carbon neutral technology corp.€¦ · carbon neutral’s co2neutral™ cdi carbon neutral...

1

Carbon Neutral IT Asset Reuse Project for CDI Computer Dealers Inc.

Carbon Neutral Technology Corp. Verification Report

February 28, 2019

This page intentionally blank

Brightspot Climate Inc. – Verification Report Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for CDI Computer Dealers Inc.

1

1 Verification Objective and Details

The objective of the verification is to confirm data, controls and processes supporting the emission

reduction or removal calculations as presented in the GHG Report and corresponding GHG Assertion

according to the procedures set out in ISO 14064-3.

Additional objectives include confirming that the GHG Report and corresponding GHG Assertion

conformed to the requirements and principles of ISO 14064-2 and are without material discrepancies.

ISO 14064-2 defines the following terms used in the context of a GHG verification:

GHG Assertion: a declaration or factual and objective statement made by the Responsible

Party.

Project: activity or activities that alter the conditions identified in the baseline scenario which

cause greenhouse gas emission reductions or greenhouse gas removal enhancements.

ISO 14064-2 defines the following parties associated with the verification:

Responsible Party: person or persons responsible for the provision of the greenhouse gas

assertion and supporting GHG information.

The Responsible Party for this verification is Carbon Neutral Technology Corp (CNTC).

Intended User: individual or organization identified by those reporting GHG-related information

as being the one who relies on that information to make decisions.

The Intended User for this verification is the CSA CleanProjects® Registry and its users.

Verifier: competent and independent person, or persons, with the responsibility of performing

and reporting on the verification process.

The Verifier for this verification is Brightspot Climate Inc. (Brightspot). The verification team

members are described in Section 1.11 of this report.

1.1 Project Title

Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for CDI Computer Dealers Inc.

1.2 Project Start Date

The project start date and crediting start date are January 1, 2012.

1.3 Verification Site Visit (date)

A site visit to CDI computer refurbishment facility was conducted by Aaron Schroeder on December 5,

2019. During the site visit CDI personnel provided an overview of the facility and answered questions

related to ownership of refurbished computer equipment, warranty, and the additionality of the

refurbishment process. The internal processes for tracking the specifications for computer equipment

and new components was demonstrated.

1.4 Expected Lifetime of the Project

The credit period is expected to occur for 10 years: January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2021.


2

The facility is expected to continue operations beyond the end of the crediting period, the project may

be renewed if the practice remains additional.

1.5 Type of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction or Removal Project

Carbon Neutral’s CO2Neutral™ CDI Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for

CDI Computer Dealers Inc. is a waste diversion (reduction) project, specifically targeting waste from

electronics.

1.6 Methodology Appropriateness

The project uses a lifecycle analysis of electronic waste management from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors used in

the Waste Reduction Model (WARM), dated February 2016.

The project methodology adapts the WARM lifecycle assessment to address two key issues:

1. Relevance of glass in computer equipment: The WARM lifecycle analysis was completed

several years ago and includes a significant proportion of glass in the computer component

analysis. The origin of glass in this analysis is almost entirely from computer monitors; more

specifically, from the monitor cathode ray tube (CRT). Since CRT monitors have not been used

for several years, the Responsible Party adjusted the WARM factors to remove glass from the

consideration of the emission factors for desktop computers.

Laptop computers and tablets contain a significant proportion of glass and therefore, the

WARM factors were not adjusted for these devices.

2. Double counting: The emission reductions achieved by this project occur almost entirely

upstream of the project in undetermined locations internationally. Aluminum, steel and copper

comprise approximately 76% of the mass of computers, based on the WARM analysis. The

Responsible Party conducted an analysis of jurisdictions that produce and manufacture these

three materials. A discount factor was calculated and applied to the overall emission reduction

to account for materials originating from jurisdictions that have emission trading systems in

place.

The application of the WARM analysis and the adaptations for the relevance of glass in the analysis and

the method to account for double counting has been confirmed as appropriate for the Project based on

a review of the following:

• The reductions and direct comparison of lifecycle emissions between the baseline scenarios

selected and project condition present in this project.

• The direct comparison of environmental benefit of computer refurbishment. �

• The fundamental assumptions and criteria for lifecycle emissions are met by the project. �

• Quantification of baseline and project conditions are functionally equivalent, and; �

• Quantification is based upon actual measurement and monitoring, where applicable.


