EcoSecurities Group Ltd.
Environmental Finance Solutions
Using the Project Design
Document
The case of the Wigton wind farm in Jamaica
Addis Abeba, October, 2003
Jan-Willem Martens
www.ecosecurities.com
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-0-
CDM Project Design Document
CDM
- CO2, CH4, N2O
-Baseline scenarios,
- Emission factors
- Monitoring& verification,
- Methodologies,
etc.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-1-
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-2-
EcoSecurities
EcoSecurities leading greenhouse gas advisor (Environmental Finance
survey, 2001 and 2002)
Five offices around the world, 27 people
Currently working on 32 CDM projects in 10 countries
Active in capacity building, PDD development and sales of CERs
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-3-
EcoSecurities’ services are mutually reinforcing,
creating synergies for our clients
Advisory Services
(Policy analysis, baselines,
custom services)
Origination
through our
international
network
of offices
& agents
Transactional Services
Carried Interests
(Tendering & RFPs,
Emissions trades,
Financial advisory)
(Project development
emission concessions,
contingent contracts)
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-4-
EcoSecurities Group
Oxford (11)
New York
(3)
Den Haag (3)
Los Angeles
(2)
Melbourne (1)
Rio de Janeiro
(7)
EcoSecurities Group Employees = 27
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-5-
Overview of presentation
•
CDM Project Development
Project Design Document
•
Introduction of the Wigton Windfarm case
•
Baseline methodology (Annex 3)
•
Application of the baseline methodology (Section B)
•
Calculation of the emission reductions (Section E)
•
Crediting period (Section C)
•
Monitoring Plan (Section D)
•
Environmental Impacts and Stakeholder Comments (Section F and G)
•
Conclusion
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-6-
CDM Project cycle & Time Line of CERs
Pre-Feasibility Assessment –
emission reductions and how
much?
Final Project Design - full
Project Design Document
Initial
Project
Concept
Realisation of
emission
reductions
Project
Implementation
Feasibility Assessment - is
project eligible ?
Validation,
Registration,
Approval
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-7-
Pre- & feasibility Assessment
•
Transaction costs – in general to be paid upfront. Roughly between EUR 35,000 and
EUR 145,000. Is this money available?
•
Make first estimate of emission reductions. As a general rule, a project should generate
about 20,000/annum CERs to benefit from the CDM.
•
Is the project additional?
•
In case of ODA: clear that money paid for CERs is no diversion of ODA funds?
•
Host country:
•
Should be party to the KP or plan to ratify KP;
•
Project screening criteria from the DNA
•
Discuss idea of submitting PIN.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-8-
PDD Preparation and Approval Process
Project develops Project Design Document
•
Often with help of consultant to assist on technical details
Project submits PDD for validation to validator
•
Pre-validation is a possibility: Before validation the validator provides
feedback on quality of PDD
Validator submits New Methodologies (baseline and monitoring) for approval to
the Methodology Panel
•
Methodology Panel asks input from two independent reviewers
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-9-
CDM approval process (2)
The Meth Panel provides recommendation to CDM Executive Board who
approves or rejects the Methodology (A, B or C)
Upon approval the validator validates the project and submits it to the CDM EB
for registration
After registration the CDM project can start implementation
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-10-
Estimated Transaction Costs
Project preparation activities
Estimated additional costs
for CDM (in EUR)
Additionality assessment, baseline study, calculation of emission reductions,
monitoring plan, stakeholder meeting, PIN, PDD
20,000 - 85,000
Validation by independent or operational entity
Host country approval
10,000 - 25,000
Marketing, sales of credits, contract negotiations
Broker fees
Registration of the project – for CDM with the Executive Board. Pay
international administration levy
CDM: 5,000 – 30,000 per
project
Selling the emission reductions into the market
Broker success fee (3 -15%)
Adaptation fee
2% of CERs
Total
35,000 – 145,000 + % of
carbon revenues
Construction / implementation of Project
Monitoring of emissions
Internal costs
Verification
3,000-15,000 per time
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-11-
Project Design Document (PDD)
A.
General description of project activity
B.
Baseline methodology
C.
Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
D.
Monitoring methodology and plan
E.
Calculations of GHG emissions by sources
F.
Environmental impacts
G.
