2

AND7.6

n.a. OK OK

c. If the project proponent used Test 2: VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OKi. Step 1 Regulatory Surplus - Is the project VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK



29/74

p

29


FinalConcl

mandated by any systematically enforcedlaw, statute or other regulatory framework?Laws, statutes, regulatory frameworks orpolicies implemented since 11 November2001 that give comparative advantage toless emissions-intensive technologies oractivities relative to more emissions-intensive technologies or activities need not

be taken into account. Laws, statutes,regulatory frameworks or policiesimplemented since 11 December 1997 thatgive comparative advantage to moreemissions-intensive technologies oractivities relative to lessemissions-intensivetechnologies or activities shall not be takeninto account. (If yes a CAR shall be issued

and the project shall be deemed nonadditional).ii. Step 2: Performance Standard VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

i. Are the emissions generated perunit output by the project belowthe level that has been approvedby the VCS Program for theproduct, service, sector or

industry, as the level defined toensure that the project is notbusiness-as-usual?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

ii. Are performance standard basedadditionality tests approvedthrough the double approvalprocess and by the VCS Board?

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK



30/74

30


FinalConcl

(The list of approvedperformance standards is onwww.v-c-s.org)

d. If the project proponent used Test 3: VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OKi. Step 1 Regulatory Surplus - Is the project

mandated by any systematically enforcedlaw, statute or other regulatory framework?Laws, statutes, regulatory frameworks orpolicies implemented since 11 November2001 that give comparative advantage toless emissions-intensive technologies oractivities relative to more emissions-intensive technologies or activities need notbe taken into account. Laws, statutes,regulatory frameworks or policiesimplemented since 11 December 1997 that

give comparative advantage to moreemissions-intensive technologies oractivities relative to lessemissions-intensivetechnologies or activities shall not be takeninto account. (If yes a CAR shall be issuedand the project shall be deemed nonadditional).

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

ii. Step 2: Technology Additionality Are the

project and its location contained in the listof project types and applicable areasapproved as being additional by the VCSProgram? (The approved list is available onwww.v-c-s.org)

VCS 5.8 n.a. OK OK

f. Identifying GHG sources, sinks and



31/74

31


FinalConcl

reservoirs relevant to the projecta. Refer to Clause 6, under Methodologies. VCS 5.9 Refer to Clause 6, under Methodologies. - -

g. Determining the baseline scenarioa. Has the project proponent selected the most

conservative baseline scenario for the project,based on the requirements in the applicable VCSmethodology?

VCS 5.10 The project proponent has used ACM0002Methodology.According to ACM0002 for greenfield renewablepower plants the only applicable baseline scenario

is as follows:Electricity delivered to the grid by the projectactivity would have otherwise been generated bythe operation of grid-connected power plants andby the addition of new generation sources, asreflected in the combined margin (CM) calculationsdescribed in the Tool to calculate the emissionfactor for an electricity system. This is stated in

section B.4 of the PD.

OK OK

b. Does the baseline scenario set out thegeographic scope as applicable to the project?

VCS 5.10 The baseline scenario is determined according tothe methodology ACM0002 therefore the checklistquestion is N/A.

OK OK

c. Has the project proponent selected orestablished criteria and procedures for identifyingand assessing potential baseline scenariosconsidering the following:

ISO14064-2

5.4 The baseline scenario is determined according tothe methodology ACM0002 therefore the checklistquestion is N/A.

OK OK

i. The project description, including identifiedGHG sources, sinks and reservoirs;

ISO14064.2


OK OK

ii. Existing and alternative project types,activities and technologies providingequivalent type and level ofactivity ofproducts or services to the project;

ISO14064-2


OK OK



32/74

32


FinalConcl

iii. Data availability, reliability and limitations; ISO14064-2


OK OK

iv. Other relevant information concerningpresent or future conditions, such aslegislative, technical,economic,sociocultural, environmental,geographic, site-specific and temporal

assumptions or projections.

