JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

JCM Validation Report Form
A. Summary of validation
A.1. General Information
Title of the projectIntroduction of 1MW Rooftop Solar Power Systems
to University

Reference number

CL001

Third-party entity (TPE)

Japan Management Association (JMA)

Project participant contracting the TPE

NTT DATA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENTCONSULTING,Inc.

Date of completion of this report

22/03/2019

A.2 Conclusion of validation
Overall validation opinion

Positive
Negative

A.3. Overview of final validation conclusion
Only when all of the checkboxes are checked, overall validation opinion is positive.
Item
Validation requirements
No CAR or CL
remaining
Project design The TPE determines whether the PDD was completed
document form
using the latest version of the PDD forms appropriate to thetype of project and drafted in line with the Guidelines forDeveloping the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) Project
Design Document, Monitoring Plan and Monitoring
Report.
Project
The description of the proposed JCM project in the PDD is
description
accurate, complete, and provides comprehension of the
proposed JCM project.
Application of The project is eligible for applying applied methodology
approved JCM and that the applied version is valid at the time of
methodology
submission of the proposed JCM project for validation.
(ies)
Emission
All relevant GHG emission sources covered in thesourcesand methodology are addressed for the purpose of calculating
calculationof project emissions and reference emissions for the proposedemission
JCM project.
reductions
The values for project specific parameters to be fixed ex
ante listed in the Monitoring Plan Sheet are appropriate, if
applicable.
Environmental
The project participants conducted an environmental
impactimpact assessment, if required by the Republic of Chile, inassessment
line with Chilean procedures.
Local
The project participants have completed a local stakeholder
1JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

B. Validation team and other experts

Name

Company

Function*

Mr.
Ms.

MotoyukiMatsumoto

JMA

Team Leader

Mr.
Ms.

ToshimiShidaraJMA

TeamMemberMr.
Ms.

ToshiakiTakedaJMA

Internal
Reviewer

Schemecompetence*

Technical
competence*
Technical
competence
qualifiedTechnical
competence
qualifiedTechnical
competence
qualified

On-site
visit

Mr.
Ms.
Please specify the following for each item.
* Function: Indicate the role of the personnel in the validation activity such as team leader,team member, technical expert, or internal reviewer.
* Scheme competence: Check the boxes if the personnel have sufficient knowledge on the JCM.
* Technical competence: Indicate if the personnel have sufficient technical competence related
to the project under validation.

C. Means of validation, findings, and conclusion based on reporting requirements
C.1. Project design document form
<Means of validation>
PDDs (Ref.1) were checked using the "Joint Crediting Mechanism Guidelines for Developing
Project Design Document and Monitoring Report (JCM_CL_GL_PDD_MR_ver02.0) (Ref.14)".
Review history of the PDD is as follows.
- PDD version 1: PDD was submitted to validation team on 25th Dec.2018.
- PDD version 2: PDD was revised on 23th Jan. 2019 based on the on-site inspection.
- PDD version 3: PDD was revised on 7th Mar. 2019 based on the on-site inspection.
- PDD version 4: PDD was revised on 22th Mar. 2019 to resolve the remaining issues. PDD
version

4(Ref.1-4)

is

final

version.

The

latestversion

of

the

PDD

form

(JCM_CL_F_PDD_ver02.0) was checked at the website of New Mechanisms Information
Platform for Chile. Validation team confirmed that the latest version of the PDD form was used
for all version of PDD (Ref.1). Also, validation team confirmed that form of Monitoring
Spreadsheet (JCM_CL_AM001_ver01.0) which was approved as a methodology (Ref.2) by