Stakeholders comments
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: New baseline methodology
Annex 4: New monitoring methodology
Annex 5: Table: Baseline data
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-12-
Selection of case study
•
Wigton Wind Farm
Other cases:
•
Solar home systems
•
Household biogas digesters
•
Small hydro power
•
Landfill gas
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-13-
Wigton Wind Farm Project: characteristics
•
Development of a 20.7 MW Wind project (23 wind mills of 900 kW)
•
Project located in Wigton, Jamaica
•
Developed by Renewable Energy Systems (RES) and Petroleum Corporation
of Jamaica (PCJ)
•
Estimated annual output: 60 GWh per year
•
Amount of CERs to be generated: 52,000 per year
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-14-
Wigton CDM project development over time
Jan 2002
May 2002
CERUPT: Submission of Project Idea Note (PIN)
CERUPT: short list including Wigton
July 2002
Aug. 2002
Aug. 2002
March 2003
EIA submitted for approval to National Environmental Planning Agency
Validation report
CERUPT: Submission of PDD and business plan
CERUPT: Wigton CDM project contracted
April 2003
May 2003
Wigton submitted to EB for the CDM for approval and registration
Recommendation of Methodology Panel to EB: Wigton may be
approved, but some changes required
Summer 2003
End of 2004
Start of construction
In operation
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-15-
Section A of PDD: General description of project activity
A. General description of project activity
•
A.1
Title of the project activity:
Wigton wind farm project
•
A.2.
Description of the project activity:
•
A.3.
Project participants:
•
Project developer:
RES (UK), PCJ (Jamaica),
Constructor:
NEG Micon (NL)
Carbon advisor:
EcoSecurities
A.4.
Technical description of the project activity:
-
A.4.1. Location of the project activity:
-
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:
Energy & Power – grid connected power generation
-
A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:
-
A.4.4. Additionality
-
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-16-
A.4.4: additionality
•
KP/MA: “The emission reductions of the project must be additional to any that would
occur in absence of the project “
•
Marrakesh unclear on how to put this interpretation in practice. At last, at EB meeting 9
and 10, guidance from the Executive Board how additionality should be interpreted
•
Demonstrate that the project is not the most likely baseline scenario
•
•
•
•
(a) A flow-chart or series of questions that lead to a narrowing of potential baseline
options;
(b) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of different potential options and an
indication of why the non-project option is more likely; and/or
(c) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of one or more barriers facing the
proposed project activity (such as those laid out for small-scale CDM projects);
and/or
(d) An indication that the project type is not common practice in the proposed area
of implementation, and not required by a Party’s legislation/regulations.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-17-
Additionality in the PDD
•
Baseline methodology should define how additionality is
addressed (Annex 3.2 and 3.6 of the PDD)
•
In Section B-3 and B-4 the methodology is applied on the
project
•
In section A.4-4 present a summary of why the project is
additional
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-18-
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity
•
ODA funding and CDM are often complementary: ODA often pays for project
identification, feasibility study, capacity building of local staff. CDM functions as
a good “exit” strategy for ODA donors or other public funders
•
But: CDM should not lead to a diversion of ODA money
•
If project also receives ODA funding, statement from ODA donor is required that
no CERs are received in return for ODA funding
•
It should also be clear that the project would not have been fully funded by
public funding or by ODA
•
The same applies for GEF (??)
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-19-
Any questions so far?
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-20-
Project Design Document (PDD)
A.
General description of project activity
B.
Baseline methodology
C.
Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
D.
Monitoring methodology and plan
E.
Calculations of GHG emissions by sources
F.
Environmental impacts
G.
Stakeholders comments
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: New baseline methodology
Annex 4: New monitoring methodology
Annex 5: Table: Baseline data
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-21-
Key questions to be addressed :
How to calculate Carbon Emission Factor (CEF)?
How to select the most appropriate baseline scenario?
How has this been applied in the context of Wigton Windfarm?
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-22-
Calculation of Carbon Emissions for a power plant
Fuel consumption data (2001)
Calculation
million litre
million
tonne CO2
million MWh
produced
CEF (tonne CO2 /
MWh
Data provided by
plant
use 2.68 kg
CO2 per litre
for diesel,
3.12 for
bunker oil
Data provided
by plant
D=B/C
A
B
C
D
Bunker oil
Hunts Bay
Rockfort
Old Harbour
137
0.427
0.454
0.939
62
0.193
0.258
0.748
365
1.137
1.147
0.991
123
0.330
0.311
1.064
93
0.250
0.220
1.134
Diesel Fuel
Hunts Bay
Bogue
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-23-
How to select the appropriate power plants?
Electricity sector in Jamaica:
•
Diesel power plants (487 MW, 11 plants)
•
Bunker oil plants (23 MW, 8 plants)
•
Hydro (179 MW, 9 plants)
•
In the future: natural gas, diesel, bunker oil
•
Key question: What is the appropriate baseline?