3

1.7 Legal Land Description

CDI Computers Dealers Inc. refurbishment facility is located at:

Street Address

130 South Town Centre Blvd

Markham, ON L6G 1C3

Geographic Location:

Latitude: 43°51’02.98” N

Longitude: 79°20’17.83” W

&

Street Address

75 Clegg Rd

Markham, ON L6G 1A9


Latitude: 43°51’02.60” N


1.8 Ownership Verification

Based on a review of contractual agreements, CDI Computers Dealers Inc. owns and is responsible for

any IT asset at the time it enters the CO2NeutralTM Program. Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation is

the Responsible Party making the GHG Assertion.

1.9 Reporting, Monitoring, and Verification Details

The GHG reporting period covered by this verification is January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2017.

The asserted total emissions reduction for the reporting period is 259,108 tonnes CO2e. CDI

Computers anticipates that the Project will report on an annual basis for subsequent emission reduction

assertions.

The Responsible Party has developed a monitoring plan for each of the project parameters, including

the quantification variable used to calculate the emission reduction. The monitoring plan was reviewed

during the verification – see Section 3.5 for the verification results.

This Verification Report will be posted publicly on the GHG CleanProjects® registry along with the GHG

Project and related GHG Report and Assertion February 28, 2019, Version 4 to which it pertains.

1.10 Level of Assurance and Verification Summary

The verification was planned and executed to reach a reasonable level of assurance.

There were no discrepancies detected in the final GHG Assertion.

The Responsible Party’s asserted emission reduction is provided in the following table:


4

Table 1: GHG Assertions by Vintage Year

GHG Emission Reduction

2012: 70,237 tonnes CO2e

2013: 57,003 tonnes CO2e

2014: 57,081 tonnes CO2e

2015: 31,930 tonnes CO2e

2016: 24,777 tonnes CO2e

2017: 18,080 tonnes CO2e

Total: 259,108 tonnes CO2e

Source: GHG Report CDI v4-0 February 2019

1.11 Roles and Responsibilities

The verification team comprised exclusively of Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng., as Lead Verifier. The Lead

Verifier was responsible for all activities conducted within the verification, including the development of

the Verification and Sampling Plans, as well as the execution of the verification procedures. The Lead

Verifier was the lead author of the Verification Report and executed the Verification Statement.

1.11.1 AUTHORIZED PROJECT CONTACT

Shahira Esmail

Climate Smart Group

1111 16th Street

Sacramento CA, 95814

[email protected]

(628) 207-0912

1.11.2 PROJECT PROPONENT

Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation 31 Rosena Lane

Uxbridge, Ontario

L9P 1X8

Contact: Steve Glover

[email protected]

+1 (647) 267-9982

1.11.3 REPORT VERIFIER

Brightspot Climate Inc.

409 Granville Street, Suite 401

Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2

Canada

Lead Verifier: Aaron Schroeder

[email protected]

+1 (604) 353-0264


5

2 Verification Criteria

As per ISO 14064-3, the verification assessed the project document and all supporting information.

The Project was developed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model

(WARM) – Durable Goods Materials Chapters – February 2016.

2.1 Scope

Table 2: Verification Scope

Geographic Boundary: CDI Computer Dealers Inc.

130 South Town Centre Blvd

Markham, ON L6G 1C3


Latitude: 43°51’02.98” N


&

75 Clegg Rd

Markham, ON L6G 1A9


Latitude: 43°51’02.60” N


Physical Operations: Baseline: Computer manufacturing and computer recycling

processes.

Project: IT refurbishment, which includes the following

processes:

• Sanitization

• Triage

• Data Wiping

• Repairs, Replacement and Reassembly

• Testing and Quality Control

• Cosmetic Repairs

GHG Sources, Sinks and

Reservoirs:

• Production of virgin materials

• Computer manufacturing

• Purchased Electricity

• Natural Gas Consumption

Type of GHGs: • Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

• Methane (CH4)

• Nitrous Oxide (N2O)


6

Reporting Period: January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2017

2.2 Materiality

The quantitative materiality threshold identifies misstated or omitted information that would significantly

misrepresent the GHG Assertion to the intended user. For this project, the quantitative materiality

threshold is equal to 5% of the asserted greenhouse gas emission reduction. Qualitative discrepancies

will also be evaluated and considered against the needs of the intended user.

