durgun hydropower project in mongolia

VERIFICATION REPORT

THE 2ND VERIFICATION

OF

DURGUN HYDROPOWER

PROJECT IN MONGOLIA

REPORT NO. GHGCC(E)11-002 REVISION NO. 3.1

GHG CERTIFICATION OFFICE

KOREA ENERGY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

KEMCO

VERIFICATION REPORT

Date of first issue: Project No.:

30/01/2012 GHGCC(E)11-002 Approved by: Organisational unit:

Lee, Chang-Hoo GHG Certification Office, Korea Energy Management Corporation

Client: Client ref.:

Mitsubish UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities Co., Ltd.(MUMSS)

Mr. Masayuki Toyofuku

Monitoring Period 01/06/2010 – 31/08/2011 Category (Sectoral Scope) Energy Industries (renewable/non-renewable sources) (1)First Monitoring Report (version and date) Version 01, 01/12/2011 Final Monitoring Report (version and date) Version 02, 03/02/2012 Summary:

The Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) verification team has conducted verification of the “Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia” to ensure that the claimed emission reductions attributable to the project during the monitoring period is in conformity with all applicable CDM requirements including the CDM modalities and procedures, and relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the CDM Executive Board. The verification of Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia consisted of following three phases:

1) Desk review of the monitoring methodology and monitoring plan, and relevant data and information;

2) On-site assessment of monitoring practices and records, and interviews with relevant monitoring and management personnel; and,

3) Resolution of outstanding issues and issuance of the final verification report and statement. During the verification, the team assessed, using objective evidence, the completeness and accuracy of the claimed emission reductions and conservativeness of the assumptions made in the monitoring report. In addition, the team assessed whether the monitoring of emission reductions were carried out in compliance with the relevant requirements set out in the CDM modalities and procedures, the applicability conditions of the selected monitoring methodology and guidance issued by the CDM Executive Board. In conclusion, the verification team is of the opinion that the Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongoliahas achieved an emission reduction of 30,253 tCO2e in the period of 01/06/2010 to 31/08/2011 in compliance with all applicable requirements for the CDM by properly implementing the data management system and quality control system.

Report No.: Subject Group:

GHGCC(E)11-002 Indexing termsReport title:

Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol/CDM Validation / Verification

Work carried out by:

Han, Seung-Ho (Team Leader), Kim, Jong-Hak, Jin, Jung-Yong

No distribution without permission from the Client or responsible organisational

Work reviewed by:

Kim, Dae-Hwan Limited distribution Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:

08/06/2012 3.1 34 Unrestricted distribution

Abbreviations

BM Backup Meter CAR Corrective Action RequestCDM Clean Development MechanismCEF Carbon Emission FactorCER Certified Emission ReductionCL Clarification RequestCDM M&P CDM Modalities and ProceduresCOP/MOP Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to thy Kyoto

Protocol CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalentDOE Designated Operational EntityEA Energy Authority FAR Forward Action RequestGHG Greenhouse gas(es) GWP Global Warming PotentialIPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeKEMCO Korea Energy Management CorporationLoA Letter of Approval PLC Programmable Logic ControllerMP Monitoring Plan MoV Means of VerificationPDD Project Design DocumentQA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CDM) VVM Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Validation and Verification Manual

Table of Contents (Verification) `Page

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Objective 1

1.2 Scope 1

1.3 Project Description 2

2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Review of Documents 5

2.2 Site Visit and Interviews 5

2.3 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests 5

2.4 Internal Quality Control 5

3 VERIFICATION FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 6

3.1 Project implementation in accordance with the registered design document 6

3.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology 7

3.3 Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan 7

3.4 Assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions 10

4 PUBLICATION OF MONITORING REPORT ........................................................ 11

5 VERIFICATION STATEMENT................................................................................ 11

6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 12

Appendix A : Verification Protocol Appendix B : Appointment certificates of team members(including technical reviewer)

KEMCO

VERIFICATION REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION

The Energy Authority has commissioned Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO) to perform a verification of the “Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia” (hereafter called “the project”). This report summarizes the verification findings for the project, as well as means of verification to assess the correctness of the information provided by the project participants. The verification team consisted of the following personnel:

Role Name Organization Technical areas Participation

Desk review Site visit Team Leader, Technical Area Expert

Han, Seung-Ho KEMCO GHG Certification Office

1-2, 13-2, 14-1, 15-2

Team Member, GHG Validator

Kim, Jong-Hak KEMCO GHG Certification Office

1-2, 5-1, 11-1, 12-1

Team Member under observation

Jin, Jung-Yong KEMCO GHG Certification Office

2-1, 11-2

Technical reviewer Kim, Dae-Hwan KEMCO GHG Certification Office

1-2, 13-1

1.1 Objective The purpose of verification is to ensure that the project activity has been implemented and operated as per the registered PDD. In particular, it has been verified that all physical features (technology, project equipment, and monitoring and metering equipment) of the project are in place, and actual monitoring practices and data management are in accordance with the monitoring methodology and all applicable CDM requirements. 1.2 Scope The verification scope is defined as an independent and objective review of:

- Physical features of the project; - GHG sources and types to be included within the project boundaries; - Monitoring plan and practices; - Calculation of emission reductions; - Accuracy of data collected, transferred, and reported; and, - Data management system.

The verification scope can be extended depending on project-specific situations or required by relevant decisions by the COP/MOP and the CDM Executive Board.

