JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

JCM Validation Report Form
A. Summary of validation
A.1. General Information
Title of the projectIntroduction of Amorphous High Efficiency
Transformers in Southern and Central Power
Grids

Reference number

VN008

Third-party entity (TPE)

Japan Management Association (JMA)

Project participant contracting the TPE

YUKO-KEISO Co., Ltd.

Date of completion of this report

13 March 2018

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 ofsubmission of the proposed JCM project for validation.
methodology(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 proposed
JCM project.
emission
reductions
The values for project specific parameters to be fixed ex
ante listed in the Monitoring Plan Sheet are appropriate, if
applicable.
The project participants conducted an environmental
Environmental
impact assessment, if required by the Socialist Republic ofimpactViet Nam, in line with Vietnamese procedures.
assessment
Local
The project participants have completed a local stakeholder
1JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

B. Validation team and other experts

Name

Company

Function*

Mr.
Ms.

Motoyuki
JMA
MatsumotoTeam
LeaderMr.
Ms.

ToshiakiTakedaJMA

Team
Member

Mr.
Ms.

Kenji
SuzukiJMA

Internal
Reviewer

Schemecompetence*

Technical
On-sitecompetence* visit
Technical
competence
qualifiedTechnical
competence
qualifiedTechnical
competence
qualifiedMr.
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>
PDD (Ref.1) was checked using the "Joint Crediting Mechanism Guidelines forDeveloping

Project

DesignDocument

andMonitoring

Report(JCM_VN_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 19th Oct.2017.
- PDD version 2: PDD was revised on 5th Dec. 2017 before the public inputs.
- PDD version 3: PDD was revised on 9th Feb. 2018 based on the on-site inspection by
validation team.
- PDD version 4: PDD was revised on 2nd Mar. 2018 to resolve the remaining issues.
PDD version 4 (Ref.1-4) is final version. The latest version of the PDD form
(JCM_VN_GL_PDD_MR_ver02.0) was checked at the website of New Mechanisms
Information Platform for Viet Nam. Validation team confirmed that the latest version of
the PDD form was used for all version of PDD (Ref.1). Also, validation team confirmedthat form of Monitoring Spreadsheet (JCM_VN_AM005_ver01.0) which was approved3

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

as a methodology (Ref.2) by 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 in accordance with the "JCM Guidelines for Developing PDD and MR(Ref.14)".
C.2. Project description<Means of validation>
The proposed JCM project aims to reduce CO2 emissions by utilization of energy
efficient transformers in power distribution grid in Southern and Central Viet Nam where
the following state owned companies manage.
・EVN Southern Power Corporation (EVNSPC)・EVN Central Power Corporation (EVNCPC)・Da Nang Power Company Ltd. (DNPC)
・Ho Chi Minh City Power Corporation (EVNHCMC)
The project is to install high efficient amorphous transformers displacing conventionaland more energy intensive transformers, and the total number of the transformer
installation is 4,841 units.
Validation team conducted the assessment with the step below by following “JCM
Guidelines for Validation and Verification (JCM_VN_GL_VV_ver01.0) (Ref.13)”.
- Document review was conducted using the checklist based on the “JCM Guidelines for
Validation and Verification (Ref.13)”. CAR1 and CL1 were raised and informed to project
participants (PPs).
- Follow-up interviews and on-site assessment were conducted.
- Remaining issues including the response of CAR1, CL1 were checked with reference.
Each section in the PDD was checked as follows through the document review andon-site assessment to confirm the project description.
A.1, 2:
Amorphous transformers installed by the project are manufactured in Vietnam based on
the state of the art technology developed by Hitachi Metals of Japan. Validation teamconfirmed the consistency with the description of PDD based on the documents “Tender4

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Specifications of Amorphous Transformers (Ref.3-1-1)”, “Brochure of the amorphoustransformer issued by THIIDI (Ref3-1-6)”, and “Transformer list Installed of the four
power companies (Ref.3-1-3)”.
Also, on-site assessment was conducted on 12-14