3 Verification Plan

3.1 Preliminary Review

The verification team conducted a preliminary review of the project and project documentation. The

review was conducted by reviewing the draft GHG Report and interviewing representatives of the

responsible party. Through this review, the verification team confirmed that the team has the necessary

technical skills and competencies to review the nature, scale and complexity of the project.

A preliminary review of the completeness and appropriateness of the GHG Report and GHG Assertion

and data management systems confirmed that the project is ready for verification.

There were no issues raised through the preliminary review that would have precluded the completion

of the verification.

3.2 Verification Risk Assessment

The Verification Risk Assessment was completed during the verification planning stage. Verification risk

is defined as the risk of an incorrect verification conclusion. It can be calculated as the product of the

Project’s inherent risks, the Responsible Party’s control risks and the Verifier’s detection risks. The

verifier cannot affect the inherent risk or the control risk. Therefore, to reduce the overall verification risk

and reach the agreed level of assurance (defined in the verification scope), the verifier must design

verification procedures that reduce the detection risk.

The following table presents the results of the verification risk assessment. Each inherent and control

risk is described along with the risk evaluation (high/medium/low). The risk evaluation considers both

the magnitude of the activity data or inventory component on the overall GHG assertion as well as the

probability that the risk will result in a discrepancy, as assessed by the verifier.

In instances where a substantive approach is applied in the verification procedure (i.e. the procedure

tests the data, rather than the Responsible Party’s controls), the Responsible Party’s control is not

listed, but is denoted “N/A”; however, this does not imply that the Responsible Party does not have a

control in place.


7

Table 3: Verification Risk Assessment

Activity Data /

Inventory Component

Inherent Risk Control Risk Detection

Risk Design

Description of Verification Procedure

GENERAL APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS

Ownership must be

clearly established

Relevance – High

Ownership of computer

equipment may not be

clearly defined.

N/A – verification is not

relying on Responsible

Party Controls.

Low Substantive test – confirm that CDI Computer

Dealers Inc. takes possession of computer

equipment upon receipt through interviews

during the site visit.

Appropriateness of the

baseline.

Relevance – High

The baseline condition

may not clearly establish

additionality or may not

realistically represent the

condition prior to project

implementation.



Party Controls.

Low Substantive test – interview Responsible Party

personnel during the site visit to confirm that

computer equipment in the project has been

diverted from disposal or recycling. Review

data to confirm that only computer equipment

that has a three year or greater warranty (or

an option for the customer to this warranty) is

included in the project.


8

Activity Data /

Inventory Component


Risk Design


ISO 14064-2 REQUIREMENTS

Project information Completeness – Medium

Accuracy – Medium

The project information

provided in the GHG

report may not include all

information required by

ISO 14064-2 or may be

inaccurate



Party Controls.

Low Substantive test – review all information

provided in the GHG Report, comparing it to

observations made during the site visit and

data and documentation provided by the

Responsible Party. Confirm that all required

data is included in the report and is accurate.

Definition and selection

of Sources, Sinks and

Reservoirs (SSRs)

Completeness – High

Relevance – High

Conservativeness - High

SSRs identified and

selected for

quantification may be

incomplete or may not

be relevant to the

project.



Party Controls.

Low Substantive test – review the GHG Report

and supporting documentation, comparing

the selection of SSRs described in these

documents to observations made during the

site visit. Evaluate the justifications provided

for excluding SSRs, confirming that a

conservative approach has been applied.


9

Activity Data /

Inventory Component


Risk Design


Data monitoring for each

quantification parameter

Completeness – Low

Relevance – Low

Transparency – Low

Plan for monitoring data

may be incomplete,

inappropriate or may not

provide for sufficient

transparency in data.



Party Controls.

High Substantive test – review the data monitoring

plan for each quantification parameter,

evaluating for completeness and relevance

based on understanding of the overall project.

Review level of transparency in project data to

confirm sufficient transparency to conduct the

verification at a reasonable level of assurance

and meet the needs of the intended user.