2

1.3 Project Description Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia is a grid-connected hydropower project which is located in a narrow steep canyon of the Chono Kharaih River, 6km downstream from the Dalai-Kharus lakes, 1,500 km to the west of Ulaanbaatar and 120 km to the northeast of Khovd town (the capital town of Khovd province) on the Chono Kharaih River, in the territory of the Durgun soum. The dam consists of a 230m long earth-filled section, and a 60m long concrete section which incorporates the powerhouse, spillway and fishway. The powerhouse accommodates 3 generating units, each with rated capacity of 4MW Kaplan turbine. The turbines were expected to operate all year round with an installed capacity of approximately 36.2% and to generate an estimated net generation of 36,100 MWh of electricity per year as described in the registered PDD. The project delivers electricity to the western electricity grid(Myangad substation) servicing Bayan Ulgii Aimag, Khovd Aimag, and Uvs Aimag (Provinces) via 110kV transmission line, the length of which is approximately 76 km. It was expected that CO2 emission reductions achieved by the project activity are approximately 28,880 tCO2e/yr. The project activity for registration is validated by KEMCO and registered on 23 March 2007 and the commercial generation started 07 January 2009. The project participants selected the renewable crediting period of which the first period spans from 01/11/2008 to 31/10/2015. The 2nd monitoring period for this verification is thirteen months, from 01/06/2010 to 31/08/2011 and emission reductions which the project participants claim are 30,253 tCO2eq. The difference between the amount (36,100 tCO2eq) of emission reductions expected during this monitoring period according to the project design document and actually monitored amount of emission reductions is caused by the Durgun hydro power plant being dispatched by the western electricity grid to operate only up to the levels specified.

3

2 METHODOLOGY The verification may consist of the following three phases:

1. Desk review of the monitoring methodology and monitoring plan, and relevant data and information;

2. On-site assessment of monitoring practices and records, and interviews with relevant monitoring and management personnel; and,

3. Resolution of outstanding issues and issuance of the final verification report and statement.

In order to ensure transparency, a verification protocol was customized for the project, according to the Validation and Verification Manual. The protocol shows in transparent manner, criteria (requirements), means of verification and the results from verifying the identified criteria. The verification protocol serves the following purposes.

It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet;

It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifier will document how a particular requirement has been verified and the results of the verification.

The verification protocol consists of two tables. The different columns in these tables are described in Figure 1. The completed verification protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this report. Findings established during the verification can either be seen as a non-fulfillment of verification protocol criteria or where a risk to the fulfillment of project objectives is identified. Corrective Action Request (CAR) is issued, where:

1. Non-conformities with the monitoring plan or methodology are found in monitoring and reporting, or if the evidence provided to prove conformity is insufficient;

2. Mistakes have been made in applying assumptions, data or calculations of emission reductions that will impair the estimate of emission reductions;

3. Issues identified in a FAR during validation to be verified during verification have not been resolved by the project participants.

The verification team may also raise Clarification Request (CL), which would be where:

1. Information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM requirements have been met.

The verification team may raise a forward action request (FAR) during verification for actions if the monitoring and reporting require attention and/or adjustment for the next verification period.

4

Figure 1 Verification protocol tables

Verification Protocol Table 1: Requirement checklist Checklist Question

/VVM Criteria Reference Means of

verification (MoV)

Comments Draft and/or Final Conclusion

The various requirements in Table 1 are linked to checklist questions the project should meet. The checklist is organised in seven different sections. Each section is then further sub-divided. The lowest level constitutes a checklist question.

Gives reference to documents where the answer to the checklist question or item is found.

Explains how conformance with the checklist question is investigated. Examples of means of verification are document review (DR) or interview (I). N/A means not applicable.

The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached.

This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) due to non-compliance with the checklist question (See below). Clarification is used when the verification team has identified a need for further clarification. Forward Action Request

(FAR) is used when the

monitoring and reporting

require attention and/or

adjustment for the next

verification period.

Verification Protocol Table 2: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Draft report

clarifications and corrective action

requests

Ref. to checklist question in table 2

Summary of project owner response

Verification conclusion

If the conclusions from the draft Verification are either a Corrective Action Request or a Clarification Request, these should be listed in this section.

Reference to the checklist question number in Table 2 where the Corrective Action Request or Clarification Request is explained.

The responses given by the Client or other project participants during the communications with the verification team should be summarised in this section.

This section should summarise the verification team’s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should also be included in Table 2, under “Final Conclusion”.

5

2.1 Review of Documents The Monitoring Report version 2.0 dated 03/02/2012 (Monitoring Period: 01/06/2010 ~ 31/08/2011) was assessed along with additional background document /2/ - /19/ related to the project implementation, monitoring practices, and data management as a part of verification. The desk review focused mainly on the following aspects: Implementation in accordance with the registered project design document; Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology; Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan; and, Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions.

2.2 Site Visit and Interviews On 21/12/2011, KEMCO conducted site visits and performed physical site inspection and interviewed with project stakeholders in order to confirm compliance of the project implementation with all applicable CDM requirements and to resolve issues identified in the desk review. As a part of the site visit, the director and site manager of the Durgun Hydropower Plant and project consultant of Hydropower Association of Mongolia were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Interview topics

Interviewed organization Interview topics

Energy Authority and personnel of Durgun HPP

Facilities installation and project implementation Monitoring methods and frequency Data collection, transfer, and reporting Monitoring data QA/QC Data management system

Hydropower Association of Mongolia.

Application of monitoring methodology Monitoring plan Emission reduction calculation

2.3 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests As a result of the desk review and subsequent site visit, the KEMCO verification team raised Clarification Requests and Corrective Action Requests which were presented to the project participants in the form of KEMCO’s NC report as of 27/12/2011. In addition, it was informed to the project participants that the verification team could not request issuance of CERs claimed during the selected monitoring period unless all CARs and CLs would be closed out. To guarantee the transparency of the verification process, the concerns raised are documented in the verification protocol in Appendix A. 2.4 Internal Quality Control The final verification report went through technical review before requesting issuance of CERs claimed during the selected monitoring period. The technical review was performed by the technical reviewer qualified in accordance with KEMCO’s Procedure for Review of Validation and V&C mainly in terms of verification procedures and results, and approved by Director of KEMCO’s GHG Certification Office.

6

3 VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following sections the findings of the verification are stated. The verification findings for each verification subject are presented as follows: 1) The findings from the desk review of the monitoring report and relevant documents, and the

findings from physical site inspection and interviews during the site visit are summarized. These findings are described in detail in the Verification Protocol in Appendix A.

2) Where the verification team had identified issues that needed clarification or that represented a risk to the fulfillment of the project objectives, a Clarification or Corrective Action Request, respectively, have been issued. The Clarification and Corrective Action Requests are stated, where applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the Verification Protocol in Appendix A.

