Form

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

2. Form • 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 Source: Workshop PDF-DIA February 2011 and further discussions with some DOEs and PPs

3. Form: My Wishlist  • 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 EB’s 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 mechanism’s environmental integrity and transparency. • Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request for issuance procedure.

8. Form: My Wishlist  • 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 EB’s 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 mechanism’s environmental integrity and transparency. • Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request for issuance procedure. Possible? • Attention: Wild thinking!! • Have publication and CC/IRC in parallel? • Could we eventually move to registration date freely choseable?

9. Content • Better quality control: stay within the rules/criteria • Allow for common sense and drop non-significant issues • 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 • 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 DOE’s performance assessment

10. Discussion openers: • 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 EB’s 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 mechanism’s environmental integrity and transparency. • Consolidation of deviation, design change and monitoring plan change procedures into request for issuance procedure. • 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