QUANTIFICATION DATA

Emission factors – US

EPA – WARM and

Environment Canada

electricity and natural

gas emission factors

Relevance – High

Transparency – High

Accuracy - High

Emission factors applied

may not be directly

applicable to the project

or may be transcribed

incorrectly.



Party Controls.

Low Substantive test – review EPA WARM and

Environment Canada documentation to

evaluate if values modeled in WARM are

applicable to the project. Confirm that the

correct emission factors have been selected

and accurately transcribed.


10

Activity Data /

Inventory Component


Risk Design


Mass of refurbished

equipment, RMA and

new equipment

Accuracy – High

Transparency – Medium

The mass of each item of

computer equipment in

the database may not

accurately represent the

actual mass.

Accuracy – Low

The Responsible Party

documents either a

manufacturer or retailer

for each make and

model of equipment in

the project.

Low Controls test – interview the Responsible

Party’s representative regarding the internal

process used to obtain the mass of the

computer equipment, then review the

documentation for several make/model

combinations to test the control.

Quantity of electricity and

natural gas consumed

Accuracy – Low

Completeness- Low

The quantity of electricity

may not be complete or

accurately copied from

the Responsible Party’s

accounting system.



Party Controls.

High Substantive test – review the total quantity of

electricity to confirm accuracy; confirm that

twelve monthly values are included for each

year.

EMISSION REDUCTION QUANTIFICATION AND REPORTING

Quantification of

emission reduction

Accuracy (high)

Emission reduction

calculation may contain

arithmetic errors.



Party Controls.

Low Substantive test: Recalculate the emission

reduction using original metered data.

Substantive test: Recalculate WARM emission

factor for removal of glass from factors.


11

Activity Data /

Inventory Component


Risk Design


Substantive test: Review and recalculate

discount factor that is applied to account for

double counting.

Transcription of final

emission reduction into

GHG Report

Accuracy (high)

Final emission reduction

may not have been

transcribed accurately

from calculation

spreadsheets into the

GHG Report

N/A (controls not

considered for

verification)

Low Substantive test: compare the final emission

reduction quantity reported by the

Responsible Party to the quantity reported in

the GHG Report. Also, compare these

quantities to the recalculated quantity in

previous verification procedures.


12

3.3 Sampling Plan

The verification procedures that could apply sampling of the project data are listed in the following table.

The sampling size, the sampling methodology and their respective justifications are also described in the following table.

Table 4: Sampling Plan

Activity Data /

Inventory Component

Detection Risk

Design

Description of Verification

Procedure

Sampling Methodology and

Justification

Sample Size

Mass of refurbished

equipment

Low Review the documentation for

several make/model

combinations to test the

control.

As appropriate to the risk level,

a confidence level of 85% and

a confidence level of 8% was

used to select a sample. The

parts were then selected using

a random number generator in

excel

75 of 378


13

3.4 GHG Report

The final GHG Report subject to this verification is dated February 28, 2019, Version 4.

The asserted emission reduction quantity is shown in Section 2.9 this report.

3.5 Verification Findings

The results of the verification risk assessment provided the basis for the verification procedures. Table 5, below, provides a summary of the

verification procedures where discrepancies were detected. Table 6, which follows, provides a description of every verification procedure that

was completed.

Detailed working papers regarding the verification procedures are available on request.

Table 5: Verification Findings Summary

Mass of refurbished

equipment

The Responsible Party is required to provide an accurate mass for the

computer equipment in the project as well as provide documentary

evidence of the weights used.

The Responsible Party provided a detailed description of the process

used to obtain the mass of computer equipment.

The review of the mass in the sample selection from manufacturers

and retailers contained three different types of discrepancies.

Immaterial Approximately

0.6%

Activity Data / Inventory

Component Description Discrepancy Description

Discrepancy

Type

Discrepancy

Magnitude


14

Table 6: Findings of Verification Procedures

Activity Data / Inventory Component Description

Verification Procedures Verification Findings

GENERAL APPLICABILITY REQUIREMENTS

Ownership must be

clearly established

Substantive test – confirm that CDI

Computer Dealers Inc. takes possession of

computer equipment upon receipt through

interviews during the site visit.

The Responsible Party confirmed that all computer equipment that

enters the refurbishment facility is in CDI Computer Dealers Inc.’s

possession. The Responsible Party, therefore, owns the emission

reduction associated with the project activity.