3) Where Clarification or Corrective Action Requests have been issued, the communications between the client and KEMCO to resolve these Clarification or Corrective Action Requests are summarized.

4) In conclusion, the verification opinion of the verification team has been presented. The final verification findings are based on the revised monitoring report (version 02, dated 03/02/2012) and re-submitted supporting documentation.

3.1 Project implementation in accordance with the registered project design document In order to check that all facilities and equipment are installed in accordance with the registered PDD and monitoring methodology, the verification team reviewed a schematic diagram and looked carefully all the structures, plants and surroundings during the site visit on 21/12/2011. Through the physical inspection, the verification team confirmed that the total three hydropower generation sets consist of three units of 4MW Kaplan turbine and three generators have been installed. The verification team also checked monitoring points and monitoring equipments. It was confirmed by a schematic diagram and direct observation during the site visit that as described in the registered PDD: two main meters for 110 kV and 11 kV (outside the project boundary) transmission lines respectively, have been installed at the project site, and among them there is another meter serving to measure electricity consumed from the grid for the internal use of the site. It was further confirmed that net electricity was being monitored just before the connection point with the western grid. With regard to project operation, upon examination of commissioning report, data log books and electricity sales receipts to confirm operation status of the project, the verification team confirmed as below: The project construction was completed on 12 October 2008 and commercial generation started 07 January 2009. The emission reductions claimed by the project participants are below the amount estimated at the project design stage since due to the Durgun hydro power plant is controlled by the western electricity grid to operate only up to the levels specified. No data and variables presented in the monitoring report differ significantly from the stated in the registered PDD, which would to cause an increase of the emission reduction in this

7

monitoring period or in future monitoring periods in relation to the estimates in the registered PDD. It was also found that this project in the current monitoring period has no changes from the project activity as described in the registered PDD.

3.2 Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology The monitoring plan is in accordance with the methodology applied for this project, AMS-I.D (Version 09) stipulates that monitoring shall consist of metering the electricity generated by the renewable technology. The verification team confirmed, through visual inspection that electricity supplied to and consumed from the grid is monitored continuously by metering equipments as it has been stipulated in the applied methodology, AMS-I.D (Version 09). The monitoring report additionally addresses gross (total) electricity generated by the project for cross checking and calibration frequency of the electricity meter even if not specified in the approved methodology.

Neither a revision nor a deviation to the monitoring plan has been requested to the CDM Executive Board.

3.3 Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan The verification team checked whether emission sources and monitoring points are in accordance with the registered monitoring plan. It was confirmed by a schematic diagram and direct observation during the site visit that electricity supplied to the grid and consumed from the grid are measured at the monitoring points and the project does not use fossil fuel in the project boundary as described in the registered PDD. It was also confirmed during the site visit that the amount of parasitic electricity consumed in the project boundary is automatically excluded from gross electricity generation because after used for the project activity, net electricity is monitored just before the connection point with the western grid. All monitoring parameters including grid electricity emission factor to calculate the baseline emissions in the monitoring period are applied in accordance with the registered PDD. A comprehensive list of each parameter required by the monitoring plan is provided in the following: Parameters verified for calculation of project emissions: n/a because PEy=0. Parameters verified for calculation of baseline emissions: BEy = (EG-EC)xEFCO2 ,

EFCO2=0.8kgCO2/kWh Parameters verified for calculation of emissions due to leakage: n/a because Ly=0. In order to confirm whether in practice the monitoring has been conducted in accordance with the monitoring plan or not, the verification team reviewed a schematic diagram and daily log books and performed direct observation and interview with an operator during the site visit. It was confirmed that the project activity has been properly implemented in line with the monitoring plan; the amount of electricity supplied (EG) to the grid by project activity has been measured continuously by the meter (Model DSSD5, Serial No. 3070091133) and recorded on an hourly basis. Meanwhile, the amount of electricity consumed (EC) from the grid by project

8

activity has been measured continuously by the meter (Model DSSD22, Serial No. 019900). In addition, there are meters for gross electricity generation, and the measured values are compared with the electricity supplied. During the verification, it is took note that calibration of the meters was conducted by the Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology who is the author of the Mongolian standard 5090:2005. It was also confirmed that the last calibration of the Serial No. 3070091133 meter was 31/12/2008 and thus the certificate would be valid 30/12/2011, covering the monitoring period in consideration, in line with the General Guidelines to SSC CDM Methodologies (Version 17). On the other hand, it was also confirmed that the last calibration of the Serial No. 019900 meter was 25/06/2010 and thus the certificate would be valid 24/06/2013, covering the monitoring period in consideration. During the site visit, the verification Team checked the constitution of monitoring team provided in the monitoring report (Section C) and reviewed the Procedures for monitoring and reporting, which clearly shows that that the responsibilities and authorities of the monitoring team are in accordance with the monitoring plan. Specifically, operators collect data on an hourly basis and submit the monitored data on a 24-hour basis to the supervisor in each team for approval, and the data approved by the supervisor is finally reviewed by the team leader. It was also noted that the monitoring shift had been set up and its list had been checked. Also it was confirmed by the training material checked during the site visit that training program to the monitoring staff was conducted on 05/11/2010 and 13/05/2011 to inform monitoring of the electricity and internal audit for monitoring data. During the site visit, the verification team interviewed with an operator and it was found that the operator had a proper understanding of the training contents. But two clarifications were raised with regard to the calibration standard and calibration certificates and closed out as follows: CL1: The monitoring report does not mention about the Mongolian standard MNS-50-

90; 2005 which to be followed, for example calibration frequency, by the project operator as described in the registered PDD and the monitoring period for the first verification. Although the calibration frequency for the meters is determined by the General Guidelines to SSC CDM Methodologies, the national standard is also a reference document to be consulted. Clarifications are therefore requested in terms of the national standard (See Appendix A. Table 1 Section C.1);

Corrective Action: The project participants explained that calibration frequency is

determined by the Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology who is the author of the Mongolian standard 5090:2005. In addition, it is clearly described in the PDD that the calibration will be conducted every 3 years according to ‘General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies (Version 17).