Dec.2017. Validation teamconfirmed that the type of transformers described in the PDD was installed at the
project site.
A.3:
Location was checked

through the “Transformer list Installed of the four powercompanies (Ref.3-1-3)” , “Pre-delivery Inspection Reports of Transformers Installed in
the four power companies (Ref.3-1-2)”

and on-site assessment. Through theprocesses taken above, CAR1 was raised.
A.4:
PPs of both countries, Japan and Viet Nam, were confirmed through the interviews,
on-site assessment and checking the “Modalities of communications (MoC) (Ref.8-1)”
and “Organization structure of PP (Ref.11-1～4)”.
A.5:“Expected operational lifetime of project (18 years)” was checked and confirmed byraising 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“Grant decisions for JCM project (Ref.3-5)”.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CAR1 and CL1 were raised to check the project description of the PDD.
CAR1：Validation team identified that some project transformers had the followingchanges before the starting date of project operation , based on the document review
and the on-site assessment.
1) Relocation from the original installed location to other, and/or
2) Rename of electrical pole code, which identifies the exact location of the transformer
installation
However, the “Transformer list Installed of the four power companies (Ref.3-1-3)” was
not updated based on the changes. Validation team, therefore, requested to update thetransformer list (Ref.3-1-3) for reflecting the changes implemented before the starting
date.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：5

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

PPs submitted "Transfer record of transformers Relocated to other place (Ref.3-1-5)”
and corrected the transformer list (Ref.3-1-3). Validation team confirmed that therevised transformer list is consistent with the “Acceptance Record of the Operation for
the each transformer (Ref.3-3)” and transfer record (Ref.3-1-5). Validation teamconfirmed that the transformer list (Ref.3-1-3)” was revised appropriately. CAR1 wasclosed.
CL1:
Validation team requested to clarify why the expected operational life time described in
the PDD as 18 years.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
The PPs explained that 18 years of the expected operational life time was decided
based on legal durable years. Validation team identified that the expected operational
life time is consistent with the “Legal durable years issued by Japan Tax Office(Ref.3-4-2)”. Also, validation team checked that the depreciation period of transformers
in Viet Nam prescribed as 7-15 years

through the legal documents in Viet Nam"Guiding Regulations on Management, Use and Depreciation of Fixed Asset
No.:45/2013/TT-BTC Circular, MoF of Viet Nam, April 25,2013” (Ref.3-4-1). In addition,
validation team confirmed through the interviews with the four power companies thatthe actual operational life time of the transformers used in Viet Nam is about 20 years.
Validation team confirmed that the expected operational life time is determined throughthe regulation in Japan,

and it is confirmed to be appropriate and reasonable toassume the expected operational life time as 18 years. 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 CAR1 and CL1, validation teamconfirmed that the description of the proposed project in the PDD was accurate andcomplete, and provided an understanding of the proposed project.
C.3. Application of approved methodology(ies)<Means of validation>
Approved methodology “Installation of energy efficient transformers in a power
distribution grid, Ver. 1.0 (JCM_VN_AM005_ver01.0) (Ref.2)” was applied to the
proposed project. The methodology was approved by the Joint Committee on 3rd Sep.
2015, and valid as of the time of the validation.
Validation team assessed if the project is eligible for applying selected methodology.
6

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

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 12-14 Dec.2017.
- Remaining issues including the response of CAR2 were checked with reference.
Each criterion in the PDD was checked as follows through document review and on-site
assessment.
Criterion 1:-Description specified in the methodology: “Single-phase and/or three-phaseoil-immersed transformer with amorphous metal core is installed in the distribution grid.”-Assessment for Criterion 1:
Validation team confirmed through the “Transformer list Installed of the four powercompanies(Ref.3-1-3)”,“Tender

SpecificationsofAmorphous

Transformers(Ref.3-1-1)”, “Acceptance Record of the Operation for the each transformer (Ref.3-3)”,
on-site assessment, and interviews with four power companies that the proposed
project have installed a total of 4,841 units of single-phase and/or three-phaseoil-immersed transformer with amorphous metal core in the area of the four distribution
grids. Validation team confirmed that the proposed project satisfied the eligibility
criterion 1.
Criterion 2:-Description specified in the methodology: “Load losses of the project transformer
determined in line with IEC 60076-1 or national/industrial standards complying with IEC
60076-1 is equal or smaller than the standard values or specification values of load
loss, required by the power company of the grid where the project transformer isinstalled, corresponding to its capacity and number of phases.”-Assessment for Criterion 2:
Validation team confirmed through the documents “ Tender Specifications ofAmorphous Transformers (Ref.3-1-1)”, “Standards related transformers (Ref. 3-6-1～2)”, “Pre-delivery Inspection Reports of Transformers Installed in the four powercompanies (Ref. 3-1-2)”,and on-site assessment that the load loss data of the
pre-delivery inspection reports are smaller than those specified by the fourpowercompanies (EVNSPC, EVNCPC, DNPC, EVNHCMC ) where the transformers were
installed. However, validation team identified the inconsistency between the descriptionof PDD and tender specification (Ref.3-1-1). Hence, CAR2 was raised.
7

