Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Module 4.1 Project Cycle Assessment of new procedures for registration and issuance. Suggestions for improvement

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Module 4.1 Project Cycle Assessment of new procedures for registration and issuance. Suggestions for improvement"— Presentation transcript:

1 Module 4.1 Project Cycle Assessment of new procedures for registration and issuance. Suggestions for improvement Susanne.Haefeli-Hestvik@Tricorona.se

2 -Link to accreditation: Good but judge DOEs on real issues i.e. better quality control please -Timelines: Above 15 days and workload is increasing -Timelines of adjacent processes are high: approval of requests for deviation, monitoring plan change and design change notifications (let alone new methodology submissions) -Scheduled reviews are re-scheduled 2 Form 201120122010 LowHighEst-11LowHighEst-12 Registration1700220020007001000800<900 Issuance2200270024003800550048001200 Source: Workshop PDF-DIA February 2011 and further discussions with some DOEs and PPs

3 -Schedule assessment of answers to reviews from the start -Reduce time to answer reviews by DOEs/PPs to 2 weeks -Publish arguments made by the Secretariat and RIT -Reduce the RIT and Sec assessment from 2 to 1 week and the EBs timeline to object from 3 to 1. -Chance for 30 minutes conference call with DOE within 48 hours both ways to clarify issues -Possibility to fix things quickly while still preserving the mechanisms environmental integrity and transparency. -Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request for issuance procedure. 3 Form: My Wishlist

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 -Schedule assessment of answers to reviews from the start -Reduce time to answer reviews by DOEs/PPs to 2 weeks -Publish arguments made by the Secretariat and RIT -Reduce the RIT and Sec assessment from 2 to 1 week and the EBs timeline to object from 3 to 1. -Chance for 30 minutes conference call with DOE within 48 hours both ways to clarify issues -Possibility to fix things quickly while still preserving the mechanisms environmental integrity and transparency. -Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request for issuance procedure. 8 Form: My Wishlist Possible? Attention: Wild thinking!! -Have publication and CC/IRC in parallel? -Could we eventually move to registration date freely choseable?

9 467.79 instead of 467.81 MW: 0.004%! Generation has been 15% higher last year than the previous 3 years. Excel file: explain the calculation of some values 9 Content -Better quality control: stay within the rules/criteria -Allow for common sense and drop non-significant issues My point is: The DOE explained it was a typo example of blindly insisting on procedures Generation has been much higher only for one year, not PERMANENT example of need for better quality control Excel file example of scope for a quick call with the DOE. Link to accreditation: This review should not count towards the DOEs performance assessment

10 -Schedule assessment of answers to reviews from the start -Reduce time to answer reviews by DOEs/PPs to 2 weeks -Publish arguments made by the Secretariat and RIT -Reduce the RIT and Sec assessment from 2 to 1 week and the EBs timeline to object from 3 to 1. -Chance for 30 minutes conference call with DOE within 48 hours both ways to clarify issues -Possibility to fix things quickly while still preserving the mechanisms environmental integrity and transparency. -Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request for issuance procedure. 10 Discussion openers: Attention: Wild thinking!! -Have publication and CC/IRC in parallel? -Could we eventually move to registration date freely choseable? -Plus: workshop on step 2 of additionality tool and digitization


Download ppt "Module 4.1 Project Cycle Assessment of new procedures for registration and issuance. Suggestions for improvement"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google