3

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Joint Committee was used for the proposed project.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No CAR, CL, or FAR were raised for this section.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that the PDD was completed using the latest version of the PDD
form and developed in accordance with the "JCM Guidelines for Developing PDD and MR(Ref.14)".
C.2. Project description<Means of validation>
The proposed project is to install a total of new 992kW module capacity solar PV system in 4
university campuses in Chile.
Validation team conducted the assessment with the step below by following “JCM Guidelines
for Validation and Verification (JCM_CL_GL_VV_ver01.0) (Ref.13)”.
- Document review was conducted using the checklist based on the “JCM Guidelines for
Validation and Verification (Ref.13)”. CL1 was raised and informed to project participants(PPs).
- Follow-up interviews and on-site assessment were conducted.
- Remaining issues including the response of CL1 was checked with reference.
Each section in the PDD was checked as follows through document review and on-site
assessment to confirm the project description.
A.1, 2:The proposed project is to reduce CO2 emissions by introducing solar PV systems. The
electrical power generated by the solar PV systems displaces the part of electrical power fromthe regional grid. Validation team confirmed that explanation of how the proposed project
reduces greenhouse gas emissions was described appropriately in the PDD.
Validation team checked the solar PV systems described in the PDD with “Specification of solar
PV system (Ref.3-1-1)”. On-site assessment was conducted on 17-18 Jan.2019. Validation teamconfirmed that the type of solar PV module described in the PDD was installed at the projectsites. Also, the surpass electricity after the university consumption from solar PV systems will
be supplied to the SIC grid. It was confirmed through the “Single line diagram (Ref.3-1-1-4))”,
on-site assessment and interviews with PPs.
A.3:
Location was confirmed by GPS through on-site assessment to proposed project site andinterviews with PPs.
4

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

A.4:
PPs of both countries were confirmed by interviews, on-site assessment and checking the“Modalities of communications (MoC) (Ref.8-1)” and “Organization structure of PP (Ref.3-7)”.
A.5:“Expected operational lifetime of project (17 years)” was checked and confirmed by raising
CL1.
“Starting date of project operation” was checked in the section C.10.
A.6:
Financial support by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan was confirmed by checking“Financing programme for JCM model projects by the Ministry of the Environment (Ref.3-5)”.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CL1 was raised to check the project description of the PDD.
CL1:
“Expected operational lifetime of project” is set for 17 years. PPs are required to clarify how
to set for 17 years.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs explained that “Expected operational lifetime of project” was decided based on the legal
durable years under the regulation of Japan (17 years), and the guarantee period of PV panel
degradation is 25years which is described in “Specification of solar PV module (Ref.3-1-1-2))”.
Also, PPs submitted the 5years guarantee document of “Conditions of guarantee of the invertors(Ref.3-4)” and explained that the inverters are maintained including exchange of the equipment.
Validation team confirmed that power purchase agreement is for 20 years through the“Memorandum of Understanding (Ref.3-2)”, and “Expected operational lifetime of project” isin line with the references and interviews with PPs.
CL1 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team assessed the project description provided in the PDD with supporting
documents and on-site visit. As a result of raising CL1, additional supporting documents were
submitted.
Validation team confirmed that the description of the proposed project in the PDD was accurate
and complete.
C.3. Application of approved methodology(ies)5

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0<Means of validation>
Approvedasamethodology“Installation

of

Solar

PV

System,

Ver.

01.0

(JCM_CL_AM001_ver01.0) (Ref.2)” was applied to the proposed project. The methodology
was approved by the Joint Committee on 19th Dec. 2017, and valid as of the time of thevalidation.
Validation team assessed if the project is eligible for applying selected methodology.
Validation team conducted the assessment for each criterion with the step below by following“JCM Guidelines for Validation and Verification (Ref.13)”.
- Document review was conducted using the checklist based on the “JCM Guidelines for
Validation and Verification (Ref.13)”.
- Follow-up interviews and on-site assessment were conducted on 17-18 Jan.2019.
Each criterion in the PDD was checked as follows through document review and on-site
assessment.
Criterion 1:-Description specified in the methodology: “The project newly installs solar PV system(s).”-Assessment for Criterion 1:
Specification of solar PV systems described in the PDD was checked with “Specification ofsolar PV system (Ref.3-1-1)”. Also, installed solar PV systems at 4 campuses were checked byon-site inspection and interviews with PPs.
Validation team confirmed that solar PV systems described in the PDD was consistent with theactual equipment installed at the project site, and the proposed project satisfied the eligibility
criterion 1.
Criterion 2:-Description specified in the methodology: “The PV modules obtained a certification of design
qualifications (IEC 61215, IEC 61646 or IEC 62108) and safety qualification (IEC 61730-1 andIEC 61730-2).”-Assessment for Criterion 2:
Criterion 2 was checked with “Specification of solar PV system (Ref. 3-1-1)” and “Certificate
for design qualifications (IEC 61215) and safety qualification (IEC 61730-1 and IEC 61730-2)(Ref.3-6-1)”. Validation team confirmed that solar PV module installed in this project obtained
design qualifications (IEC 61215) and safety qualification (IEC 61730-1 and IEC 61730-2), andthe proposed project satisfied the eligibility criterion 2.
Criterion 3:-Description specified in the methodology: “The equipment used to monitor output power of the6