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CAR2 was raised to check the project description of the PDD.
CAR2:
The PDD states that EVNSPC's standard is the most stringent in the standard of thefour power companies. Validation team, however, identified through the “TenderSpecifications of Amorphous Transformers (Ref.3-1-1)” that one of the categories of thespecifications (Combination of No. of Phase and Installed Capacity) of EVNSPC is lessstringent than those of the other three power companies' standards. Hence, validationteam requested to correct the description of load loss in Criterion 2 in the PDD B.2 table
regarding the EVNSPC's standard.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs corrected the PDD (Ref.1-3), and validation team confirmed that the description in
the PDD is consistent with the tender specifications (Ref.3-1-1). CAR2 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team assessed the application of approved methodology of the proposed
project with the supporting documents and on-site visit. As a result of raising CAR2,
PPs revised the PDD appropriately. Validation team confirmed that the proposed project
was in compliance with the eligibility criterions listed in the applied methodology.
Validation team confirmed that the proposed project was eligible for applying selected
methodology “Installation of energy efficient transformers in a power distribution grid,Ver. 1.0 (JCM_VN_AM005_ver01.0) (Ref.2)”, and that the applied methodology wasvalid at the time of submission of the proposed project for the validation.
C.4. Emission sources and calculation of emission reductions<Means of validation>
Validation team confirmed that relevant GHG emission sources, GHG types andparameters to be fixed ex ante in the applied methodology were addressed in the PDD
including Monitoring Plan. Also, validation team checked the calculation of emission
reductions. Validation team conducted the assessment 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 12-14 Dec.2017.
- Remaining issues including the response of CAR3, CL2 and CL3 were checked withreference.
8JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

The description of the PDD including Monitoring spreadsheet was checked throughdocument review and on-site assessment to confirm the emission sources andcalculation of emission reductions.
Validation team confirmed that emission sources and types described in the PDD fully
covered all relevant GHG emissions described in the methodology, and that there were
no emission sources affected by the implementation of the proposed project activity but
not addressed by the applied methodology.
The value of Brp is applied in line with the approved methodology (Ref.2)”. Also, thevalue of EFgrid is applied in line with Viet Nam official latest data “Grid emission factor
for Vietnam 2014- Approved in 2016 issued by Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironment (Ref.9)”. Validation team confirmed that parameters to be fixed ex ante
are applied appropriately.
All of the Hi,p, are set as 8,760 hours per year for the energizing time. According to theassessment of C.10 Start of operation, all of the transformers were set on 13/05/2017
as the start of the operation in a conservative manner. Hence, validation teamconfirmed that Hi,p, are set appropriately.
Validation team confirmed whether the value of NLLRE,i,j,k, NLLPJ,i,j,k, , and UNCi, isconsistent with the documents “Tender Specifications of Amorphous Transformers(Ref.3-1-1)”, “Tender Specifications of the reference transformers issued by Power
Company (Ref.6-1～4)” and interviews with four power companies. Through theprocesses taken above, CAR3, CL2 and CL3 were raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CAR3, CL2, and CL3 were raised to check the emission sources andcalculation of emission reductions.
CAR3:
PPs explained that the no-load loss values of E VNSPC's specification are applied to all
the reference transformers as the value of NLLRE,i,j,k, from the viewpoint ofconservative manner. However, validation team identified through the “TenderSpecifications of the reference transformers issued by Power Company (Ref.6-1～
4)” that the values of EVNSPC’s specification in some categories are less stringent
than those of other three power companies. Hence, validation team requested tocorrect the no-load loss value used in the Monitoring Spreadsheet.
9