ISO14064-2


OK OK

d. Has the project proponent demonstratedequivalence in type and level of activity ofproducts or services provided between theproject and the baseline scenario and hasexplained, as appropriate, any significantdifferences between the project and the baselinescenario ?

ISO14064.2


OK OK

e. Has the project proponent selected orestablished, explained and applied criteria andprocedures for identifying and justifying thebaseline scenario?

ISO14064.2


OK OK

f. In developing the baseline scenario, has theproject proponent selected the assumptions,values and procedures that help ensure thatGHG emissions reductions or removal

enhancements are not over-estimated?

ISO14064.2


OK OK

g. Has the project proponent selected orestablished, justified and applied criteria andprocedures for demonstrating that the projectresults in GHG emissions reductions or removalenhancements that are additional to what wouldoccur in the baseline scenario?

ISO14064.2


OK OK



33/74

33


FinalConcl

h. Has the project participant demonstrated that theproject has met all relevant regulations,legislation and project approvals (e.g.environmental permits)?

VCS 5.10 The baseline scenario is determined according tothe methodology ACM0002 therefore the checklistquestion is N/A.

OK OK

h. Monitoring the GHG projecta. Has the project proponent shall established and

maintained criteria and procedures for obtaining,

recording, compiling and analysing data andinformation important for quantifying andreporting GHG emissions and/or removalsrelevant for the project and baseline scenario (i.e.GHG information system)?

VCS 5.11 The project proponent has established criteria andprocedures for obtaining, recording, compiling and

analysing data and information important forquantifying and reporting GHG emission reductionsrelevant for the project and baseline scenario in linewith the ACM 002 version 11.

OK OK

b. Do the monitoring procedures include? VCS 5.11i. purpose of monitoring? VCS 5.11 Yes, the purpose of the monitoring has been

identified in section B.7 of the PD as Monitoring is akey procedure to verify the real and measurableemission reductions from the proposed project. Toguarantee the proposed projects real, measurableand long-term GHG emission reductions, themonitoring plan is established.

OK OK

ii. types of data and information to bereported, including units of measurement?

VCS 5.11 Please refer to question gg OK

e. origin of the data? VCS 5.11 Please refer to question gg OK

f. monitoring methodologies, includingestimation, modelling, measurement orcalculation approaches?


g. monitoring times and periods, considering VCS 5.11 Please refer to question gg OK



34/74

34


FinalConcl

the needs of intended users?

h. monitoring roles and responsibilities? VCS 5.11 Please refer to question gg OK

i. GHG information management systems,including the location and retention ofstored data?


c. Where measurement and monitoring equipmentis used, does the project proponent ensure theequipment is calibrated according to current goodpractice?

VCS 5.11 For the electiricity generation the measurement willbe done through metering devices which are underTEIAS control. Regarding to the national standardsthe calibration will be done once in 10 years and itis under TEIAS responsibility.

OK OK

d. Does the project proponent apply GHGmonitoring criteria and procedures on a regular

basis during project implementation?

VCS 5.11 The project is under validation stage therefore thequestion is n.a.

OK OK

i. Monitoring reports for the GHG projecta. Do monitoring reports include all the monitoring

data, calculations, estimations, conversionfactors and others standard factors as defined inthe monitoring clause of the applied VCSProgram methodology and set out in the VCSPD? (A list of VCS approved methodologies is

available on www.v-c-s.org)

VCS 5.12 The project is at validation stage therefore thechecklist question is N/A.

OK OK

j. Records relating to the projecta. Has the project proponent kept all documents

and records in a secure and retrievable mannerfor at least two years after the end of the projectcrediting period.?

VCS 5.13 The project is at validation stage therefore thechecklist question is N/A.

OK



35/74

35


FinalConcl

k. Information to validator and verifiera. Has the project proponent made available to the

validator the VCS PD, proof of title and anyrequested supporting information and dataneeded to evidence statements and data in theVCS PD and proof of title?

VCS 5.14 The Generation License was sent to the validationteam as a proof of title.

OK OK

b. Has the project proponent made the VCS PD and

validation report available to the verifiers as wellas a monitoring report applicable to the period ofmonitoring and any requested supportinginformation and data needed to evidencestatements and data in the monitoring report?