No discrepancies detected in the ownership of the emission

reduction.

Appropriateness of the

baseline.

Substantive test – interview Responsible

Party personnel during the site visit to

confirm that computer equipment in the

project has been diverted from landfill or

recycling. Review data to confirm that only

computer equipment that has a three year

or greater warranty (or an option for the

customer to this warranty) is included in the

project.

The Responsible Party described the collection process for

computer equipment, including the types of organizations disposing

of their computer equipment. Through this inquiry, the Responsible

Party confirmed that all computer equipment would have been

disposed in the waste stream or sent to recycling.

A review of project data confirmed that only computer equipment

with an option for a three-year warranty was included in the project,

confirming that all computer equipment is displacing new

equipment. Further, the mass of equipment was adjusted

appropriately for components of the equipment that were replaced

through the refurbishment process (such as hard drives, batteries,

and other peripherals). Additionally, the mass of new components

and RMAs were subtracted from the baseline condition to correctly

reflect the total mass of items refurbished.

No discrepancies were detected in the appropriateness of the

baseline.


15



ISO 14064-2 REQUIREMENTS

Project information Substantive test – review all information

provided in the GHG Report, comparing it to

observations made during the site visit and

data and documentation provided by the

Responsible Party. Confirm that all required

data is included in the report and is

accurate.

The project information described in the GHG Report accurately

represents the baseline and project conditions and the

quantification of the emission reduction, as observed during the site

visit.

No discrepancies were detected in the project information

described in the GHG Report.

Definition and selection of

Sources, Sinks and

Reservoirs (SSRs)

Substantive test – review the GHG Report

and supporting documentation, comparing

the selection of SSRs described in these

documents to observations made during the

site visit. Evaluate the justifications provided

for excluding SSRs, confirming that a

conservative approach has been applied.

The SSRs described in the GHG Report and the selection of SSRs

for quantification appropriately represents the relevant SSRs

observed during the site visit.

No discrepancies were detected in the selection of the SSRs.

Data monitoring for each

quantification parameter

Substantive test – review the data

monitoring plan for each quantification

parameter, evaluating for completeness and

relevance based on understanding of the

overall project. Review level of transparency

in project data to confirm sufficient

transparency to conduct the verification at a

reasonable level of assurance and meet the

needs of the intended user.

The monitoring plan for each parameter was reviewed and found to

describe the components required to sufficiently monitor the

parameter.

The project data has been provided at a sufficient frequency to

conduct the verification.

No discrepancies were detected in the monitoring plan or the

transparency of the project data.


16



QUANTIFICATION DATA

Emission factors – US

EPA - WARM and

Environment Canada

Substantive test – review EPA WARM

documentation to evaluate if values modeled

in WARM are applicable to the project.

Confirm that the correct emission factors

have been selected and accurately

transcribed.

The EPA WARM documentation was reviewed. The emission

factors for production of virgin materials was appropriately applied

to the avoided recycling SSR in the baseline scenario. The

“recycled input credit” described in WARM is appropriately applied

as a negative value in the baseline scenario.

The recycled input credit emission reduction factor was developed

based on computers with cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, which

are no longer relevant. The primary difference between CRT and

LED monitors is that the latter have no glass. The EPA WARM

document states that only 2% of the overall mass of the computer

and monitor is the CRT glass. Therefore, since the remaining

components of CRT and LED monitors are similar, the use of this

emission reduction factor is appropriate.

The Environment Canada natural gas and electricity emission

factors were appropriately applied.

The emission factors from WARM and Environment Canada

emission factors were correctly transcribed into the emission

reduction calculations.

No discrepancies were detected in the appropriateness or

transcription of the emission factors.


17



Mass of refurbished

equipment

Controls test – interview the Responsible

Party’s representative regarding the internal

process used to obtain the mass of the

computer equipment, then review the

documentation for several make/model

combinations to test the control.

The Responsible Party is required to provide an accurate mass for

the computer equipment in the project as well as provide

documentary evidence of the weights used.

The Responsible Party provided a detailed description of the

process used to obtain the mass of computer equipment.

The review of the mass in the sample selection from

manufacturers and retailers contained three different types of

immaterial discrepancies as follows:

1. In one instance documentation was not available to

corroborate the mass of the refurbished equipment. The

approximate effect of this immaterial discrepancy is less than

0.1% of the total mass of the refurbished equipment.