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0⇒Summary of response and validation team conclusion
PPs corrected the values of NLLRE,i,j,k which is applied by the real installed powercompany, regarding the specified category from the viewpoint of conservative manner.
Validation team confirmed that the revised value is appropriate. Also, validation teamconfirmed that project emissions, reference emissions and emission reductions for the
proposed project were calculated properly. CAR3 was closed.
CL2:
According to the methodology (Ref.2), the value of NLLPJ,i,j,k

is applied from that ofpre-delivery inspection report. However, PPs employed the value of “TenderSpecifications of Amorphous Transformers (Ref.3-1-1)”. Validation team requested toclarify why the value of the pre-delivery inspection was not applied to the value of
NLLPJ,i,j,k.
⇒Summary of response and validation team conclusion
PPs explained that the value of NLLPJ,i,j,k is applied from the viewpoint of conservative
manner, as the value of the Pre-delivery inspection report is smaller than those of
tender specification.

Validation team confirmed the consistency through the

documents “Pre-delivery Inspection Reports of Transformers Installed in the four powercompanies (Ref. 3-1-2)” and “Tender Specifications of Amorphous Transformers(Ref.3-1-1)”, and then confirmed it is appropriate and reasonable. CL2 was closed.
CL3:
According to the methodology (Ref.2), the value of UNCi is applied from that ofpre-delivery inspection report. However, PPs employed the IEC60076-1 data. Validationteam requested to clarify why the value of pre-delivery inspection was not applied.
⇒Summary of response and validation team conclusion
The PPs explained that there is no data available in the inspection reports and the
maximum tolerance value 15% specified in IEC60076-1 is applied in a conservative
manner. Validation team checked the “Pre-delivery Inspection Reports of Transformers
Installed in the four Power Companies (Ref. 3-1-2) ” and “ Standards relatedtransformers (Ref. 3-6-1～2)”. Validation team confirmed that the value of UNCi is notindicated in the inspection reports and the maximum tolerance value is 15% in thestandards. Validation team confirmed the value employed as the UNCi appropriate andreasonable. CL3 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team assessed the project description in the PDD and Monitoring Plan Sheetthrough the supporting documents and on-site visit. As a result of raising CAR3, CL2
and CL3, validation team confirmed that:10

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0-All relevant GHG emission sources covered in the approved methodology wereaddressed for the purpose of calculating project emissions and reference emissions forthe 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
filled in;-The emission sources and GHG types were confirmed through the on-site assessment
and document 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 andreference emissions.
C.5. Environmental impact assessment<Means of validation>
PDD stated that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required by Viet
Nam laws and regulations. Validation team checked the requirements for EIA, which is“Regulation regarding the EIA (Ref. 4-1～2)”. Also, validation team had the interview
with power companies to confirm the requirements of EIA. The applicability of therequirements of EIA described in the “Regulation regarding the EIA (Ref. 4-1～2)”
was confirmed by the interview. Validation team confirmed that EIA was not required forthe proposed project through the interview with power companies

and the“Regulation regarding the EIA (Ref. 4-1～2)”.
<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 is not required to conduct EIA
by PPs against the legal requirement of Republic of Viet Nam.
C.6. Local stakeholder consultation<Means of validation>
PPs conducted a stakeholder consultation meeting of this project activity to solicit
comments from local stakeholders on 2nd Aug 2017 and 3rd Aug 2017. The place of11

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

project activity is within the existing power grid. PPs identified the relevant stakeholders
who are employees of four power companies and subsidiaries as local stakeholders forthe project activity.
The stakeholder consultation meeting was informed to local stakeholders by sending
invitation letter via e-mail to invite to the meeting. Validation team checked “Local
stakeholder consultation Meeting summary (Ref.5-1～2)” , “Invitation letter (Ref.5-3～4)”, “Presentation material (Ref.5-5～6)”, “List of the Participants (Ref.5-7)”.
Comments at the local stakeholder consultation meeting were all supportive and no
negative comment received.
Also, on-site assessment was conducted on 12-14 Dec 2017. As one of the on-site
assessment processes, validation team interviewed with the power companies.
Validation team confirmed 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 fromthe relevant local stakeholders, and the summary of the comments received was
described in the PDD appropriately. Also, validation team confirmed that PPs are notrequired to do the further action.
C.7. Monitoring<Means of validation>
The description of the PDD including monitoring plan was checked as follows during the
document review and on-site assessment to confirm the Monitoring. Monitoring planconsists of the Monitoring Plan Sheet and Monitoring Structure Sheet.
The description of Monitoring Plan Sheet was checked with the approved methodology.
Monitoring points for measurement were checked by on-site inspection and“Transformer list Installed of the four power companies (Ref.3-1-3)”, “Acceptance
Record of the Operation for the each transformer (Ref.3-3)”, " Transfer record oftransformers Relocated to other place (Ref.3-1-5)”. Validation team confirmed that theactual monitoring point was appropriate and consistent with the description in the PDD.
In the “PDD ver.1 (Ref.1-1)”, the description of monitoring structure was not fulfilled.
Therefore, CAR4 was raised.
Validation team checked the role and responsibility for monitoring were assigned to12