-
Hydro? => CEF = 0 tCO2/MWh
-
Diesel/Bunker oil? CEF is around 1 tCo2/MWh
-
Natural gas? CEF = 0.45 tCO2/MWh
-
Mix?
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-24-
Baseline methodology
•
Purpose: Selection of the most appropriate baseline scenario for a project taking
into account the project circumstances
•
Is defined for a specific project category
•
If baseline methodology is available, Project can use approved methodology:
•
-
Small-scale guidelines for small-scale projects;
-
Land-fill gas (3);
-
Fuel switch (1);
-
Biomass project (1);
-
HFC gas project (1).
If not, Project has to submit new Methodology by filling out Annex 3 of PDD
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-25-
Annex 3 – New Methodology
1. Title of the proposed methodology:
2. Description of the methodology:
3. Key parameters/assumptions (including emission factors and activity levels), and
data sources considered and used:
4. Definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology:
5. Assessment of uncertainties:
6. Description of how the baseline methodology addresses the calculation of
baseline emissions and the determination of project additionality:
7. Description of how the baseline methodology addresses any potential leakage of
the project activity:
8. Criteria used in developing the proposed baseline methodology, including an
explanation of how the baseline methodology was developed in a transparent and
conservative manner:
9. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the baseline methodology:
10. Other considerations, such as a description of how national and/or sectoral
policies and circumstances have been taken into account:
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-26-
Annex 3: New methodology for Wigton Windfarm
1.
[Title] Baseline methodology for Renewable grid-connected power
projects
2.
Description of the methodology:
2.1. General approach (Please check the appropriate option(s))
a) Existing actual or historical emissions;
b) Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive
course of action, taking into account barriers to investment;
c) The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the
previous five years, in similar social, economic, environmental and
technological circumstances, and whose performance is among the top 20 per
cent of their category.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-27-
No
Is the project different from
the Business as Usual
Scenario ?
1
Yes
2
3
Project
Scenario
Future
Additions
Recent
Additions
Combined
Margin
Projected Operating
Margin
Static Operating
Margin
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-28-
2.2
Overall description
Wigtons baseline methodology is characterized by 3 steps:
1 - Is the project the baseline scenario?
2 - What is the most likely baseline scenario?
3 - Which power plants need to be included in the calculation of the baseline
CEF?
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-29-
Step 1 – Demonstrate that the project is not the business
as usual scenario
(a) Investment barriers
(b) Technological barriers
(c) Barrier due to prevailing practice
(d) Other barriers
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-30-
Step 2 – Determine the most likely baseline scenario in
absence of the project
Would the project have delayed future investments in the power sector?
Yes -> Build Margin baseline methodology (Baseline = emissions from future power plants)
No -> Operating Margin Baseline methodology (Baseline = emissions from existing power
plants)
Unclear -> Combined Margin baseline methodology (baseline = mix of Build Margin and
Operating Margin)
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-31-
Is the project different from
the Business as Usual
Scenario ?
No
1
Yes
Does the project delay or cancel
future expansion of the grid?
2
Yes
Unclear
Build Margin
No
Operating Margin
3
Project
Scenario
Future
Additions
Recent
Additions
Combined
Margin
Projected Operating
Margin
Static Operating
Margin
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-32-
Build/ Operating/ Combined Margin
Baseline emissions
TCo2/year
Operating Margin
Combined Margin
Build Margin
Crediting period
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-33-
Step 3: Which power plants need to be included in the
calculation of the baseline CEF?
Baseline Scenario
Description
Build Margin
The project will delay future investments in electricity generation
capacity.
Future Additions
CEF based on emissions future power plants
Recent Additions
CEF based on most recently added power plants
Operating Margin
Project will replace emissions from existing operating power
plants.
Static Operating Margin
CEF based on emissions from current power plants, excluding the
renewable energy must run power plants
Projected Operating
Margin
CEF based on Static Operating Margin plus emissions from new
fossil fuel power plants
Combined Margin
Combination of Static Operating Margin and Recent Additions
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-35-
Is the project different from
the Business as Usual
Scenario ?
No
1
Yes
Does the project delay or cancel
future expansion of the grid?
2
Yes
No
Unclear
Build Margin
Operating Margin
Is the energy park expected to alter
significantly in the crediting period?
No
Yes
Is information available on future
addition(s) to the grid?
Yes
No
No
Project
Scenario
Future
Additions
3
Is information available on future
additions to the grid?
Recent
Additions
Combined
Margin
Yes
Projected Operating
Margin
Static Operating
Margin
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-36-
Summary
Select a baseline methodology which suits your project category:
•
If there is an existing methodology, apply this;
•
If there is no methodology, define a new one.
