The Verification schedule is as follows:
Data sampling:
Buffalo Trail Public: January 20 - 25, 2012 Elk Island Catholic: March 12 - 21, 2012 Site visits:
Buffalo Trail Public: January 19 & 20, 2012 Elk Island Catholic: March 22 & 23, 2012 Issue final report: May 1, 2012
Planning
Finalize Scope and Terms of Reference January 5, 2012
To ensure a full understanding and agreement on the review objectives we will conduct an initial meeting in the form of a face to face meeting or conference call. The meeting is intended to ensure:
• All parties have a clear understanding of the review objectives and scope;
• All parties have a clear understanding of the level of assurance to be provided;
• All parties have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities;
• All parties agree on the timeline and budget for the engagement; and
• A firm schedule of site-visit(s) is established
Conduct Preliminary Review of Data Management and Controls January 10, 2012
In order to develop a review strategy that will ensure successful completion of the review, we require all relevant GHG documentation including:
• Reports from client including Project Report and Project Plan
• GHG inventories and activity data (including producer applications and summary database)
• Approved Protocol under which the Project is planned to be registered.
Develop Review Strategy January 15, 2012
Based on a review of the requested documentation, we will develop an initial strategy for completing the review objectives. This strategy involves tracking the data acquisition, transfer, analysis, and reporting to ensure errors are identified and the process is fully in accordance with industry standards.
Development of the Verification and Sampling Plan January 16, 2012
The Verification Activities consisted of three stages.
Planning:
• Collection of evidence
Environmental Compliance Inc Director of Engineering provided all the data for the desktop review to the Williams Engineering Corporate office.
• Assess internal controls,
The Internal Controls were assessed through a comparison of the data spreadsheet to be entered in Metrics 4.0 and the corresponding bills. The internal controls are strong as the data consistently matches the bills.
• Develop review file
Pertinent project related information is saved on the Williams Server as well as hard copies of site notes and data being saved in a hard copy in the WEC server in our archive for 2012.
• Provide initial feedback
As the project progresses, if the verifier is concerned about a discrepancy that may be material, she will notify the client so that they may make the necessary changes before the verification proceeds.
Execution:
• Collection of evidence
Evidence was collected through digital records being downloaded from the client as well as site visits to confirm the equipment is on site and functioning. The document review included invoices for the energy efficiency equipment and the associated shipping and installation. Operations and Maintenance Manuals are observed to ensure the energy efficiency equipment is functioning and properly maintained. The desktop review included reviewing ~30% of all utility data for 50% of the sites, involved in this project.
• Assess internal controls
As mentioned above, the internal controls were assessed through a comparison of the data spreadsheet to be entered in Metrics 4.0 and the corresponding bills. The internal controls are strong as the data consistently matches the bills and no material errors were found.
• Conduct substantive testing
The equations and total emissions were tested by using project data and doing sample calculations.
• Develop review file,
Pertinent project related information is saved on the Williams Server as well as hard copies of site notes and data being saved in a hard copy in the WEC server in our archive for 2012.
• Provide initial feedback, performed over the phone or in email during the process Completion:
• Review final GHG Assertion
• Confirm work completed and peer reviewed
• Close engagement
Note that while these three stages occur in sequence, individual steps within each stage often occur in parallel. It is normal for this process to be refined as work progresses and additional information comes to light.
Execution
Collection of Evidence January 20 & March 5-9, 2012
The Review Team examines the following sources of evidence:
In executing the sampling plan, we reviewed the documents indicated below.
• Emission factors and calculations to ensure they are current and in accordance with the appropriate entities.
• The baseline sample consisted of four months from the baseline data for 50% of the sites was verified against related natural gas and electricity invoices for the baseline period which varied by site, the earliest beginning in July 2003
• The project activity data sample of all meters on site, four months from every year of the baseline data was verified against related natural gas and electricity invoices from January 1, 2004 – April 30, 2011.
• Invoices for the installation of energy efficiency equipment and building envelope improvements
• Alberta Boiler Safety Association (ABSA) related information such as current permits
• Maintenance and Infrastructure Reports
• A representative sample of the reductions calculations were confirmed to be correct
• Operations and Maintenance documents
Two concepts to the collection of review evidence are sufficiency and appropriateness. These concepts are interrelated. The decision as to whether an adequate quantity (sufficiency) of evidence has been obtained will be influenced by its quality (appropriateness).
Internal Controls Assessment Data sampling:
Buffalo Trail Public: January 20 - 25, 2012 Elk Island Catholic: March 12 - 21, 2012
Site visit:
Buffalo Trail Public: January 19 & 20, 2012
Elk Island Catholic: March 22 & 23, 2012
The Review Team develops a sufficient understanding of internal controls to determine whether the overall data management system is sound. This assessment constitutes examining three aspects of the Buffalo Trail Public – Elk Island Catholic Energy Efficiency Project, Offset Project internal controls: (1) the control environment, (2) the data systems, and (3) the control procedures.
Substantive Testing: strategy is more efficient, significant substantive testing may be required. To this end (and as necessary) the GHG Review team carries out:
• Comparisons against benchmarks and assessments of data relationships;
• Checking the arithmetical accuracy of source documents;
• Checking the application of the estimation equations;
• Checking applied estimation equations against other estimation techniques; and
• Identifying missing data and procedure for including/excluding the data period and rationale.
Develop Review File Throughout the project
The review file is composed of documents, records, working papers and other evidence collected and created by the Review Team during the course of the review. These documents serve to support review conclusions.
The review file serves to:
• Provide support for the contents of the verification statement;
• Provide evidence that the review was conducted in accordance with the criteria set forth in this document; and
• Aid the Review Team in conducting current and future reviews.
The review file includes:
• The draft GHG Assertion
• Decisions on the level of materiality and components of review risk
• Documentation on internal controls
• Descriptions of the controls assessment work and results
• Descriptions of the substantive testing procedures that were carried out and the results
• Copies of relevant records, spreadsheets and other data files
• Copies of any correspondence relevant to the verification.
• Working documents including the baseline review along with the other data review work
The review file is the property of Williams Engineering Canada Inc. and access to it is normally restricted to the Review Team and the client.
Williams Engineering Canada Inc. retains and safeguards the file for a minimum of seven (7) years.
Provide initial feedback - At this stage the Review Team provides written feedback regarding the review results, specifically, in reference to:
• Any material errors, omissions or misstatements identified in the draft data during the course of the review and, if so, what adjustments to the data should be made; and
• Any weaknesses in the internal controls that were identified during the review.
Completion
Review Final Verification Report May 1, 2012
Based on the outcome of the closing meeting and feedback from the GHG Review Team, the final GHG Assertion is prepared by the client. Any supporting information required by the Ministry of Environment is also prepared at this stage.
The Lead Verifier reviews the final GHG Assertion and supporting documentation in its entirety to ensure that there are no material errors, misstatements, contradictions, or other misleading information.
Confirm Work Completed May 1, 2012
As part of the QA/QC process, the Review Team will conduct a final review of the work (process and results) to ensure that no issues have been unaddressed and that all team members are in agreement on the final review conclusions. The Lead Verifier is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all the work is closed out. A closing meeting is held with the client to debrief the review process and provide the Statement of Verification.
Close Engagement May 1, 2012
Upon delivery of the verification statement and the review engagement is closed out. The following internal tasks are completed:
• Addition of Verification Statement, Statement of Qualifications and Conflict of Interest Checklist along with the management letter to the review file; and
• Organization of the review files and sign-off by the lead reviewer.