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

the personnel in accordance with the revised monitoring structure sheet. Validationteam identified that YUKO-KEISO Co.,Ltd is responsible for the role of JCM ProjectManager, and that each power company is in charge of both JCM Monitoring Manager
and JCM Facilities Manager. Through the processes taken above, CL4 was raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
The following CAR4 and CL4 were raised to check the Monitoring Plan.
CAR4:
Validation team requested to describe the monitoring structure for the proposed project
activity in the Monitoring Structure Sheet.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs describe the role and responsibility in the Monitoring Structure Sheet “PDD ver.2(Ref.1-2)”. Validation team confirmed through the interview with PPs and powercompanies that the monitoring structure for the proposed project activity wasestablished and described appropriately in the Monitoring Structure Sheet. CAR4 wasclosed.
CL4:
Validation team requested the PPs to clarify how to communicate between the PPs andpower companies in case the relocation or malfunction of the transformers during themonitoring period.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs submitted the “Monitoring Form (Ref.10)” and “Transfer record of transformers
Relocated to other place (Ref.3-1-5)”. Validation team confirmed through the documents
and interviews with PPs and power companies that the communication tool isestablished and the data transfer is sufficient. CL4 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 CAR4 and CL4, validation teamconfirmed that the Monitoring Plan was described in compliance with the approved
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.
C.8. Modalities of Communication<Means of validation>13

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

Modalitiesofcommunications

(MoC)

was

developed

using

the

form

of

“JCM_VN_F_MoC_ver02.0”. Validation team confirmed that the latest form was used
for MoC.
MoC was submitted by YUKOKEISO. Validation team ensured that the “MoC (Ref.8-1)”
was received from YUKOKEISO with whom JMA has a contractual relationship.
Validation team assessed 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)” and interviews with all PPs.

Validation team confirmed that “Written

confirmation (Ref.8-2)” was issued by Mr. Toshihide Sugawara who is primaryauthorised by YUKOKEISO in the “MoC (Ref.8-1)”. “Written confirmation (Ref.8-2)”
indicates that all corporate and personal details of MoC of the proposed project,including specimen signatures, are valid and accurate.
<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 incompliance with the requirements of the “JCM Guidelines (Ref.13, 15)”.
C.9. Avoidance of double registration<Means of validation>“Written confirmation (Ref.8-2)” indicates that the proposed project is not registeredunder other international climate mitigation mechanisms. Also, “Written confirmation(Ref.8-2)” was issued by Mr.Toshihide Sugawara who is primary authorised by
YUKOKEISO in the “MoC (Ref.8-1)”. In addition, the following websites of CDM and
VCS were checked whether the projects with similar technology and location had beenregistered.
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
14

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

and location. Also, validation team raised CL5 for checking double counting of projecttransformers installed under a precedent JCM project in South Viet Nam.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
CL5:
Validation team requested to provide the transformer installation lists of the precedent
project (Ref. VN004) for checking the double counting.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs submitted the “Yearly Property Management Report: EVN SPC - JCM (VN004)(Transformer installation list in EVN SPC under the precedent project VN004) (Ref.7)”.
Validation team confirmed through the provided list of project VN004 that there is no
double counting of project transformers. CL5 was closed.
<Conclusion based on reporting requirements>
Please state conclusion based on reporting requirements.
Validation team assessed the double registration through the web site and supporting
documents. As a result of CL5, validation team confirmed that the proposed JCM
project was not registered under other international climate mitigation mechanisms, andthat there is no double counting of project transformers installed under the precedent
project (Ref. 7).
C.10. Start of operation<Means of validation>“Start of operation date” described in the PDD was checked through the “Transformer
list Installed of the four power companies (Ref.3-1-3)”, “Acceptance Record of the
Operation for the each transformer (Ref.3-3)”, “Initial Plan and Actual Process Chart
for the power companies (Ref.3-2)”, and interviews with power companies. Through theprocesses taken above, CAR5 and CL6 were raised.
<Findings>
Please state if CARs, CLs, or FARs are raised, and how they are resolved.
CAR5:
There were some transformers installed after the start of operation date, according to
the transformer list (Ref.3-1-3). However, validation team identified that all transformers
had been installed before the start of operation date, through the acceptance record(Ref.3-3) and the result of the interviews with four power companies. Validation teamrequested the PPs to correct the transformer list (Ref.3-1-3).
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
The PPs correct the lists and it is consistent with the supporting documents and15