Conclusion: The revised monitoring report sufficiently addressed the reference document in respect of calibration frequency. The NC is therefore closed.

CL2: The last calibration date of the Serial No. 019900 meter is 25/06/2010 as

described by the monitoring report. But, the project participants have not submitted to the verification team the calibration certificates of the Serial No. 019900 meter which is valid during the period of 01/06/2010 and 24/06/2010. (See Appendix A. Table 1 Section C.1).

9

Corrective Action: The measured EC (project emissions) value of 2,512 kWh for this monitoring period is 0.01% of 37,816,680 kWh EG. The emission due to EC does not lead to an overestimation of the total emission reductions achieved higher than 5%, as per paragraph 4(d) of Decision 9/CMP.7 “Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism”. EC is therefore considered immaterial.

Conclusion: It is confirmed that the amount of imported electricity during the monitoring period is immaterial as per paragraph 4(d) of Decision 9/CMP.7 “Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism”. The NC is therefore closed.

3.4 Assessment of data and calculation of GHG emission reductions

In order to confirm a complete set of data for the monitored period available, the verification team reviewed recorded data during this monitoring period. The verification team confirmed that the amount of electricity to calculate emission reductions has been monitored continuously and recorded on a daily basis for the whole monitoring period. These points made a complete set of data available for the entire monitoring period. By means of interviews with the monitoring team staffs and review of data log books and data collection sheets, the verification team confirmed that the procedures to ensure reliability of the monitored data were properly implemented as follows; An operator records net electricity hourly (In case of diesel amount, when the diesel generator is operated) and aggregates and reports to a supervisor daily. The supervisor checks daily aggregated data and report to a deputy team leader for confirmation on a monthly basis. The deputy team leader confirms and ensures all recorded data every month. Abnormality of the monitored data is firstly checked by an operator on a daily basis, and if abnormality is found, it is reported to a supervisor immediately. By means of interviews with monitoring staffs during the site visit, the verification team assessed whether the procedures to ensure reliability of the monitored data were properly implemented. In order to assess the accuracy of the monitored data, the verification team cross-checked the electricity supplied to the grid and the receipt of electricity sales issued by the local authority, compared the electricity supplied to the grid with the gross electricity generated by the project. It is hence concluded that the monitored data is reliable because the monitored data by the main meters are equal to electricity sales receipts which is made monthly by a power purchasing company. And the invoices by the project owner and confirmations from local administration of the project site also show that the monitored data is right for the monitoring period.

As a result, two CARs were raised and closed out as follows:

CAR1: The Verification Team cross-checked daily measurement data during the monitoring period with the excel spreadsheets submitted to the team. It was found then that there were discrepancies between data on imported electricity on 30 June, 1 July 2010, 21-22 April 2011, 5 August, 9 August 2011. (See Appendix A. Table 1 Section D.1);

Corrective Action: Electricity consumed was less than 1% of net electricity

10

supplied, well below 5% condition for small-scale projects as stated in the ‘Draft standard on the use of the concept of Materiality and Level of Assurance in the Clean Development Mechanism’. Nevertheless, electricity from the grid on 30 June and 1 July 2010, and on 21-22 April, 5 August, and 9 August 2011 were re-checked, although beyond the scope of the monitoring plan specified in the registered PDD, which is electricity consumed weekly. The typographical errors with inputting values to an adjacent date were traced and corrected. The values meanwhile are correct, thus weekly totals of electricity consumption remain the same. Therefore, there is no change in the calculated Emission Reductions.

Conclusion: The verification team cross-checked daily log books with the corrected excel spreadsheets and concluded that clerical errors had been cleared. It was also noted that the total amount of net electricity generation was not affected the errors happened due to wrong assignment of the values, NOT the values themselves. Therefore, the NC is closed.

CAR2: The Verification Team checked on-site daily measurement data on both exported and imported electricity. It was found then that there was one case where net electricity generation exceeded total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011. Clarifications for this discrepancy are therefore requested. (See Appendix A. Table 1 Section D.1):

Corrective Action: Although beyond the scope of the monitoring plan specified in

the registered PDD, which is net electricity supply aggregated weekly, total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011 was checked, and the difference was determined to be due to the malfunction of the generation meter during that period. Hence the appearance of electricity generation being lower than net supplied. The parameter material to the emission reductions claimed, which is net electricity supplied to the 110 kV line, remain as confirmed by the payment certificate from the grid company.

Conclusion: the verification team cross-checked the log book and confirmed that the meter to monitor total generation was disconnected on 20/05/2011. It was further confirmed that the malfunction did not affect the total amount of net electricity generation since another meter (Serial No. 3070091133) measures the amount of net electricity separately and well-managed by both the project operator and power purchasing company. Therefore, the NC is closed.

The verification team confirmed that the methods and formulae used to obtain the baseline, project activity and leakage emissions are appropriate. The calculations are carried out in accordance with the methods and formulae described in the registered monitoring plan and applied methodology, AMS-I.D (Version 09). It was confirmed by the calculation sheets submitted to the DOE that baseline emissions are calculated by multiplying the monitored net electricity by 0.8 kgCO2e/kWh as a baseline emission factor according to the monitoring plan. But, the measured EC value of 2,512 kWh for this monitoring period is 0.01% of 37,816,680 kWh EG. The emission due to EC does not lead to an overestimation of the total emission reductions achieved higher than 5%, as per paragraph 4(d) of Decision 9/CMP.7 “Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism”. EC is therefore considered immaterial and excluded from calculation of emission reductions.

11

3.5 Previous issues assessment

The verification team identified one FAR from the previous verification and assessed the remaining issues. The ‘FAR1’ of the previous verification report for the 2nd monitoring period states that:

It was found that gross electricity generated by the project is less than net electricity supplied to the grid (EG) due to clerical errors on a few dates as the CAR4. Thus, there should be a measure to prevent a recurrence and to reinforce for improving reliability of the data.

The verification team found that then that there was one case where net electricity generation exceeded total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011 and took note that they recorded the event in the log book and responded to it in due course. In this regard, it is concluded the FAR1 of the previous verification report was appropriately addressed.