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

solar PV system(s) and irradiance is installed at the project site.”-Assessment for Criterion 3:
The equipment to monitor the output power of solar PV systems and the irradiance werechecked through on-site assessment and “Specification of solar PV system (Ref. 3-1-1)”.
Electrical power meter of solar PV systems was checked by “Specification of electrical power
meter (Ref.3-1-2)”. Also, pyranometer was checked by on-site inspection and “Specification ofpyranometer (Ref.3-1-3)”.
Validation team confirmed that the equipment to monitor output power of the solar PV systems
will be installed, and pyranometer was installed at the proposed project site. Validation teamconfirmed that the proposed project satisfied the eligibility criterion 3.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No CAR, CL, or FAR were raised for this section.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team assessed the application of approved methodology of the proposed project withthe supporting documents and on-site visit. Validation team confirmed that the proposed project
was eligible for applying selected methodology “Installation of Solar PV System, Ver. 01.0
(Ref.2)”, and that the applied methodology was valid at the time of submission of the proposed
project for the validation.
C.4. Emission sources and calculation of emission reductions<Means of validation>
The electricity generated by solar PV systems will partly replace existing electricity generationfrom the regional grid. Reference emissions are calculated using the quantity of the electricity
generated by the project solar PV systems. Emission sources of the reference emissions are
consumption of grid electricity.
Validation team confirmed that relevant GHG emission sources, GHG types and parameters to
be fixed ex ante in the applied methodology were addressed in the PDD. Also, validation teamchecked the calculation of emission reductions with reference regarding the estimated solar PV
output “Spreadsheet for calculation of estimated solar PV output (Ref 9-1)”. Validation teamconducted the assessment for GHG emission sources and GHG types with the step below by
following JCM Guidelines for Validation and Verification (Ref.13).
- Document review was conducted using the checklist based on the “JCM Guidelines for
Validation and Verification (Ref.13)”.
- Follow-up interviews and on-site assessment were conducted on 17-18 Jan.2019.
- Remaining issues including the response of CAR1,2 were checked with reference.
7

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

The description of the PDD including Monitoring spreadsheet was checked through document
review and on-site assessment to confirm the emission sources and calculation of emission
reductions.
The emission sources were confirmed by checking “Specification of solar PV system(Ref.3-1-1)”, interviews with PPs, and on-site inspection. The surpass electricity from the Solar
PV systems after the university consumption will be supplied to the regional grid (SIC grid).
CAR1 was raised because of the inconsistency between PDD and methodology. Validation teamconfirmed that there was no captive power generator for regular usage in internal grid, and theelectricity is supplied by the regional grid through on-site inspection.
Validation team confirmed that the value of “Reference CO2 emission factor based on theregional grid (SIC) ” (0.314 tCO2/MWh) in the applied methodology was used in the PDD
appropriately.
The estimated quantity of electricity generated by the proposed project was checked byvalidation team. The estimated quantity of electricity generated by solar PV systems wascalculated with “Spreadsheet for calculation of estimated solar PV output (Ref 9-1)” and “Datasource regarding estimated solar PV output(Ref.9-2)”, CAR2 was raised because of the requestof the correction in the spreadsheet (Ref 9-1).
In addition, validation team checked the emission source that was not addressed by the applied
methodology. Inverter for solar PV systems consumes AC grid power when solar power is notavailable. Validation team confirmed inverters consume less than 1W per one as night-time
consumption through the “Specification of invertor (Ref.3-1-1-5))”. Through the references andon-site inspection, validation team confirmed that there was no significant emission source thatwould be affected by implementation of the proposed project but not addressed by the applied
methodology.
Validation team confirmed that project emissions, reference emissions and emission reductions
for the proposed project were calculated properly.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CAR1,2 were raised to request the correction of the emission reductions of the
PDD.
CAR1:
Grid name is inconsistent between the PDD and methodology. Also, grid is described asregional grid in the methodology, but described as national grid in the PDD.
⇒Summary of response and validation team conclusion
PPs corrected the description of PDD. Validation team confirmed that PPs corrected thedescription appropriately.
8