VCS 5.14 The project is at validation stage therefore the

checklist question is N/A.

OK OK

* Definition of Project Start Date differ between VCS PD template and VCS 2007.1. This protocol applies the VCS 2007.1 definition.



36/74

36

Table 2 Validation requirements based on the Validation and Verification Manual V 01.2 (EB55 Annex 1) and methodology ACM0002

version 11 - Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources

CHECKLIST QUESTION Ref. commentsDraft

Concl

Final

Concl1. Approval COUNTRY A

(Country A)

COUNTRY B

(Country B)

1.1. Has the DNA of each Party indicated as being involvedin the proposed CDM project activity in section A.3 of thePDD provided a written letter of approval? State the

country.

VVM 45 The project is avoluntary project inTurkey. The question

is n.a.

The project is avoluntary project inTurkey. The

question is n.a.

OK OK

1.2. Does the letter of approval from DNA of each Partyconfirm that :

The Party is a Party of the Kyoto Protocol

The participation is voluntary

In the case of the host Party, the proposed CDM projectactivity contributes to the sustainable development of the

country Refers to the precise proposed CDM project activity title in

the PDD being submitted for registration

VVM 45 n.a. n.a.

OK OK

1.3. Is(are) the letter(s) of approval unconditional withrespect to (1.2) above?

VVM 46 n.a. n.a. OK OK

1.4. Has(ve) the letter(s) of approval been issued by therespective Partys designated national authority (DNA)?If there is doubt with respect to (1.2) above, was verified

with the DNA that the letter of approval is valid for theproposed CDM project activity under validation?

VVM 47 n.a. n.a.

OK OK

2. Participation

2.1. Have all project participants been listed in a consistentmanner in the project documentation?

VVM 51 Yes, the projectparticipants been

Yes, the projectparticipants been OK OK



37/74

37


Concl

Final

Concllisted in section A.3of the PDD.Deirmenst Enerjiretim Ticaret veSanayi A.S. andGlobal Tan EnergyLimited are listed as

project participant.

listed in section A.3of the PDD.DeirmenstEnerji retimTicaret ve SanayiA.S. and GlobalTan Energy Limited

are listed as projectparticipant.2.2. Is the information in tabular form of section A.3

consistent with the contact details provided in Annex 1 ofthe PDD?

VVM 52 Yes, the informationis consistent withAnnex1. HoweverAnnex-1 tables arenot in line with thelatest PDD template.

Yes, theinformation isconsistent withAnnex1. Howevertables in Annex-1are not in line withthe latest PDDtemplate.

CL9

OK

2.3. Has the participation of each of the project participantsbeen approved by at least one Party involved, either in aletter of approval or in a separate letter specifically toapprove participation?

VVM 52 n.a. n.a.

OK

OK

2.4. Are any entities other than those approved as projectparticipants included in these sections of the PDD?

VVM 52 No, there are no other entities other thanthose approved as project participants. OK OK

2.5. Has the approval of participation issued from the relevant

DNA?VVM 53 Turkey does not

have DNA. Thequestion is n.a.

Turkey does not

have DNA. Thequestion is n.a.

OK

OK

3. Project design document

3.1. Is the PDD used as a basis for validation prepared inaccordance with the latest template and guidance from

VVM 55 Yes, the latest version of the PDD hasbeen used which is acceptable for VCS

OK OK



38/74

38


Concl

Final

Conclthe CDM Executive Board available on the UNFCCCCDM website?

projects.

3.2. Is the PDD in accordance with the applicable CDMrequirements for completing the PDD?

VVM 56 Yes, the PDD is in accordance with theguideline. Also VCS requirements havebeen added to the PDD template insection F.