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

interviews. Validation team confirmed that the lists were corrected appropriately. CAR5
was closed.
CL6:
Validation team requested to clarify how 1stof May 2017 was defined as the starting

date of project operation.
⇒Summary of Response and Validation team Conclusion：
PPs explained that the starting date was defined, based on the day when the latest
transformer installed and energizing, from the viewpoint of conservative manner.
Through the PPs’ reviewing the acceptance record (Ref.3-3),

PPs revised the starting

date from 1st of May 2017 to 13th of May 2017. Validation team confirmed it isconsistent with supporting documents. CL6 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 assessment. As a result of raising CAR5 and CL6, validationteam confirmed that the “Start of operation date” of the proposed project was on 13th of
May 2017 as described in the PDD. “Start of operation date” is not before 1st January
2013. Hence, validation team confirmed that the proposed project satisfied therequirement of the “JCM Guidelines (Ref.13, 14, 15)”.
C.11. Other issues<Means of validation>
No other issue was identified.
<Findings>
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 JCM Project Cycle Procedure (JCM_VN_PCP_ver04.0) (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 08 Dec. 2017 to 06 Jan. 2018 on thefollowing URL.

https://www.jcm.go.jp/vn-jp/projects/35
16

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

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 satisfy the requirement of JCM
Project Cycle Procedure (Ref.15).

E. List of interviewees and documents received
E.1. List of interviewees
EVN Central Power Corporation (EVNCPC)
LE THANH CHAU
PHAN THi THANH MAi
PHAM THU HANG
HO KHAC HUU
LUOWG VAN QUANGDa Nang Power Company Ltd.(DNPC)LE VAN PHLITRUONG QUOU ANHNGUYEN Thi NY VAN
EVN Central Power Corporation(EVNCPC)LE DAC TUNG
Nguyen Dac Thang
Nguyen tlugnh An Phu
Truong Xuan Quy
Tran The Du
Thai Phong Linh
Ho Chi Minh City Power Corporation(EVNHCMC)
Cao Hoang Trong
Tran Van Dinh
Ngugen Huu Thank Thi
17

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

PC BARIA-WNG TALI (Subsidiary of EVNCPC)
Nao Van Dung
Le Vu Hung
Cao Van Hoang
Pham Ngoc Quan
Ng Ugen Huu Hao
Dao Van Do
Dinh Hanh
Dang Hoai Nam
YUKO-KEISO Co.,Ltd.:
Toshihide Sugawara
Shiro Tokura
Hiromi Kuroyanagi
Saori Iwasaki

E.2. List of documents received
1

Project Design Document for JCM project

1-1

1st Edition (tentative), received on 19/10/2017

1-2

2nd Edition with Monitoring Spreadsheet, received on 4/12/2017

1-3

3rd Edition with Monitoring Spreadsheet, received on 9/2/2018

1-4

4th Edition with Monitoring Spreadsheet, received on 2/3/2018

2

Approved Methodology "Installation of energy efficient transformer in a power

distribution grid, Ver. 1.0"
3

Reference relating to PDD chapter A,B,C

3-1-1

Tender Specifications of Amorphous Transformers (No-load losses/load lossesof the project transformers)
3-1-1-A Specifications for DNPC
3-1-1-B Specifications for EVN CPC
3-1-1-C Specifications for EVN SPC
3-1-1-D Specifications for EVN HCMC
3-1-2