2. In six instances the mass did not match the backup

provided by The Responsible Party. The approximate effect of

this immaterial discrepancy is less than 0.50% of the total

mass of the refurbished equipment.

The cumulative effect of these discrepancies on the project is

approximately 0.6% of the total mass of the refurbished

equipment.

Quantity of electricity and

natural gas consumed

Substantive test – review the total quantities

of electricity and natural gas to confirm

accuracy; confirm that twelve monthly

values are included for each year.

The quantities of electricity and natural gas were provided for twelve

months within each year of the reporting period.

No discrepancies were detected in the quantities of electricity

or natural gas.


18



Proportion of buildings

used by the Responsible

Party (for apportionment

of electricity and natural

gas consumption)

Substantive test – observe the proportion of

the building area used by the Responsible

Party during the site visit to estimate if it

reasonably resembles the proportion applied

in the emission quantification.

The observation of the refurbishing facility and adjacent facilities

confirms that the floor area applied in the quantification is

representative of the area used by the refurbishing project.

No discrepancies were detected in the proportion of building

area applied in the quantification of electricity and natural gas

related emissions.

EMISSION REDUCTION QUANTIFICATION AND REPORT

Quantification of emission

reduction

Substantive test: Recalculate the emission

reduction using original metered data.

The recalculation of the emission reduction reasonably matched the

Responsible Party’s quantification.

No discrepancies were detected in the quantification of the

emission reduction.

Substantive test: Recalculate WARM

emission factor for removal of glass from

factors.

The adjusted emission factor, which removes emissions associated

with glass from the overall factor, was recalculated using data in the

US EPA WARM analysis.

The recalculation of the adjusted emission factor resulted in the

same value as calculated by the Responsible Party.

No discrepancies were detected in the calculation of the

adjusted WARM emission factor.


19



Substantive test: Review and recalculate

discount factor that is applied to account for

double counting.

The discount factor to account for potential double counting was

recalculated using the contribution analysis from the US EPA

WARM analysis and the original data provided by the Responsible

Party relating to countries with emission trading schemes.

The recalculation of the discount factor resulted in the same value

as calculated by the Responsible Party.

No discrepancies were detected in the calculation of the

discount factor that accounts for double counting.

Transcription of final

emission reduction into

GHG Report

Substantive test: compare the final emission

reduction quantity reported by the

Responsible Party to the quantity reported in

the GHG Report. Also, compare these

quantities to the recalculated quantity in

previous verification procedures.

The final emission reduction quantities were correctly transcribed

into the GHG Report.

No discrepancies were detected in the final reported emission

reduction quantities in the GHG Report.


20

3.6 Verification Records

All records used to conduct the verification will be maintained by Brightspot for seven years from the

date of this report.

3.7 Facts discovered after the verification

If any facts are discovered after the completion of the verification that may result in a mater

discrepancy, Brightspot will notify the project proponent and GHG CleanProjects® Registry within

seven days.

3.8 Verification Schedule

The verification was completed according to the schedule established between the Responsible Party

and the Verifier in the Verification Plan. The verification reached important milestones on the following

dates:

• Verification Kickoff Meeting: August 20, 2018

• Site Visit: December 5, 2018

• Final GHG Report February 28, 2019

• Draft Verification Report : February 19, 2019

• Peer Review February 28, 2019

• Final Verification Report February 28, 2019


21

4 Verification Statement

CSA CleanProjects® Registry

178 Rexdale Blvd.

Toronto, ON

Canada M9W 1R3

February 28, 2019

Introduction

Carbon Neutral Technologies Corp (the “Responsible Party”) engaged Brightspot Climate Inc.

(Brightspot Climate) to review their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and removal project,

Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for CDI Computer Dealers Inc. (the

“Project”). The Project was developed in accordance with the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s

Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors used in the Waste Reduction Model

(WARM), dated February 2016 (the “Methodology”).

The Responsible Party’s “GHG Assertion” is comprised of the GHG Report and supporting

documentation. The GHG Assertion covers the reporting period January 1, 2012 to December 31,

2017 and states an emission reduction and removal claim of 259,108 tonnes CO2e over this period.

The emission reduction and removal claims consist of 2012 through 2017 vintage credits.

