Climate Change Measures (TEAM) Technology Early Action System of Measurement and Reporting for Technologies (SMART) SMART Sector Specific Protocol: Biofuels in Transportation Projects September 2006 TEAM Office Acknowledgements for the SMART Sector Specific Protocols The SMART sector specific protocols were developed by the TEAM Operations Office, based on considerable research, consultations, collaborations, testing and valuable contributions from many experts and initiatives in Canada and internationally. TEAM would like to thank the many people that contributed to the development of these protocols, an effort that extended between 2004 and 2006. TEAM’s current and past staff led and managed the development of these protocols. TEAM would like to thank the Delphi Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers and GHGm.com, all the participants at the various stakeholders consultations held in various cities across Canada and all the reviewers and companies that provided comments and real-world learning experience. We would also like to thank the Canadian Standards Association who organized and facilitated the workshops that included individuals from different levels of government, private organizations (including manufacturers, producers, potential project proponents and consultants) and NGOs. This has been a collaborative effort with many organizations and individuals. The financial contribution in the development of the protocols was provided by TEAM. General Limitations of the SMART Sector Specific Protocols This document is developed for TEAM (Technology Early Action Measures Programme, www.team.gc.ca), a Government of Canada fund that supports GHG technology projects, to enable project evaluation to be faster, better, and cheaper for TEAM and project proponents. This document specifies requirements and guidance for the quantification of project GHG emissions – it is not sufficient for the certification of GHG credits, which is the authority of a GHG credit certification program or international framework. The user of the TEAM protocols should note the general limitations of the latest SMART dated 2006. In addition to the general limitations under the SMART protocol, additional limitations for the TEAM protocols include the default assumptions and accompanying default values. These default emission factors are based on a limited research of available Canadian data at the time of the protocol development, and are meant as a suggestion to simplify the process of GHG emissions estimations associated with a wide range of project in this area by providing appropriately conservative estimates. The use of these factors is by no means a requirement to completing this protocol. It is the user’s responsibility to evaluate these default values and to determine if they are suitable to the user’s project. If these default values do not reflect the user’s project, or if the user wishes to develop and provide more project specific values, then the user should obtain and/or derive values that better represent the user’s project with justifications of supporting rationale. ii Note: With the permission of Canadian Standards Association, some material is reproduced from CSA Standard, CAN/CSA-ISO 14064-2-06, Greenhouse Gases – Part 2: Specification with Guidance at the Project Level for Quantification, Monitoring and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction or Removal Enhancements (Adopted ISO 14064-25:2006, first edition, 2006-03-01), which is copyrighted by Canadian Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, Ontario, M9W 1R3. While use of this material has been authorized, CSA shall not be responsible for the manner in which the information is presented, nor for any interpretations thereof. For more information on CSA or the standard, please visit their website at www.shopcsa.ca or call 1-800-463-6727. iii Table of Contents 1 Introduction ___________________________________ 1 1.1 ISO Principles ____________________________________________________________ 2 1.2 Greenhouse Gas Programs __________________________________________________ 3 1.3 Protocol Organization ______________________________________________________ 3 2 General Requirements and Considerations __________ 6 2.1 Protocol Applicability ______________________________________________________ 6 2.2 Description of the GHG project ______________________________________________ 7 2.3 Regulations, standards, and best practice guidance ______________________________ 8 3 Deciding Whether to Use Default Values ___________ 12 3.1 Life Cycle Approach ______________________________________________________ 12 3.2 Considerations for Deciding Whether to Use Default Values _____________________ 13 4 Using the Default Values ________________________ 19 4.1 Overview of Default Values and Assumptions _________________________________ 19 4.2 Default Emission Factors __________________________________________________ 22 4.3 Quantifying Emissions and Emission Reductions _______________________________ 28 4.4 Monitoring Plan __________________________________________________________ 29 4.5 Managing Data Quality ____________________________________________________ 30 4.6 Risk Management Plan ____________________________________________________ 31 4.7 Reporting the Project _____________________________________________________ 31 5 Reassessing Default Assumptions _________________ 32 5.1 Step 1: Identify Project SSRs _______________________________________________ 34 5.2 Step 2: Identify and Select Potential Baselines _________________________________ 39 5.3 Step 3: Identify Baseline SSRs ______________________________________________ 43 5.4 Step 4: Select and Justify Relevant SSRs ______________________________________ 46 5.5 Step 5: Quantification of GHG Emissions _____________________________________ 54 5.6 Step 6: Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions____________________________ 60 iv 5.7 Step 7: Measuement Activities for the Project and Baseline ______________________ 61 5.8 Step 8: Managing Data Quality _____________________________________________ 65 5.9 Step 9: Develop a Risk Management Plan _____________________________________ 66 5.10 Step 10: Reporting the Project _____________________________________________ 66 6 Annexes _____________________________________ 68 6.1 Terminology _____________________________________________________________ 68 6.2 GHG programs __________________________________________________________ 69 6.3 Identification