Follow the instructions of the baseline methodology to your project and select the
appropriate baseline scenario
Justify the choices you have made by referring to your project-specific circumstances
Now: example of the Wigton windfarm
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-37-
Any questions so far?
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-38-
Project Design Document (PDD)
A.
General description of project activity
B.
Baseline methodology
C.
Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
D.
Monitoring methodology and plan
E.
Calculations of GHG emissions by sources
F.
Environmental impacts
G.
Stakeholders comments
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: New baseline methodology
Annex 4: New monitoring methodology
Annex 5: Table: Baseline data
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-39-
Section B
B.1
Title and reference of the methodology applied to the project activity:
B.2.
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the
project activity
B.3.
Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the
project activity:
B.4.
Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are
reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM
project activity (i.e. explanation of how and why this project is additional and therefore not
the baseline scenario)
B.5.
Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline
methodology is applied to the project activity:
B.6.
Details of baseline development
B.6.1 Date of completing the final draft of this baseline section (DD/MM/YYYY):
B.6.2 Name of person/entity determining the baseline:
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-40-
B.3. Description of how the methodology is applied in the
context of the project activity:
Step 1 - Wigton first wind park in the Caribean -> High investment risk, technology barriers,
lack of familiarity with technology
Step 2 – Most likely baseline scenario: would the project have delayed future investments
in the power sector?

Wigton does not share the same power supply characteristics as many other
power plants;

Wind power is an intermittent source which serves as base load in the dispatch
 Wigton is likely to replace Existing park = Operating Margin baseline
Step 3 – Emission factor methodology:

The generation capacity in Jamaica is likely to expand;

No reliable data was available on future additions to the power park.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-41-
Situation for the Wigton Wind Farm
Is the project different from
the Business as Usual
Scenario ?
1
Yes
Does the project delay or cancel
future expansion of the grid?
2
No
Operating Margin
Is the energy park expected to alter
significantly in the crediting period?
Yes
3
Is information available on future
additions to the grid?
No
Project
Scenario
Future
Additions
Recent
Additions
Combined
Margin
Projected Operating
Margin
Static Operating
Margin
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-42-
Project Design Document (PDD)
A.
General description of project activity
B.
Baseline methodology
C.
Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
D.
Monitoring methodology and plan
E.
Calculations of GHG emissions by sources
F.
Environmental impacts
G.
Stakeholders comments
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: New baseline methodology
Annex 4: New monitoring methodology
Annex 5: Table: Baseline data
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-43-
E: Calculation of GHG emissions by sources
E.1
Formulae used to estimate emissions of the project activity within the project
boundary
-
E.2
Description of formulae used to estimate leakage
-
-E.3
No project emissions for Wigton
No leakage identified for Wigton.
Sum of E.1 and E.2
-E.4
Description of formulae used to estimate the anthropogenic emissions by sources
of greenhouse gases of the baseline
-E.5
Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emission reductions of the
project activity
-E.6
Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-44-
Other Elements of the methodology
Step 4 - Determine period from which new plants are included
Step 5 - Assessment of emission factors
Step 6 - Calculate the weighted average emission factor
Step 7 - Calculate emissions of the baseline
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-45-
E: Calculate Carbon Emission Factors (CEFs) from fuel use
Fuel consumption data (2001)
Calculation
million litre
million
tonne CO2
million MWh
produced
CEF (tonne CO2 /
MWh
From source
use 2.68 kg
CO2 per litre
for diesel,
3.12 for
bunker oil
Data from
plant
D=B/C
A
B
C
D
Bunker oil
Hunts Bay
Rockfort
Old Harbour
137
0.427
0.454
0.939
62
0.193
0.258
0.748
365
1.137
1.147
0.991
123
0.330
0.311
1.064
93
0.250
0.220
1.134
Diesel Fuel
Hunts Bay Gas Turbine
Bogue Gas Turbine
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-46-
Calculate weighted average: Static Operating Margin
Plant
Technology
Fuel
Calculation
Hunts Bay
Old harbour
Rockfort
Bogue
JEP
Jamalcoa
EAL
JPPC
Steam
gas turbine
Steam
slow speed diesel
gas turbine
Med Speed Diesel
Cogeneration
Cogeneration
Slow Speed Diesel
bunker oil
diesel
bunker oil
bunker oil
diesel
bunker oil
bunker oil
bunker oil
bunker oil
MWh in 2001
% of total MWh
From source
B = % of A
A
B
454,364
310,675
1,147,211
257,538
220,483
462,678
79,467
82,736
285,097