The Responsible Party is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the information within the

GHG Assertion. Our responsibility as the verifier is to express an opinion as to whether the GHG

Assertion is materially correct, in accordance with the requirements of the CSA CleanProjects® Registry

and the requirements of ISO 14064-2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification,

monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements.

Scope

We completed our review in accordance with ISO 14064 Part 3: Greenhouse Gases: Specification with

Guidance for the Validation and Verification of Greenhouse Gas Assertions (ISO, 2006). As such, we

planned and performed our work to provide positive, but not absolute assurance with respect to the

GHG Assertion.

The verification procedures that were performed through the course of the verification were developed

based on the results of a risk assessment that was completed during the verification planning stage.

These verification procedures are described in the Verification Report.


22

Conclusion

I believe our work provides a reasonable basis for my conclusion.

There were no unresolved discrepancies detected in the final GHG Assertion.

Based on our review, it is my opinion at a reasonable level of assurance that the GHG Assertion is

materially correct and presented fairly in accordance with the relevant criteria.

Sincerely,

Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng.


Vancouver, British Columbia


23

5 Conflict of Interest Statement

Brightspot Climate monitored threats to independence throughout the duration of the project. The

following declaration affirms that the following principles were upheld:

Yes No Details

Independence:

The verifying organization remained independent of the activity being

verified, and free from bias and conflict of interest.

The verifying organization maintained objectivity throughout the

verification to ensure that the findings and conclusions are based on

objective evidence generated during the verification,

a N/A

Ethical Conduct:

The verifying organization demonstrated ethical conduct through

trust, integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the verification

process.

a N/A

Fair Presentation:

The verifying organization reflected truthfully and accurately

verification activities, findings, conclusions and reports.

The verifying organization reported significant obstacles encountered

during the verification process, as well as unresolved, diverging

opinions among verifiers, the responsible party and the client.

a N/A

Due Professional Care:

The verifying organization exercised due professional care and

judgment in accordance with the importance of the task performed

and the confidence placed by clients and intended users.

Members of the verification team have the necessary skills and

competences to undertake the verification.

a N/A

Date: February 28, 2019

Location: Vancouver, British Columbia

Signed:

Aaron Schroeder

Lead Verifier. Brightspot Climate

24

6 Statement of Qualifications

6.1.1 Lead Verifier Details

Lead Verifier Name: Aaron Schroeder

Professional Designation: Professional Engineer

Email: [email protected]

Phone Number: +1 (604) 353-0264

Verifying Company Name: Brightspot Climate Inc.

6.1.2 Lead Verifier Training

• GHG Verification - ISO 14064-3, Canadian Standards Association, 2012

• CCP 403 - GHG Validation and Verification, University of Toronto, 2016 (Instructor)

6.1.3 Verification Team Biographies

Lead Verifier: Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng. has twelve years of professional experience analyzing,

quantifying and auditing greenhouse gas emissions in North America. Mr. Schroeder’s hands on

experience conducting over 150 greenhouse gas verifications includes numerous engagements for

industrial facilities in power generation, oil and gas production and processing, natural gas pipelines and

a wide range of emission reduction projects in beef and dairy management, conservation cropping

(zero-tillage) and nitrogen fertilizer management, and renewable energy and waste management. Mr.

Schroeder is a sessional instructor at the University of Toronto’s School of Environment for professional

development. He instructs the school’s greenhouse gas quantification and verification courses.

Analytical Support: Melanie Schroeder, CPA, CGA. will provide analytical support to the verification

team through the completion of the verification procedures and the development of the Verification

Report. Her verification experience includes financial audits and Alberta’s CCIR compliances.

Peer Reviewer: Deepika Mahadevan, P.Eng. conducted an independent peer review of the verification.

Ms. Mahadevan has more than five years of experience conducting greenhouse gas verifications for

industrial facilities and emission reduction (offset) projects in jurisdictions across Canada. She has

completed specific training for the application of ISO 14064-3.

I, Aaron Schroeder, meet or exceed the qualifications required for third-party verifiers defined by the CSA Clean Projects Registry.

Aaron Schroeder, P.Eng.


Vancouver, British Columbia

carbon neutral technology corp.€¦ · carbon neutral’s co2neutral™ cdi carbon neutral...

Documents