and Assessment of Risks Relevant to Biofuels in Transportation Projects ___________________________________________________________________________ 72 6.4 Technology and SSR Categories Description __________________________________ 74 6.5 Managing Data Quality ____________________________________________________ 77 6.6 Selecting the Baseline Scenario ______________________________________________ 85 6.7 Default Identified SSRs for Project and Baseline _______________________________ 90 6.8 Quantifying Uncertainty ___________________________________________________ 99 6.9 Procedure for Conducting a Sensitivity Analysis on the Project __________________ 102 6.10 Monitoring the Baseline and Biofuels Project ________________________________ 103 6.11 Generic Monitoring Template ____________________________________________ 108 7 References __________________________________ 126 v 1 Introduction The SMART Sector Specific Protocol (SSP) on Biofuels in Transportation projects, which includes a companion quantification spreadsheet, provides flexible procedures and guidance for quantifying and reporting GHG emission reductions from a range of Biofuels in Transportation projects. It is intended to assist users with developing documentation specific to their particular project, and transparently describes the procedures that will be used to quantify associated GHG emissions and emission reductions. As a protocol, this document specifies procedures and guidance providing “what to do” and “how to do it”, as well as providing justifications and explanations with the rationale for “why” decisions. Using a comprehensive assessment framework to provide credibility to the GHG quantification, this protocol specifies the approach in order to be flexible and cost-effective depending on the specific circumstances and objectives of the project proponent. The protocol uses a comprehensive framework to identify default sources, sinks and reservoirs of GHGs, activity levels and emissions factors for quantifying GHG reductions for Biofuels in Transportation projects. If the project falls under the assumptions used to develop this protocol, the project proponent can use the default values, which requires relatively less effort from the project proponent, but uses conservatively over-estimated project GHG emissions to ensure that GHG emission reduction are not over-estimated. Alternatively, the project proponent can review and modify the default assumptions for a customized assessment, which requires relatively more effort from the project proponent, but allows for more accurate quantification of GHG emissions to support potential claims for more GHG reductions. This document has been developed by Technology Early Action Measures Program (TEAM), a Government of Canada fund that invests in technology demonstration and late stage development in support of early action to reduce GHG emissions (or enhance GHG removals), nationally and internationally, while sustaining economic and social development. Information on the TEAM funded projects and the reporting process including the TEAM’s Business Plan and Management Framework is available at www.team.gc.ca. Within the TEAM’s Business Plan and Management Framework, TEAM is committed to report the technical performance and GHG mitigation potential of TEAM funded projects. The System of Measurement And Reporting for Technologies (SMART), was developed through the TEAM office for that purpose (January 2004): to provide the basis, in terms of process, general requirements and guidance, to develop and/or evaluate the project proponent’s processes and documentation to substantiate the technology performance claim(s) and assess the GHG mitigation potential. SMART is applicable to any type of GHG project, given the broad range of sectors and project types encountered by TEAM. 1 The main objective of the SMART protocol is to increase the verifiability of the TEAM projects as well as the accountability of the TEAM program and furthermore, it helps to build the capacity of the GHG consultants. As a result of road-testing the latest SMART protocol (January 2004) and TEAM’s participation in the development of the ISO-14064 Part 2 International Standard, TEAM recognized the need to develop sector-specific protocols (SSPs) in specific technology applications. A total of 5 protocols have been developed through the TEAM office, namely protocols for projects in the areas of the Biofuels use in Transportation, Fuel Cells use in Transportation, Wind-generated Electricity, Small Scale Hydroelectricity and Grid-connected Renewable Energy Baselines. Each protocol is designed to align with the general specifications of the ISO 14064 GHG Project International Standard - Part 2 (ISO 14064-2), which specifies standardized requirements and processes for project-level GHG quantification, monitoring and reporting. ISO 14064-2 is policy-neutral (i.e. it can be used under various GHG policy regimes, and does not take precedence over local policy or legislation) and is intended for use with different project types and sizes. It is strongly recommended that the user consult ISO 14064-2 as a companion document to this protocol, if the user wishes to be certified to that standard. While the protocol is intended to be used by project proponents wanting to quantify GHG emission reductions for Biofuels in Transportation projects, it should also be of interest to other parties, such as investors, GHG program authorities, and academia. For example, investors may wish to use this document to aid with making investment decisions, and GHG program authorities may wish to use this document to determine whether GHG projects in their program have appropriately accounted for all GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) relevant for the project. Practitioners and experts in the fields of GHG project quantification, Biofuels in Transportation project technologies, agriculture, life cycle assessment, and auditing were involved in the development of this document. Other interested parties, including various government programs, general interest groups, service providers and non-governmental organizations were also consulted in the development of this document. 1.1 ISO Principles This protocol has been developed according to the following principles in accordance with ISO 14064-2:2006 Transparency Relevance Accuracy Completeness Consistency Conservativeness 2 For additional insight into GHG quantification principles, please consult Section 3 of TEAM SMART (2004). 