Total:
3,300,249
14%
9%
35%
8%
7%
14%
2%
3%
9%
100%
CEFs
CEF 2001
From fuel use
or assumed B * C
C
D
0.939
1.064
0.991
0.748
1.134
0.748
0.748
0.748
0.748
0.129
0.100
0.345
0.058
0.076
0.105
0.018
0.019
0.065
0.914
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-47-
“Recently added” methodology: past 5 years or past 10 years
Year in
Name of
operation plant
Calculation
1998 EAL
2001 Bogue
Total:
Year in
Name of
operation plant
Calculation
1992
1993
1995
1995
1996
1998
2001
Total:
Bogue
Hunts Bay
JEP
Jamalcoa
JPPC
EAL
Bogue
Technology
Fuel
Cogeneration
Simple Gas Turbine
Bunker oil
Diesel
Technology
Fuel
Simple Gas Turbine
Simple Gas Turbine
Medium Speed Diesel
Cogeneration
Slow Speed Diesel
Cogeneration
Simple Gas Turbine
Diesel
Diesel
Bunker oil
Bunker oil
Bunker oil
Bunker oil
Diesel
MWh in 2001
From source
A
82,736
62,098
144,834
Weighted average
% of total output CEF
CEF (t CO2 / MWh)
From source D = B * C
B
C
D
57%
0.75
0.427
43%
1.13
0.486
100%
0.913
MWh in 2001 % of total output CEF
From source
From source
A
B
C
66,128
6%
1.13
152,281
13%
1.06
462,678
39%
0.75
79,467
7%
0.75
285,097
24%
0.75
82,736
7%
0.75
62,098
5%
1.13
1,190,485
100%
Weighted average
CEF (t CO2 / MWh)
D=B*C
D
0.063
0.136
0.291
0.050
0.179
0.052
0.059
0.830
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-48-
Resulting baseline scenarios for the Wigton Windfarm
Baseline scenarios Wigton
58000
56000
Static OM 2001
55000
RA- 5y.
54000
53000
CM
RA-10y.
52000
51000
50000
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
49000
2005
tCO2e
57000
Years
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-49-
Project Design Document (PDD)
A.
General description of project activity
B.
Baseline methodology
C.
Duration of the project activity / Crediting period
D.
Monitoring methodology and plan
E.
Calculations of GHG emissions by sources
F.
Environmental impacts
G.
Stakeholders comments
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity
Annex 2: Information regarding public funding
Annex 3: New baseline methodology
Annex 4: New monitoring methodology
Annex 5: Table: Baseline data
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-50-
C.
Duration of the project activity / Crediting
period
Starting date of project activity
• Expected operational lifetime
• Crediting period:
•
21 years (3 x 7 years)
•
10 years
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-51-
D. and Annex 4: Monitoring methodology and plan
• No methodologies (Annex 4) approved at present
• Plan indicating which activities will be monitored once the project is
operational
• Includes frequency of monitoring as well as responsibilities data collection and
storage
• Development in close relation to emissions baseline
• Use similar project boundaries in order to compare as good as possible
• Data need to be kept in archive until two years after the last issuance of CERs
for the project activity
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-52-
D: Data for monitoring
D.1.
Name and reference of approved methodology applied to the project activity:
New methodology: “Direct monitoring of electrical output of IPP renewable energy projects”
D.2.
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the
project activity:
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-53-
D: Monitoring methodology and plan
D.3.
Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how
this data will be archived:
D.4.
Potential sources of emissions which are significant and reasonably attributable to
the project activity, but which are not included in the project boundary, and identification if
and how data will be collected and archived on these emission sources.
• Identical table to fill out.
• No significant indirect on-site and off-site emissions identified.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-54-
D: Monitoring methodology and plan
D.5.
Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by
sources of GHG within the project boundary and identification if and how such data will be
collected and archived.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-55-
D: Monitoring methodology and plan
D.6.
Quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for
data monitored.
Data items in tables contained in section D.3, D.4 and D.5, as applicable.
D.7
Name of person/entity determining the monitoring methodology:
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-56-
F: Environmental impacts
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Review by National Environmental Planning Agency (NEPA)
•
Main impacts during construction phase
•
Visual impacts and noise
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-57-
G: Stakeholder comments
• Consultation event
• 50 persons attended
• Part one: project information
• Part two: question, answer and discussion process
• Conclusions:
•
No major concerns or objections raised
•
Safety issue for local farmers
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-58-
Further process
•
Methodology will be re-submitted before 13 November, 2003
•
Methodology Panel
•
Executive Board Meeting
•
Re-validation of the project on the basis of the revised methodology
•
Registration of the project in the CDM registry => June 2004?
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-59-
Thank you.
EcoSecurities Group Ltd. 2002 All Rights Reserved
-60-