As a compliance officer, I can see which GHG reports have a Verification Statement requirement in Metabase about cas-ggircs HOT 8 CLOSED

A reporting operation (LFO, SFO or EIO) is required to submit a GHG report with a verification statement if:

• The reporting operation (LFO, SFO or EIO) has emissions greater than or equal to 25,000 tCO2e, not including "reporting-only" emissions, in a reporting period

• "reporting-only emissions" means carbon dioxide from biomass listed in Schedule C and emissions from source types listed in items 2 and 25 of Table 1 of Schedule A;

• For an LFO, assess compliance on the LFO reported total and not the sum of the individual facilities (IF_a, IF_b, L_c) to avoid double counting. If a discrepancy exists between the sum of the individual facilities and the LFO total, flag for further review - this may be an issue if one total is below the threshold and one is above the threshold.

• Ensure that emissions in the report are not double counted when GHG report includes subprocess_name: Additional information for cement and lime production facilities only (not aggregated in totals); Additional information required when other activities selected are Activities in tablee 2 rows 2,4,5, or 6. Note, i am not sure if this is a quirk of Qinghan's extractions, or if this is something that MB would need to filter - this is just how we filter it using his extractions.

• If a reporting operation has emissions greater than or equal to 25,000 tCO2e, not including "reporting-only" emissions, in a reporting period it therefore has a verification requirement for the 3 consecutive reporting periods following

• A reporting operation has a verification requirement if the Director under GGIRCA imposed it (discretionary requirement)

from cas-ggircs.

In the verification review spreadsheet that we shared, please refer to the tab "Emissions_Total Attr" to note how we are filtering the data

from cas-ggircs.

This card needs to be updated so that all devs know what the rules are in MB (note from July 27 mtg)

from cas-ggircs.

@Dianadec Sorry i might be confused - anything i need to update?

from cas-ggircs.

@johnnagle Nope sorry for any confusion - that was a note for devs :)

from cas-ggircs.

The LFO compliance part was moved to #289
This needs a dev (likely @dleard or me) to find how the rules listed by John above are represented in our swrs schema.

from cas-ggircs.

@naomiaro @dleard @pbastia Hey team! Can you please add your planning poker estimates with ZenHub

from cas-ggircs.

Thank you for the demo @matthieu-foucault !

from cas-ggircs.