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

CAR1 was closed.
CAR2:
CAR2 was raised because of the request of the correction in the spreadsheet (Ref 9-1). In the
spreadsheet (Ref.9-1), part of the electricity from the solar PV systems was deducted. However,
all of the electricity from the solar PV systems will be consumed in this project.
⇒Summary of response and validation team conclusion
PPs deleted the volume deducted from the electricity from the solar PV systems in the
spreadsheet (Ref 9-1). Validation team confirmed that PPs corrected the spreadsheet
appropriately. CAR2 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that:-All relevant GHG emission sources covered in the approved methodology were addressed forthe purpose of calculating project emissions and reference emissions for the proposed project;-The values for project specific parameters to be fixed ex ante listed in the Monitoring Plan
Sheet were appropriate;- The Monitoring Spreadsheet was not altered and its required fields were appropriately filledin;-The emission sources and GHG types were confirmed through the on-site assessment anddocument review;- Significant emission sources which were not addressed by the applied approved methodology
and would be affected by implementation of the proposed project were not identified;-The approved methodology was applied correctly to calculate project emissions and reference
emissions.
C.5. Environmental impact assessment<Means of validation>
PPs submitted the regulation document regarding the Approval of regulation of the system of
evaluation of environmental impact (Ref.4). Validation team confirmed through this reference
and interviews with PPs that EIA is required in case of more than 3MW power stations. In thisproject, the total capacity of PV modules is less than 1MW.. Therefore, validation teamconfirmed EIA is not required in this project.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No CAR, CL, or FAR were raised for this section.
9

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that the proposed JCM project had no requirement of EIA.
C.6. Local stakeholder consultation<Means of validation>
PPs conducted a stakeholder consultation meeting of this project activity to solicit commentsfrom local stakeholders on 21th Nov.2018.
In this project, solar PV systems are installed on the roof of the 4 university campuses. PPs
identified the relevant university members as local stakeholders for the project activity. The
stakeholder consultation meeting was informed to relative stakeholders by sending invitation
via e-mail and telephone to invite to the meeting. Validation team checked “Local stakeholder
consultation Meeting memo (Ref.5)”. Comments at the local stakeholder consultation meetingwere all supportive and no negative comment received.
Also, on-site assessment was conducted on 17-18 Jan.2019. As one of the on-site assessment
processes, validation team interviewed with the relevant university staff and the comment was
supportive.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No CAR, CL, or FAR were raised for this section.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that the PPs invited comments to the proposed project from therelevant local stakeholders, and the summary of the comments received was described in the
PDD appropriately. Also, validation team confirmed that the local stakeholder consultation of
the proposed project was adequate.
C.7. Monitoring<Means of validation>
The description of the PDD including monitoring plan was checked as follows throughdocument review and on-site assessment to confirm the monitoring plan. Monitoring planconsists of the Monitoring Plan Sheet and Monitoring Structure Sheet.
The description of Monitoring Plan Sheet was checked with the approved methodology.
Monitoring point for measurement was checked by on-site inspection and “Specification ofelectrical power meter for monitoring point (Ref.3-1-2)”. CAR3 was raised because of theinconsistency between the monitoring point drawn in PDD and the actual project site.