Pre-delivery Inspection Reports of Transformers Installed in the four Power

Companies
3-1-2-A Reports of DNPC
3-1-2-B Reports of EVN CPC
18

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

3-1-2-C Reports of EVN SPC
3-1-2-D Reports of EVN HCMC
3-1-3

Transformer list Installed of the four power companies

3-1-4

Maps of Transformer Installation Locations

3-1-4-A Maps of

EVN CPC

3-1-4-B Maps of DNPC
3-1-4-C Maps of EVN SPC
3-1-4-D Maps of EVN HCMC
3-1-5

Transfer record of transformers Relocated to other place

3-1-5A Reports of

DNPC

3-1-5B Reports of

EVN CPC

3-1-5C Reports of

EVN SPC

3-1-5D Reports of

EVN HCMC

3-1-6

Brochure of the amorphous transformer issued by THIIDI

3-2

Initial Plan and Actual Process Chart for the 4 Power Companies

3-3

Acceptance Record of the Operation for the each transformer

3-3-1

Record of DNPC

3-3-2

Record of EVN CPC

3-3-3

Record of EVN SPC

3-3-4

Record of EVN HCMC

3-4

Reference of "Expected operational lifetime of project

3-4-1"Guiding Regulations on Management , Use and Depreciation of Fixed Asset"

No.:45/2013/TT-BTC Circular, MoF of Viet Nam, April 25,2013
3-4-2

Legal durable years issued by Japan Tax Office

3-5

Grant decisions for JCM project

3-6

Standards related transformers

3-6-1

International Standard IEC 60076-1

3-6-2

Viet Nam Standard TCVN6306-1:2015

3-7

Construction and monitoring instructions

4

Regulation regarding the EIA

4-1

Low on Environmental Protection", No.55/2014/QH13. The National Assembly,

June 23, 2014
4-2

Decree 18: "ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLANNING, STRATEGICENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTASSESSMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLANS", The Government, February 14, 20155

Local Stakeholder Consultation

5-1

1) Local stakeholder consultation meeting summary EVN CPC/DNPC
19

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0(02/08/2017)
5-22) Local stakeholder consultation meeting summary EVN SPC/HCPC(03/08/2017)
5-33) Invitation letter to EVN CPC (12/07/2017)

5-44) Invitation letter to EVN SPC (12/07/2017)

5-55) Presentation material "JCM in Viet Nam" by MUMSS, August 2017

5-6

6) Presentation material "JCM Schedule and MRV" by MUMSS, August 2017

5-77) List of the Participants for LSC Meetings held on 2/8/2017 & 3/8/2017)

6

Tender Specifications of the reference transformers issued by Power Company

6-1

Specifications for DNPC

6-2

Specifications for EVN CPC

6-3

Specifications for EVN SPC

6-4

Specifications for EVNHCMC

7Yearly Property Management Report: EVN SPC - JCM (VN004)(Transformer

installation list in EVN SPC under the precedent project VN004)
8

Modalities of Communications (MoC)

8-1

MoC received on 05/12/2017

8-2

Written Confirmation

9

Grid emission factor for Vietnam 2014- Approved in 2016 issued by Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment
10

Monitoring Form

11

Organization Chart of four Power Companies

11-1

Organization Chart of DNPC

11-2

EVNCPC Annual Report 2016 (including the company organization chart)

11-3

EVNSPC Brochure1 (including the company organization chart)

11-4

Organization Chart of EVNHCMC

12Power Company Information

12-1

LIST OF PROVINCIAL GRID COMPANIES UNDER SOUTHERN POWERCORPORATION
12-2

Subsidiaries of EVNHCMC

12-3

Information of EVNCPC Subsidiaries

12-4

Information of Grid Branches - DNPC

12-5

EVNCPC Annual Report 2016 (including the company organization chart)

12-6

EVN Annual Report 2015 (including the company organization chart)

12-7

EVN Annual Report_2012-2013

12-8

EVNSPC Brochure1 (including the company organization chart)

12-9

EVNSPC Brochure2
20

JCM_VN_F_Val_Rep_ver01.0

13

JCM Guidelines for Validation and Verification (JCM_VN_GL_VV_ver01.0)

14

Joint Crediting Mechanism Guidelines for Developing Project Design

Document and Monitoring Report (JCM_VN_GL_PDD_MR_ver02.0)
15

Joint

Crediting

Mechanism(JCM_VN_PCP_ver04.0)

21

Project

Cycle

ProcedureJCM_VN_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.

22