1 / 7

DOE/AIE Forum | Werner Betzenbichler | Bonn , May 2011

DOE/AIE Forum | Werner Betzenbichler | Bonn , May 2011. “Workshop on PoA : Challenges and Road Ahead” Session 2: Challenges in implementation of PoA policy and procedures - Experiences and challenges from the perspectives of a DOE. Topics. Existing Barriers Consequences

ajaxe
Download Presentation

DOE/AIE Forum | Werner Betzenbichler | Bonn , May 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DOE/AIE Forum | Werner Betzenbichler | Bonn, May2011 “Workshop on PoA: Challenges and Road Ahead”Session 2: Challenges in implementation of PoA policy and procedures- Experiences and challenges from the perspectives of a DOE

  2. Topics • Existing Barriers • Consequences • Focus of DOE assessments

  3. Existing Barriers (for DOEs) • Ambiguous guidance on additionality assessment (EB-60 was helpful) • VVM gives some “liberty”: However there are a number of requirements unique to PoAs for which additional instructions are provided below (2 paragraphs), the precise extent of validation required in each of these areas will need to be determined by the DOE based on the type or PoA being validated.  bad experience (once bitten, twice shy) • Limited DOE competition due to varying interpretation of required minimum efforts • Incalculable risks due to erroneous inclusion issue lead to full assessment of all CPAs and to increased transaction cost • Longwinded, costly and questionable procedure for reviewing erroneous inclusion • Who should detect and report such cases?

  4. Consequences by these barriers • Few incentives to give momentum to further business development • Small amount of trained resources lowers speed in gaining experiences • Extra discussions on liability when closing contracts • Time-demand in validations • Incalculable risks prioritize an “observer status”, awaiting further clarity • No real cost reduction for project participants as originally intended

  5. Focus of DOE assessments / where it is • Validation • Additionality of the first CPA • Monitoring especially sampling • Standard CDM requirements • Forwarding issues to inclusion • Inclusion: • Minimizing risk of erroneous inclusion by complete checks • Verification: • No reported experiences

  6. Focus of DOE assessments / where it should be • the correct choice and application of the methodology • the appropriateness and completeness of eligibility criteria • the system and internal checks for CPA inclusion, its implementation and its effectiveness; • the system for monitoring of the required parameter, its implementation and its effectiveness; • the appropriate implementation of the PoA with regard to technological aspects; • the system for internal verification, its implementation and its effectiveness; • a confirmation of the amount of CERs that can be certified at a reasonable level of assurance taking into account the fact that the result is based on the assessment of samples

  7. Werner BetzenbichlerChair of the DOE/AIE Forumon behalf of TÜV NORDDesignated Operational Entities and Independent Entities Association ▪ Werner.Betzenbichler@bece-experts.com

More Related