4. PUBLICATION OF MONITORING REPORT In accordance with the "Procedures for making the monitoring report available to the public in accordance with paragraph 62 of the modalities and procedures for the CDM,” the monitoring report for the period of 01/06/2010 to 31/08/2011 for the CDM project activity “Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia (0786)” had been posted on the UNFCCC CDM website on 06/12/2011.

5. VERIFICATION STATEMENT The KEMCO Verification Team has undertaken verification of the emission reductions monitored by the registered project: Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia. The verification is based on the requirements of the CDM, i.e. UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, Marrakesh Accords, Decision 3, 4/CMP.1 and relevant decisions of the CDM executive board. For a risk-based approach to verify the reported emission reductions, the Monitoring Manual and Monitoring Report was reviewed against the registered Project Design Document in terms of their completeness, accuracy, consistency, transparency, conservativeness, and materiality. As a result, several potential risks of departures from the requirements for the CDM were identified. The assessment of management controls was made in order to examine such potential risks and then additional audit testing was performed through sample check to identify residual risk areas. Based on the results of this assessment, the Verification Team issued two Corrective Action Requests (CARs) and two Clarification Requests (CLs). In response to the request for such corrective actions, the project participants provided to the verification team the revised Monitoring Report and relevant documentation, and the verification team then through review of the corrective actions and agreed that the raised non-conformities were cleared. In conclusion, the verification team is of the opinion that Durgun Hydropower Project in Mongolia has achieved an emission reduction of 30,253 tCO2e in the period of 01/06/2010 to 31/08/2011 in compliance with all applicable requirements for the CDM by properly implementing the data management system and quality control system. Reporting period: From 01/06/2010 to 31/08/2011

12

Verified emissions in the above reporting period: Project emissions: 0 tCO2e Baseline emissions: 30,253 tCO2e Emission reductions: 30,253 tCO2e

13

6. REFERENCES Category 1: Documents and electronic files submitted by the Project Participants

/1/ Monitoring Report (Version2.0, 03/02/2012) /2/ Monitoring Report (Version.2.0, 03/02/2012) attached file. Emission reduction

calculation sheet /3/ Regulation of monitoring and reporting the operation of the Taishir and Durgun Hydro-

Power Stations registered as the CDM projects (Version 02), Energy Authority /4/ Daily log books, 01/06/2010 ~ 31/08/2011 /5/ Electricity sales receipts by Western Electricity Grid, 01/06/2010 ~ 31/08/2011 /6/ Calibration certificate of EG electronic meter(DSSD5) by Mongolian Agency for

Standardization and Metrology, 31/12/2008 /7/ Calibration certificate of EC electronic meter(DSSD22) by Mongolian Agency for

Standardization and Metrology, 25/06/2010 /8/ DSSD5 User Manual, Pax-Hualong Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. /9/ DSSD22 User Manual /10/ Letter of Khovd Standard Agency, 28/09/2010 /11/ Minutes of Meeting for training of the members of the monitoring team of the Durgun

HPP, 05/11/2010 and 13/05/2011 /12/ Mongolian Standard MNS-5090,2005

Category 2: Documents and websites referred to by KEMCO

/13/ Clean Development Mechanism Validation and Verification Manual (Version 01.2) /14/ AMS-I.D Grid connected renewable electricity generation (Version 09) /15/ General Guideline to SSC CDM Methodologies, Version 14.1 and Version 17 /16/ Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, Version

02 /17/ IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006 /18/ Project Design Document (Version 03, 01/03/2007) /19/ Validation Report (Version 04, 05/03/2007) /20/ 1st monitoring report (01/11/2008~31/05/2010), Version 04, 06/04/2011 /21/ 1st verification report (01/11/2008~31/05/2010), Version 2.5, 20/04/2011 /22/ Guideline for completing the monitoring report form(ver.0.1), EB54 Report, Annex34 /23/ Guidelines for Assessing Compliance with the Calibration Frequency Requirements

(Version 01) /24/ Decision 9/CMP.7, Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism

Persons interviewed: List persons interviewed during the verification, or persons contributed with other information that are not included in the documents listed above. Energy Authority and staffs of Durgun HPP.

Mr. Dashaa Byambasuren (General Manager of Energy Authority)

14

Mr. A. Bazarragchaa (Project Director of Durgun Hydropower Plant) Mr. B. Lkhangaujav (Chief Engineer of Durgun Hydropower Plant) Mr. B. Ganzorig (Deputy Chief Engineer of Durgun Hydropower Plant)

Ms. E. Oyunbut (Accountant of Durgun Hydropower Plant) Hydropower Association of Mongolia (HPAM) Mr. Balgansuren Ochirjav (President of HPAM)

- o0o-

15

Appendix A

Verification Protocol

16

Table 1. Requirements Checklist

KEMCO

Checklist Question VVM Criteria

Ref. MoV Comments Draft

Concl. Final

Concl.

A Project Implementation in accordance with the registered project design document In this section, the DOE shall identify any concerns related to the conformity of the actual project activity and its operation with the registered project design document.

Para 195

A.1. Are all physical features of the proposed CDM project activity proposed in the registered PDD in place and has the project participants operated the proposed CDM project activity as per the registered PDD by means of an on-site visit? If an on-site visit is not conducted, the DOE shall justify the rationale of the decision.

Para 196 /1/, /2/, /6/, /7/, /14/,/18/

Document review,

Observation

Interview

1. Checked: It was confirmed by review of the schematic diagram and direct observation of the nameplates of three generators that as described by the registered PDD (registered on 23 March 2007), three units of 4MW have been installed.

It was confirmed by a schematic diagram and direct observation during the site visit that as described in the registered PDD, in total eight meters have been installed at the project site. Among them one meter was serving as main meter to measure electricity supplied to the 110kV transmission line, and another meter was serving to measure electricity consumed from the grid, others were back-up meters.

OK

A.2. Does the implementation or operation of CDM project activity conform with the description contained in the registered PDD? If not, the DOE shall conduct an assessment on the potential impacts due to these changes following the relevant

Para 197

(Para 198)

/1/, /2/, /6/, /7/, /14/,/18/

Document review,

Observation

Interview

1. Checked: This project activity consists of one site. Three units of water turbines and generators have been installed, commercial generation started 07 January 2009.