OK OK

3.3. In CDM-PDD section A.1

-Title of project-Current version number and date of document

EB 41 Ann

12

The title of the project is 40.0 MW

Deirmenst Hydroelectric Power Plant.Version number is 01 and it is dd.26/07/2010

OK OK

3.4. In CDM-PDD section A.2, are following provided? EB 41 Ann12

3.4.1. A brief description of the project activity coveringpurpose which includes the scenario existing prior tothe start of project, project scenario and baseline

scenario

EB 41

-

VVM

Ann

12

-

5859

60

The description of the project activity and2008 conditions of the national grid hasbeen provided in terms of prior conditions

to the start of the project. Please alsodescribe the baseline scenario.CL10 OK

3.4.2. Does the proposed CDM project activity involve thealteration of an existing installation or process?

VVM 63 No, the project is a new installation. OKOK

3.4.3. Explanation on how the GHG emission reductionseffected.

EB 41 Ann

12

In section A.2 it is stated that project willprovide emission reduction by generatingelectricity for the national grid which is

mainly fed by the fossil fuels.

OK

OK

3.4.4. The PPs views on the contribution of project activity tosustainable development

EB 41 Ann

12

PPs views on the contribution ofsustainable development has beenprovided in section A.2 of the PD. Themain issue is the job opportunities in forthe local people.

OK

OK



39/74

39


Concl

Final

Concl3.5. In CDM-PDD section A.3, are following provided in thetabular format?

- List of project participants and parties- Identification of Host Party- Indication whether the Party wishes to be considered as

project participant

EB 41

VVM

Ann

12

51,52

Yes, in section A.3 list of the projectparticipants has been provided in thetabular format. Global Tan Energy andDeirmenst Elektrik A.S are listed asproject participants. Turkey defined as hostparty and since Turkey does not have yeta quantitative emission reduction limit and

it is likely that it will not have a quantitativeemission reduction limit until post 2012 it isstated Turkey does not wishes to beconsidered as PP.

OK

OK

3.6. In CDM-PDD section A.4.1, are following provided? EB 41 Ann12

3.6.1. Physical description, location, host party(ies) andaddress as required

EB 41 Ann

12

Yes, in section A.4.1 the address of theproject has been provided and it is verified

during site visit by the validation team.

OKOK

3.6.2. Detailed physical location with unique identification ofthe project activity (e.g. Longitude/latitude)

EB 41 Ann

12

Yes, the project is in MediterraneanRegion, Kahramanmara Province, Sisneand Deirmenst Villages. The UTMcoordinated of the weir and powerhousehas been given in section A.4.1.4

OK

OK

3.7. In CDM-PDD section A.4.2, is the list of categories ofproject activities provided?

EB 41 Ann

12

The project is generating electricity from arenewable source and according to theUNFCCC definition it falls scope 1 EnergyIndustries Renewable Sources.

OK

OK

3.8. In CDM-PDD section A.4.3, are following provided? EB 41 Ann12

3.8.1. A description of how environmentally safe and soundtechnology, and know-how, is transferred to the Host

EB 41 Ann

12

The technology transfer did not stated insustainable development criterias so it CL6



40/74

40


Concl

Final

ConclParty(ies) not the requirement for the project.The project has EIA is not requiredcertificate form the government. PP willprovide pre-EIA report. (please refer toCL6 above)

3.8.2. Further explanation of purpose of project activity withscenario existing prior to the start of project, scope or

present activities and the baseline scenario

EB 41 Ann

12

The further explanation about purpose ofproject activity with scenario existing prior

to the start of project, scope or presentactivities and the baseline scenario

CL11

OK

3.8.3. List and arrangement of the mainmanufacturing/production technologies, systems andequipments involved

EB 41 Ann

12

The list of the equipments provided insection A.4.3. For the metering devices itis stated that they will be decided laterhowever the project is retroactive and itwas installed during site visit. Pleasecorrect.Please provide the feasibility of theproject.

CAR2

OK

3.8.4. The emissions sources and GHGs involved EB 41 Ann12

The project is renewable energy projectand according to the methodology theproject does not involve any emissionsources. Also the power densitycalculation is above 10w/m2.

OK

OK

3.9. In CDM-PDD section A.4.4, is the estimation of emission

reductions provided as requested in a tabular format?