10

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Total quantity of the electrical power generated by the proposed project is measured byelectrical power meter. PPs submitted the “Regulation in Chile regarding replacement orcalibration of electrical power meter (Ref. 3-6-2)”. Also, validation team confirmed that theaccuracy of electricity ppower meter is class 0.5S which is described in “Specification ofelectrical power meter for monitoring point (Ref.3-1-2)” and that the replacement or calibrationof the electrical power meter will be done every 10 years in line with the regulation through theinterviews with PPs including the facility representative of the university.
Monitoring structure was confirmed by interviews described in the Monitoring Structure sheet.
Validation team confirmed the role and responsibility for monitoring were assigned to thepersonnel in accordance with the Monitoring Structure sheet.
At the validation, the monitoring system has not installed yet, therefore, validation teamconfirmed through the interviews with PPs and system specification (Ref. 3-1-1-3)) thatmonitoring systems will be installed at this project in line with the monitoring plan described in
the PDD.
Validation team confirmed that PPs have the ability to implement the monitoring plan describedin the Monitoring Plan Sheet and Monitoring Structure Sheet.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CAR3 was raised to request correction of the PDD.
CAR3：
Although the monitoring point was set at the every inverter in the PDD Ver.1 (Ref.1-1),
validation team confirmed that actual monitoring points are set at the electrical power meters tomonitor the aggregated output from the several inverters through the “Specification of solar PV
system (Ref.3-1-1)”.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs corrected the drawing in the PDD, and validation team confirmed that drawing is consistent
with the references. CAR3 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that the Monitoring Plan was described in compliance with theapproved methodology and “JCM Guidelines for developing PDD and MR (Ref.14)”.
Also, PPs have demonstrated the ability to implement the described monitoring plan including
feasibility of monitoring structure.

11

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

C.8. Modalities of Communication<Means of validation>
Modalitiesofcommunications

(MoC)

was

developed

using

the

form

of

“JCM_CL_F_MoC_ver01.0”. Validation team confirmed that the latest form was used for“MoC (Ref.8-1)”.
MoC was submitted by Waseda Environmental Institute Co.,Ltd (Waseda). Validation teamassessed the corporate identity of all project participants and a focal point, as well as the
personal identities including specimen signatures and employment status of the authorised
signatories through reviewing the “Written confirmation (Ref.8-2) from Waseda Environmental
Institute Co.,Ltd ” and interviews with PPs. Validation team confirmed that “Written
confirmation (Ref.8-2)” was issued by Mr. Kenta Omura who is primary authorised by Waseda
in the “MoC (Ref.8-1)”. “Written confirmation (Ref.8-2)” indicates that all corporate andpersonal details of MoC of the proposed project, including specimen signatures, are valid andaccurate.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No CAR, CL, or FAR were raised for this section.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that the “MoC (Ref.8-1)” was completed using the latest form. Also,
validation team confirmed that all corporate and personal details including specimen signatures
were valid and accurate as requested in the “JCM Guidelines for Validation and Verification(Ref.13)”.
Validation team confirmed the “MoC (Ref.8-1)” had been completed correctly in compliancewith the requirements of the “JCM Guidelines (Ref.13, 14,15)”.
C.9. Avoidance of double registration<Means of validation>“Written confirmation (Ref.8-2)” indicates that the proposed project is not registered underother international climate mitigation mechanisms. Also, “Written confirmation (Ref.8-2)” wasissued by Mr. Kenta Omura who is primary authorised by Waseda in the “MoC (Ref.8-1)”. In
addition, the following websites of CDM and VCS were checked whether the projects withsimilar technology and location had been registered.
1) Website of UNFCCC (Project Search for CDM Projects)
2) Website of IGES (IGES CDM Project Database)3) Website of Verified Carbon Standard
Validation team confirmed that there was no registered project with similar technology and12

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

location.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
No CAR, CL, or FAR were raised for this section.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that the proposed JCM project was not registered under otherinternational climate mitigation mechanisms.
C.10. Start of operation<Means of validation>“Start of operation date” described in the PDD was checked through on-site assessment which
was conducted on 17-18 Jan.2019 and reference. CL2 was raised to check the starting date.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CL2 was raised to check the project description of the PDD.
CL2:
Validation team confirmed that the proposed project had not started the power generation yet
during on-site assessment, and the construction to install the web-system was delayed.
Validation team requested to clarify whether the operation will be started on the day describedin the PDD.
⇒Summary of response and validation team conclusion
PPs submitted the reference “Project Implementation Schedule (Ref.3-3) ” and revised thestarting date in the PDD appropriately. CL2 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team confirmed that PPs rescheduled the starting date on 1st of May 2019 and thestarting date is not before 1st January 2013. Hence, validation team confirmed that the proposed
project satisfied the requirement of the “JCM Guidelines (Ref.13, 14, 15)”.
C.11. Other issues<Means of validation>
No other issue was identified.
<Findings>
13

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
Not applicable<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Not applicable

D. Information on public inputs
D.1. Summary of public inputs
In line with the “Joint Crediting Mechanism Project Cycle Procedure (JCM_CL_PCP_ver02.0)(Ref.15) ”, the PDD is to be made publicly available for 30 days to invite public comments. The
PDD was made publicly available for the period of 7 Feb. 2019 to 8 Mar.2019 on the following
URL.
https://www.jcm.go.jp/cl-jp/projects/61

D.2. Summary of how inputs received have been taken into account by the project participants
No comment was received during the period to receive public inputs.
Hence, no action was required to be taken by the PPs to the requirement of JCM Project Cycle
Procedure (Ref.15).