2. Checked: It was confirmed that this project’s

OK

OK

17

KEMCO



Concl. Final

Concl.

guidelines established by the CDM Executive Board

and based on this assessment the DOE shall submit a notification or a request for approval of changes from the project activity as described in the registered PDD prior to the conclusion of the verification/certification for the corresponding monitoring period.

Document review,

Observation, Interview

construction was completed on 12 October 2008 and then Commercial generation started 07 January 2009. The Verification Team checked that the turbines and generators are in good operation and the produced electricity has been sent to the western electricity grid.

3. Checked: All of data and variables provided in the monitoring report that is same from that stated in the registered PDD and Actual emission reductions(30,253 tCO2e) in the current monitoring was decreased compared to estimated emission reductions(36,100 tCO2e/y) in the PDD since the hydro power plant is controlled by the western electricity grid to operate only up to the levels specified.

4. Checked: It was found that this project in the current monitoring period have no changes from the project activity as described in the registered PDD.

OK

OK

B Compliance of the monitoring plan with the monitoring methodology The monitoring plan of the proposed CDM project activity shall comply with the applied methodology.

Para 199

B.1. Is the validated monitoring plan in accordance with the approved methodology applied by the proposed CDM project activity?

Para 200

(Para 203)

/1/, /2/, /3/, /14/,

/18/

Document review,


1. Checked: It was confirmed that net electricity by project activity was monitored continuously by metering equipment as it was stipulated in the applied methodology, AMS-I.D (Version 09).

OK

18

KEMCO



Concl. Final

Concl.

B.2. If during verification the DOE concludes that the monitoring plan is not in accordance with the monitoring methodology, the DOE shall request a revision to the monitoring plan prior to concluding its verification and making its certification decision. The DOE may request for revision of the monitoring plan covering the monitoring period under verification, for approval by the CDM Executive Board.

Para 201 /1/, /2/, /3/, /14/,

/18/

Document review,


1. Checked: It does not need to request a revision or a deviation of monitoring plan because the verification team confirm by visual inspection that electricity supplied to and consumed from the grid is monitored continuously by metering equipments as it has been stipulated in the applied methodology, AMS-I.D (Version 09).

OK

B.3. Are there monitoring aspects that are not specified in the methodology, particularly in the case of small-scale methodologies (e.g. additional monitoring parameters, monitoring frequency and calibration frequency)? If so, the DOE is encouraged to bring to the attention of the CDM Executive Board issues which may contribute in enhancing the level of accuracy and completeness of the monitoring plan.

Para 202 /1/, /2/, /3/, /14/,

/18/

Document review,

Observation

1. Checked: The monitoring report additionally addresses gross electricity generated by the project for cross checking and calibration frequency of the electricity meter even if not specified in the approved methodology.

OK

C Compliance of monitoring with the monitoring plan Monitoring of reductions in GHG emissions to result from the proposed CDM project activity shall be implemented in accordance with the monitoring plan contained in the registered PDD or the accepted revised monitoring plan.

Para 204

C.1. Has it been confirmed that: (a) The monitoring plan and the applied

methodology been properly implemented and followed by the project participants;

(b) All parameters stated in the monitoring plan, the applied methodology and relevant CDM Executive Board decisions have been

Para 205

(Para 206)

/1/~/12/, /15/

Document review


1. Checked: During the site-visit, the Verification Team confirmed that the procedure of monitoring and reporting for Durgun project clearly shows the responsibilities and authorities of the team leader, the deputy team leader, supervisors, and operators in the monitoring data.; The

OK

19

KEMCO



Concl. Final

Concl.

sufficiently monitored and updated as applicable including: (i) Project emission parameters; (ii) Baseline emission parameters; (iii) Leakage parameters; (iv) Management and operational system:

the responsibilities and authorities for monitoring and reporting are in accordance with the responsibilities and authorities stated in the monitoring plan.

(c) The accuracy of equipment used for monitoring in accordance with the relevant guidance provided by the CDM Executive Board and controlled and calibrated in accordance with the monitoring plan; (i) Monitoring results consistently are

recorded as per approved frequency; (ii) Quality assurance and quality control

procedures have been applied in accordance with the monitoring plan.

operator collect and submit the monitored data on each 12 hours basis to the supervisor in each team for approval, and the data approved by the supervisor is finally reviewed by the team leader.

2. Checked: Upon investigation of daily log books, the minute of meter values, it was identified that metered values have been recorded on a weekly basis and electricity sales receipts have been made monthly by a project owner and a power purchaser. In addition, the data was kept as an electronic form in a computer of the site.

3. Checked: It was confirmed that the monitoring and reporting were properly implemented according to the procedure of monitoring & reporting for Durgun project.

It was reviewed the training records to check that the monitoring staff was appropriately trained in terms of monitoring of the electricity and internal audit for monitoring data. It was thus confirmed by checking the minutes that relevant monitoring staff was trained with regards to CER data monitoring.

4. CL1: The monitoring report does not mention about the Mongolian standard MNS-50-90; 2005 which to be followed, for example calibration frequency, by the project operator as described in the registered PDD and the monitoring period for the first verification.

OK

OK

CL

OK

20

KEMCO



Concl. Final

Concl.

Although the calibration frequency for the meters is determined by the General Guidelines to SSC CDM Methodologies, the national standard is also a reference document to be consulted. Clarifications are therefore requested in terms of the national standard

5. CL2: The last calibration date of the Serial No. 019900 meter is 25/06/2010 as described by the monitoring report. But, the project participants have not submitted to the verification team the calibration certificates of the Serial No. 019900 meter which is valid during the period of 01/06/2010 and 24/06/2010.

CL

OK

D Assessment of data and calculation of greenhouse gas emission reductions

GHG emission reductions achieved by/resulting from the proposed CDM project activity shall be calculated applying the selected methodology.