EB 41 Ann

12

Yes, emission reductions provided as

requested in a tabular format in sectionA.4.4 OK

OK

3.10. In CDM-PDD section A.4.5, is information regardingpublic funding provided?

EB 41 Ann

12

Yes, it is stated that project did not usedpublic funding for the project activities. OK

OK

3.11. In CDM-PDD section (Baseline identification) EB 41 Ann12



41/74

41


Concl

Final

Concl3.11.1. The approved methodology and version number EB 41

VVM

Ann

12

69

Yes, approved CDM MethodologyACM0002 Version 11 has been used forthe project activity which is applicableunder VCS 2007.1

OK OK

3.11.2. Are the following applicability conditions of themethodology ACM0002 met?

VVM 70

3.11.2.1. This methodology is applicable to grid-

connected renewable power generation projectactivities that (a) install a new power plant at a sitewhere no renewable power plant was operated priorto the implementation of the project activity (greenfieldplants); (b) involve a capacity addition; (c) involve aretrofit of (an) existing plant(s); or (d) involve areplacement of (an) existing plant(s).

ACM 0002 The project is grid connected renewable

power generation project with installationof new power plant.

OK

OK

3.11.2.2. The project activity is the installation, capacity

addition, retrofit or replacement of a power plant/unitof one of the following types: hydro power plant/unit(either with a run-of-river reservoir or an accumulationreservoir), wind power plant/unit, geothermal powerplant/unit, solar power plant/unit, wave powerplant/unit or tidal power plant/unit

ACM 0002 The project is the installation of a hydro

power plant with a run of river reservoir.

OK

OK

3.11.2.3. In the case of capacity additions, retrofits orreplacements (except for wind, solar, wave or tidal

power capacity addition projects which use Option 2:on page 10 to calculate the parameter EGPJ,y): theexisting plant started commercial operation prior tothe start of a minimum historical reference period offive years, used for the calculation of baselineemissions and defined in the baseline emissionsection, and no capacity expansion or retrofit of the

n.a.

OK

OK



42/74

42


Concl

Final

Conclplant has been undertaken between the start of thisminimum historical reference period and theimplementation of the project activity.

3.11.2.4. In case of hydro power plants, one of thefollowing conditions must apply:

The project activity is implemented in an existing

reservoir, with no change in the volume of reservoir; or

The project activity is implemented in an existingreservoir, where the volume of reservoir is increased and

the power density of the project activity, as per definitions

given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4

W/m2; or

The project activity results in new reservoirs and thepower density of the power plant, as per definitions given

in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4 W/m2

.

ACM 0001 The project activity results in newreservoirs and the power densitycalculated as 10,389w/m2. Please providethe feasibility. (Please refer to CAR2)

CAR2 OK

3.11.2.5. The methodology is not applicable to thefollowing conditions. Please confirm

Project activities that involve switching from fossil fuels torenewable energy sources at the site of the project activity

Biomass fired power plants; Hydro power plants that result in new reservoirs or in the

increase in existing reservoirs where the power density of

the power plant is less than 4 W/m2.

ACM 0002 The project is not switching from fossilfuels to renewable energy source,biomass fired power plants and the powerdensity is calculated as 10,389 w/m2.

OK

OK

3.12. Does the PDD correctly describe the project boundary,including the physical delineation of the proposed CDMproject activity included within the project boundary forthe purpose of calculating project and baselineemissions for the proposed CDM project activity?

VVM 77

78

In PD section B.3 the following criteriashas been identified, please clarify.Since there exists no delineation of projectelectricity system or connected electricitysystems by DNA, following criteria has

CL12

OK



43/74

43


Concl

Final

Conclbeen used to determine the existence ofsignificant transmission constraints: Incase of electricity systems with spotmarkets for electricity: there aredifferences in electricity prices (withouttransmission and distribution costs) ofmore than 5 percent between the systemsduring 60 percent or more of the hours ofthe year. The transmission line is operatedat 90% or more of its rated capacity during90% percent or more of the hours of theyear.The delineation of the project activity is notprovided in the PD. Please include..

