1 / 9

DOEs perspective: DOE Liability in context of PoA

DOEs perspective: DOE Liability in context of PoA. Workshop on Programme of Activities under CDM, Bonn, 7-8 May 2011. The Context. I would run away pretty fast if I were you…. I am working in CDM as a DOE, validating PoAs …. it is very interesting.

niabi
Download Presentation

DOEs perspective: DOE Liability in context of PoA

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. DOEs perspective: DOE Liability in context of PoA Workshop on Programme of Activities under CDM, Bonn, 7-8 May 2011

  2. The Context I would run away pretty fast if I were you…. I am working in CDM as a DOE, validating PoAs …. it is very interesting I heard it is a lot of uncertainties about liability ? Yes, it is one of the challenges, the liability is unlimited…..

  3. There is a need to create incentives for DOEs • Even after the most recent revisions of the underlying procedure, DOEs being engaged for the inclusion of CPAs still face the unquantifiable liability risk for erroneous inclusion • DOE Liability is still dependent on checking eligibility criteria (which is not clearly defined) • The liability risk is disproportional to the revenue that DOEs can obtain with PoA work • The existing guidance is still unclear at specific aspects • In summary, the recent set-up does not deliver any incentive for DOEs spending much efforts in extending their staff or their staff’s skills in order to be enabled in offering more validation and verificationservices to PoAs. UNLIMITED LIABILITY - WHAT TYPE OF BUSINESS WOULD LIVE WITH SUCH CONDITIONS ?

  4. How is DNV handling the DOE liability related to PoAs? • We only accept PoAs where inclusion criteria for CPAs will be strictly defined, DNV specific, and leave in our opinion no room for ambiguity and erroneous inclusions. • We limit the number CPA included to a manageable amount of CERs • We will refrain from validating a PoA in the event that the criteria defining the inclusion of CPAs as proposed by the coordinating/managing entity are not to our satisfaction. • For the CPAs to be included, DNV will perform site visits for all CPAs and not only a sample thereof until clear sampling standard are made available by the CDM EB THE CURRENT SET-UP HINDER GROWTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF POAs

  5. What do we want to achieve? • Avoiding erroneous inclusion of a CPAs • There is established a simplified system for POAs compared to CDM large/small scale by direct inclusion without check of each CPA by the CDM Secretariat/EB • However NO CHECK - resulted in giving unlimited liability to DOEs THERE IS A NEED TO BALANCE THE LEVEL OF CHECK AND THE SIZE OF LIABILITY

  6. Solutions to remove barriers (1) • Liability risk has to be reduced to a level that DOEs can manage • Introduce a cap on liability in terms of size of liability and the time period after inclusion of a CPA • Introduce of penalty clauses similar to other PoA type of Certification programmes (i.e. in the event that DOE identifies system failure within a sample will lead to no validation /verification for the whole group to be included in PoA or whole PoA) • Recognise the concept that the managing entity is taking some responsibility of the DOEs and as such also some of the liability needs to be transferred. • CDM EB / MOP to introduce transfer of liability to PP with introduction that DOE need to validate & verify PPs liability insurance or the introduction of a insurance buffer at x% of PoA CER volume • If assessments of samples are accepted for CPA inclusion or verification, the acting DOE has to be released of any responsibility for issues occurring outside the scrutinized samples

  7. Solutions to remove barriers (2) • Revision of review procedure EB 55 Annex 37 should be considered • At present review can be requested 1 year after the inclusion or within 6 month after the first issuance of CERs • Propose to limit the period for request for review to 6 months after inclusion • During this period: • Secretariat could do sampling to check for erroneous inclusion • No issuance should be allowed during this time period for request for review • Review should not be allowed after issuance of CERs • DOEs liability to be limited to significant deficiencies only, i.e. fraud, malfeasance or gross negligence • Para 10 – Another DOE is requested to assess if the inclusion was erroneous and the DOE that accepted the inclusion will be held liable • The challenge is availability of DOEs – the work load for DOEs is now high and it will be difficult to provide a qualfiied team within the time indicated in the procedure IMPLEMENTING THESE PROPOSED CHANGES COULD BE A WAY FORWARD

  8. THANK YOU !

  9. Safeguarding life, property and the environment www.dnv.com

More Related