Para 207

D.1. The DOE shall determine whether: (a) A complete set of data for the specified

monitoring period available. If only partial data are available because activity levels or non-activity parameters have not been monitored in accordance with the registered monitoring plan, the DOE shall opt to either make the most conservative assumption

Para 208

(Para 209)

/1/~/5/

Document review,


1. Checked: The monitored data was reviewed to confirm that a complete set of data is available for the monitoring period. The verification team confirmed that the amount of electricity to calculate emission reductions is monitored continuously and recorded such as in daily, weekly and monthly log books, the written minutes of a metered value and

OK

21

KEMCO



Concl. Final

Concl.

theoretically possible in finalizing the verification report, or raise a request for deviation prior to submitting request for issuance, if appropriate;

(b) Information provided in the monitoring report has been cross-checked with other sources such as plant log books, inventories, purchase records, laboratory analysis?

(c) Calculations of baseline emissions, proposed CDM project activity emissions and leakage, as appropriate, has been carried out in accordance with the formulae and methods described in the monitoring plan and the applied methodology document?

(d) Any assumptions used in emission calculations have been justified;

(e) Appropriate emission factors, IPCC default values and other reference values have been correctly applied?

computer files for the whole monitoring period. These points made a complete set of data available for the entire monitoring period.

3. Checked : It was confirmed that emission reductions were calculated by multiplying the monitored net electricity by a CO2 emission factor in accordance with the monitoring plan and the applied methodology, AMS-I.D(Version 09)

4. Checked: It was confirmed that the baseline emission factor was assumed to be 0.8 kgCO2/kWh as a conservative approach in accordance with the approved PDD, which is the most conservative value for diesel generators from Table I.D.1 in the small-scale methodology AMS-I.D (version 9).

6. CAR1: The Verification Team cross-checked daily measurement data during the monitoring period with the excel spreadsheets submitted to the team. It was found then that there were discrepancies between data on imported electricity on 30 June, 1 July 2010, 21-22 April 2011, 5 August, 9 August 2011.

7. CAR2: The Verification Team checked on-site daily measurement data on both exported and imported electricity. It was found then that there was one case where net electricity generation exceeded total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011.

OK

OK

CAR

CAR

OK

OK

22

KEMCO



Concl. Final

Concl.

Clarifications for this discrepancy are therefore requested.

E Previous issues assessment(where applicable)

E.1. Have the remaining issues from the previous verification period been assessed?

Para 221 /20/,/21/ Document Review 1. Checked: The verification team identified one

FAR from the previous verification and assessed the remaining issues. The ‘FAR1’ of the previous verification report for the 2nd monitoring period states that: It was found that gross electricity generated by the project is less than net electricity supplied to the grid (EG) due to clerical errors on a few dates as the CAR4. Thus, there should be a measure to prevent a recurrence and to reinforce for improving reliability of the data.

The verification team found that then that there was one case where net electricity generation exceeded total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011 and took note that they recorded the event in the log book and responded to it in due course. In this regard, it is concluded the FAR1 of the previous verification report was appropriately addressed.

OK

23

<Annex.1 >

DETAILS OF MONITORED PARAMETERS

Data/Parameter EG(Electricity supplied to the grid, by the project) EC(Electricity consumed from the grid, by the project)

Measuring frequency Continuously Continuously

Is measuring frequency in accordance with the monitoring plan and monitoring methodology?(yes/no)

Yes (Improved comparing with hourly basis in the PDD)

Yes (Improved comparing with hourly basis in the PDD)

Type of monitoring equipment Electronic meter(DSSD5), SN : 3070091133 Electronic meter(DSSD22), SN : 019900

Is the accuracy of the monitoring equipment used for monitoring in accordance with the relevant guidance provided by the CDM Executive Board?

Yes (DSSD5 User Manual: Accuracy class 0.5) Yes (DSSD22 User Manual: Accuracy class 0.5)

Calibration frequency in line with the monitoring plan of the PDD? If the PDD does not specify the frequency of calibration, does the selected frequency represent good monitoring practice?

Calibration frequency is determined by the Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology who is the author of Mongolian standard, MNS-5090:2005. But the calibration will be conducted every 3 years according to ‘General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies (Version 17)’.

Calibration frequency is determined by the Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology who is the author of Mongolian standard, MNS-5090:2005. But the calibration will be conducted every 3 years according to ‘General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies (Version 17)’.

Is(are) calibration(s) valid for whole reporting period?

Yes. The last calibration of the Serial No. 3070091133 meter was 31/12/2008 and thus the certificate would be valid 30/12/2011, covering the monitoring period in consideration.

Yes. It was also confirmed that the last calibration of the Serial No. 019900 meter was 25/06/2010 and thus the certificate would be valid 24/06/2013, covering the monitoring period in consideration.

How were the values in the monitoring report verified?

The amount of electricity supplied to the grid was cross checked with the daily log books and receipts issued by the power purchasing company, Western Electricity Grid.

24

Is QA/QC process for data management proper?Yes. The net electricity supplied to the grid is cross-checked with the electricity sales receipts issued by the power purchasing company. And the amount of electricity measured by backup meters could be used in the event of malfunctioning of the main meters.

25

Table 2. Resolution of Corrective Action , Clarification Requests and Forward Action Request Clarifications, Corrective action requests and

Forward action requestReference

Summary of project owner response

Verification conclusion

1. CL1: The monitoring report does not mention about the Mongolian standard MNS-50-90; 2005 which to be followed, for example calibration frequency, by the project operator as described in the registered PDD and the monitoring period for the first verification. Although the calibration frequency for the meters is determined by the General Guidelines to SSC CDM Methodologies, the national standard is also a reference document to be consulted. Clarifications are therefore requested in terms of the national standard

Appendix Table2

Section C.1

The project participants explained that calibration frequency is determined by the Mongolian Agency for Standardization and Metrology who is the author of the Mongolian standard 5090:2005. In addition, it is clearly described in the PDD that the calibration will be conducted every 3 years according to ‘General Guidelines to SSC CDM methodologies (Version 17).

The revised monitoring report sufficiently addressed the reference document in respect of calibration frequency. The NC is therefore closed.