3.13. In CDM-PDD section B.3, are following provided?(a) Description of all sources and gases included in theproject boundary in the table(b) A flow diagram of the project boundary physicallydelineating the project activity with all equipments,systems and flows of mass and energy etc

VVM

EB 41

79

Ann

12

Yes, all sources and gasses included inthe table.The delineation of the project activity is notprovided in section B.3 of the PD. (Pleaserefer to CL12)

CL12

OK

3.14. Is an explanation how the most plausible baselinescenario is identified in accordance with the selectedbaseline methodology is provided in CDM-PDD sectionB.4?

EB 41 Ann

12

The baseline scenario is identified in linewith the selected approved methodology.In section B.4 of the PD it is stated that;The baseline scenario has been identified

as Electricity delivered to the grid by theproject would have otherwise beengenerated by the operation of gridconnected power plants and by theaddition of new generation sources, asreflected in the combined margin (CM)

OK

OK



44/74

44


Concl

Final

Conclcalculations described in the Tool tocalculate the emission factor for anelectricity system.

3.14.1. If the project activity is the install a new grid-connectedrenewable power plant/unit (greenfield plant), is thebaseline scenario identified appropriately in accordancewith the ACM0002 Ver.11?

ACM 0002 Yes, the project is the installation of a newgrid connected renewable power plant andthe baseline identified in accordance withACM0002 version 11.

OK

OK

3.14.2. If the project activity is a capacity addition to existinggrid-connected renewable power plant/unit, is thebaseline scenario identified appropriately in accordancewith the ACM0002 Ver.10 and the point of time at whichthe generation facility would likely be replaced orretrofitted (DATE Baseline Retrofit) defined reasonably?

ACM 0002 n.a.

OK

OK

3.14.3. If the project activity is the retrofit or replacement ofexisting grid-connected renewable power plant/unit, isthe baseline scenario identified following step-wiseprocedure in accordance with the ACM0002 Ver.10?

ACM 0002 n.a.

OK

OK

3.14.3.1. Are the realistic and credible alternativebaseline scenarios for power generation appropriatelyidentified following the Step 1 of the Combined tool toidentify the baseline scenario and demonstrateadditionality? (Step 1)

ACM 0002 The project is a new installation renewableenergy plant thats why step wiseprocedure did not used to identify thebaseline scenario. Therefore the questionis n.a.

OK

OK

3.14.3.2. Are the realistic and credible alternativebaseline scenarios i.e. P1, P2 and P3 appropriately

applied Barrier analysis following the Step 2 of theCombined tool to identify the baseline scenario anddemonstrate additionality? (Step 2)

ACM 0002 The project is a new installation renewableenergy plant thats why step wise

procedure did not used to identify thebaseline scenario. Therefore the questionis n.a.

OK

OK

3.14.3.3. If more than one alternative is remaining afterStep 2, is Investment analysisappropriately applied(apply an Investment Comparison as per step 3 of the

ACM 0002 The project is a new installation renewableenergy plant thats why step wiseprocedure did not used to identify the

OKOK



45/74

45


Concl

Final

ConclCombined tool to identify the baseline scenario anddemonstrate additionality or a Benchmark Analysisas per step 2b of the Tool for the demonstration andassessment of additionality)? (Step 3)

baseline scenario. Therefore the questionis n.a.

3.15. Does the PDD identify the baseline for the proposedCDM project activity, defined as the scenario thatreasonably represents the anthropogenic emissions bysources of GHGs that would occur in the absence of theproposed CDM project activity?

VVM 80 The project is a new installation renewableenergy plant thats why step wiseprocedure did not used to identify thebaseline scenario. Therefore the questionis n.a.

OK

OK

3.16. Has any procedure contained in the methodology toidentify the most reasonable baseline scenario, beencorrectly applied?


OK

OK

3.17. Does the selected methodology require use of tools(such as the Tool for the demonstration and assessmentof additionality and the Combined tool to identify thebaseline scenario and demonstrate additionality) toestablish the baseline scenario?


OK

OK

3.18. Does the methodology require several alternativescenarios to be considered in th