E. List of interviewees and documents received
E.1. List of interviewees
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Rafael Mena

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Jose Luis Aravato

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Ms.Veronica Diong

MGM Innova Capital Chile Spa

Mr.Alfredo Nicastro

MGM Innova Capital Chile Spa

Mr.Gonzalo Diaz

NTT DATA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT CONSULTING,Inc.
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Ms.Veronica Diong

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Alesandro Miraouda

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Rene Villalobos

14

Mr.Ikuya Ueda

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Panasonic

Mr.Carlos Morales

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Javier Vazgas caro

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Dario Liberona

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Humbuto Norambuena

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa MariaMr.Tamara Anton

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Alfongo Castillo

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Bruno Dondevo

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria

Mr.Diego Maciean Guerna

Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa MariaMr.Sauien Egunen Aspe

E.2. List of documents received
1

Project Design Document for JCM project

1-1

1st Edition (25/12/2018) : PDD was submitted to the secretariat of JCM for public

inputs.
1-2

2nd Edition (23/1/2019) : PDD was revised by the result of document review andon-site assessment.
1-3

3rd Edition (07/3/2019) : PDD was revised by the result of document review andon-site assessment.
1-4

4th Edition (22/3/2019) : PDD was revised by the result of document review andon-site assessment.
2

Approved as a methodology "Installation of Solar PV System, Ver. 01.0 "3

Reference relating to PDD chapter A,B,C

3-1-1

Specification of solar PV system:

1) Facility list of the PV system
2) Specification of solar PV module (Panasonic)
3) Communication diagram (Panasonic)
4) Single line diagram (Panasonic)5) Specification of invertor (Fronius)
6) Layout Drawing (Panasonic)
3-1-2

Specification of electrical power meter ：METSEPM5110 (Schneider electric)

3-1-3

Specification of pylanometer at the installed site of the solar PV system Fronius

3-2

Memorandum of Understanding (3.Jul 2017, Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa

Maria, MGM Innova Capital Chile Spa)
3-3

Project Implementation Schedule

3-4

Conditions of guarantee of the invertors ( FRONIUS)
15

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

3-5

Financing programme for JCM model projects by the Ministry of the Environment,

Japan (27/9/2017)
3-6-1

Certificate for design qualifications (IEC 61215) and safety qualification (IEC61730-1 and IEC 61730-2) (Date of issue:6/10/2015)
3-6-2

Regulation in Chile regarding replacement or calibration of electrical power meter

3-7

Organization structure of PP

4

Approval of regulation of the system of evaluation of environmental impact(12.08.2013)5

Local stakeholder consultation Meeting memo (21/11/2018)

8-1

Modalities of communications (MoC)

8-2

Written confirmation from Waseda Environmental Institute (Declaration from Mr.

Omura)
9-1

Spreadsheet for calculation of estimated solar PV output (NTT DATA INSTITUTE

OF MANAGEMENT CONSULTING,Inc.)
9-2

Data source regarding estimated solar PV output (Panasonic)

13

Joint

Crediting

Mechanism

Guidelinesfor

Validation

andVerification(JCM_CL_GL_VV_ver01.0)
14

Joint Crediting Mechanism Guidelines for Developing Project Design Document andMonitoring Report (JCM_CL_GL_PDD_MR_ver02.0)
15

Joint Crediting Mechanism Project Cycle Procedure (JCM_CL_PCP_ver02.0)

16

JCM_CL_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Annex Certificates or curricula vitae of TPE’s validation team members, technical experts
and internal technical reviewers
Please attach certificates or curricula vitae of TPE’s validation team members, technicalexperts and internal technical reviewers.

17