2. CL2: The last calibration date of the Serial No. 019900 meter is 25/06/2010 as described by the monitoring report. But, the project participants have not submitted to the verification team the calibration certificates of the Serial No. 019900 meter which is valid during the period of 01/06/2010 and 24/06/2010.

Appendix Table2

Section C.1

The measured EC (project emissions) value of 2,512 kWh for this monitoring period is 0.01% of 37,816,680 kWh EG. The emission due to EC does not lead to an overestimation of the total emission reductions achieved higher than 5%, as per paragraph 4(d) of Decision 9/CMP.7 “Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism”. EC is therefore considered immaterial.

It is confirmed that the amount of imported electricity during the monitoring period is immaterial as per paragraph 4(d) of Decision 9/CMP.7 “Materiality standard under the clean development mechanism”. The NC is therefore closed.

26

3. CAR1: The Verification Team cross-checked daily measurement data during the monitoring period with the excel spreadsheets submitted to the team. It was found then that there were discrepancies between data on imported electricity on 30 June, 1 July 2010, 21-22 April 2011, 5 August, 9 August 2011.

Appendix Table2

Section D.1

Electricity consumed was less than 1% of net electricity supplied, well below 5% condition for small-scale projects as stated in the ‘Draft standard on the use of the concept of Materiality and Level of Assurance in the Clean Development Mechanism’. Nevertheless, electricity from the grid on 30 June and 1 July 2010, and on 21-22 April, 5 August, and 9 August 2011 were re-checked, although beyond the scope of the monitoring plan specified in the registered PDD, which is electricity consumed weekly. The typographical errors with inputting values to an adjacent date were traced and corrected. The values meanwhile are correct, thus weekly totals of electricity consumption remain the same. Therefore, there is no change in the calculated Emission Reductions.

The verification team cross-checked daily log books with the corrected excel spreadsheets and concluded that clerical errors had been cleared. It was also noted that the total amount of net electricity generation was not affected the errors happened due to wrong assignment of the values, NOT the values themselves. Therefore, the NC is closed.

27

4. CAR2: The Verification Team checked on-site daily measurement data on both exported and imported electricity. It was found then that there was one case where net electricity generation exceeded total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011. Clarifications for this discrepancy are therefore requested.

Appendix Table2

Section D.1

Although beyond the scope of the monitoring plan specified in the registered PDD, which is net electricity supply aggregated weekly, total electricity generation for half day on 20 May 2011 was checked, and the difference was determined to be due to the malfunction of the generation meter during that period. Hence the appearance of electricity generation being lower than net supplied. The parameter material to the emission reductions claimed, which is net electricity supplied to the 110 kV line, remain as confirmed by the payment certificate from the grid company.

The verification team cross-checked the log book and confirmed that the meter to monitor total generation was disconnected on 20/05/2011. It was further confirmed that the malfunction did not affect the total amount of net electricity generation since another meter (Serial No. 3070091133) measures the amount of net electricity separately and well-managed by both the project operator and power purchasing company. Therefore, the NC is closed.

28

APPENDIX B

CVS OF VERIFICATION TEAM AND THE TECHNICAL REVIEWER

29

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name HAN Date of Birth -

Given name Seung-Ho Sex Male

Organization KEMCO Phone No. +82-31-260-4883

Position Manager Fax No. +82-31-260-4886

Address 1157, Pungdukchun-2-dong, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 448-994, Republic of Korea

E-mail [email protected]

Title Proposed Title Qualification

Full-time Lead Validator/verifier

Sectoral Scope

Proposed Sectoral Scope Qualification

1. Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources)

1-2 Energy generation from renewable energy sources

13 Waste handling and disposal

13-2 Animal waste management

14. Afforestation and reforestation

14-1 Forestry

15. Agriculture 15-2 Animal waste management

Work experience

* Please describe every employment you have had

From to Details of Duties

2000-03-01 2006-01-22 Supporting National Climate Change Policy, Climatic Change Mitigation Department, KEMCO

2006-01-23 Present Conducting validation and verification of GHG reduction projects, GHG Certification Office, KEMCO

30

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name KIM Date of Birth 05/27/1977 Given name Jong-Hak Sex Male Organization KEMCO Phone No. +82-31-260-4888

Position Assistant Manager Fax No. +82-31-260-4886

Address 1157, Pungdukchun-2-dong, Yongin, Gyeonggi, 448-994, Republic of Korea



Full-time Validator/verifier

Sectoral Scope




5. Chemical industry 5-1 Chemical process industries

11. Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride

11-1 Chemical process industries

12. Solvents use 12-1 Chemical process industries

Work experience



2004-07-1 2009-12-31 Process consultancy, Energy Consulting Department, KEMCO

2010-02-26 Present GHG projects audit, GHG Certification Office, KEMCO

31

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name JIN Date of Birth 23/06/1962

Given name Jung-Yong Sex Male

Organization KEMCO, Kangwon Branch Phone No. +82-33-241-0365


Address Onui-dong 512-3, Chuncheon-si, Gnagwon-do, Korea




Sectoral Scope


2. Energy distribution 2-1 Electricity Distribution System

11 Fugitive emissions from production and consumption of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride

11-2 GHG capture and destruction

Work experience



1990 1996 Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO)

1996 2001 Demand Side Management Dept., KEMCO

2002 2004 Kangwon Branch, KEMCO

2004 2005 Renewable Dissemination Dept., KEMCO

2006 present Kangwon Branch, KEMCO

32

KEMCO

Personal History

Family name KIM Date of Birth -

Given name Dae-Hwan Sex Male Organization KEMCO Phone No. +82-31-260-4884


Address 1157, Pungdukchun 2, Suji, Yongin,

Gyeonggi, 448-994, Republic of KoreaE-mail [email protected]



Sectoral Scope




13. Waste handling and disposal

13-1 Waste handling and disposal

Work experience



2001-01-02 2005-10-31 Managing the projects on the development, performance assessment and demonstration assessment of new and renewable energy, the New and Renewable Center, KEMCO.

2005-11-01 2010-01-25 Supporting national climate change policy and corporation plan management, Climate Change Strategy department, KEMCO.

2010-01-26 Present CDM auditing, GHG Certification Office, KEMCO