1.2 Greenhouse Gas Programs This protocol is primarily intended to help project proponents meet the requirements of TEAM’s System of Measurement and Reporting for Technologies (SMART), but would also be useful in meeting the requirements of any ISO 14064-2 based GHG program. For parties looking to develop GHG reduction projects internationally, this protocol document may be of assistance in developing quantification methodologies under the following two Kyoto mechanisms: Joint Implementation (JI) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Other related GHG programs and standards that project proponents should consider monitoring include: Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Funds (GMF) Agriculture and Agrifood Canada European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) (U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States) World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol for Project Accounting Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC) More details on some of these programs are available in Annex 6.2. 1.3 Protocol Organization The SMART SSP for Biofuels in Transportation projects consists of two parts: 1. 2. a written protocol (this document) that contains procedures, guidance, examples of the application of the protocol, as well as figures and tables, explanations and justifications of supporting rationale, and results a Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet (Biofuels in Transportation – GHG Quantification Spreadsheet) that contains emissions quantifications and related tools, developed according to the procedures presented in the written protocol document. 3 The written protocol is divided into 6 sections. The organization of these sections and the spreadsheet are depicted in Figure 1.1. A description of the organization of the spreadsheet associated with this written protocol can be found in the “Guidance” worksheet at the beginning of the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. 4 Section 1 – Introduction to Protocol Protocol users, scope of the protocol, relevant GHG programs Section 2 – General Requirements and Considerations What projects are covered by protocol, how to describe GHG project, technical standards and legal requirements Section 3 – Deciding Whether to Use the Default Values Relationship between default and comprehensive approach, assumptions, cost considerations, GHG reductions desired, justifying use of default values Section 4 – Using Default Values Overview and applications of default values Section 5 – Reassessing Default Assumptions Analysis used to develop protocols derivations of default values and assumptions, guidance to projectspecific scenarios Section 6 – Annexes Terminology, Default SSRs, Uncertainty analysis, Monitoring, etc. Biofuel in Transportation Spreadsheet Project specific inputs, default emission factors, etc. Figure 1.1 Protocol road-map, including Biofuel in Transportation spreadsheet for calculating project-specific emissions. Dotted box indicates sections of the written protocol. 5 2 General Requirements and Considerations This section describes the types of projects covered by this protocol, whether the project proponent should use this protocol, how to describe the GHG project, and technical and legal standards for Biofuels in Transportation projects. 2.1 Protocol Applicability This protocol applies to projects where biofuels are used in vehicle transportation to displace the use of petroleum fuels, specifically: Bioethanol blends used to displace gasoline fuel, where the biofuel is based on: o Corn Ethanol Production (Wet Milling) o Corn Ethanol Production (Dry Milling) o Wheat Straw Ethanol Production (Enzymatic process) o Wheat Straw Ethanol Production (Concentrated Acid process) Biodiesel blends used to displace petroleum diesel fuel, where the biofuel is based on biomass feedstocks of: o Virgin Oil, including: Soybean oil Canola oil o Tallow/Yellow Grease sourced from Tallow from animal slaughterhouse waste Yellow grease from used cooking oil. 6 The project proponent should note that if only certain aspects of their GHG project fall within the scope of the protocol, those particular aspects of the protocol can be used for the project, and the project proponent can then develop new methodologies for the remaining aspects using ISO or further guidance provided in Section 5-Reassessing Default Assumptions. 2.2 Description of the GHG project Prior to using this protocol, the project proponent should clearly describe their project. Such descriptions are typically required by GHG programs since they provide an important foundation for GHG quantifications. The greenhouse gas project must be described as follows: project title, description, purpose(s), objective(s) and strategy to reduce GHG emissions and/or enhance GHG removals; project location, including geographic/physical information allowing the unique identification and specific extent of the project and conditions prior to project initiation; primary project function(s), including products and services, and expected level of activity for each project function (see Section 4.1.1); project activities and technologies, including main and auxiliary technologies, components, and technical documentation; identification of the human resource issues, including roles and responsibilities, contact information of the project proponent, other project participants and of the relevant regulator(s) and/or official(s) of the applicable GHG scheme(s); employee qualifications (e.g. scientist (PhD), engineer (PEng), trade (electrician), non-technical, etc.), and level of effort (units of person years (PY)) for the project activities; relevant legislation, technical, economic, socio-cultural, environmental, geographic, sitespecific, temporal and contextual information (including but not limited to the discussion in section 2.3); identification of stakeholders that are interested or involved in the project; chronological plan of the start dates, end dates and timeline for the project period, including the project activities in each phase of the project cycle; identification and where appropriate, quantification of significant environmental impacts to air, water, land and wildlife; identification of risks that may substantially affect the project's GHG emission reductions (see Annex 6.3); and identification of the health & safety issues (e.g. reduced worker exposure to harmful chemicals, number of accident-free days, etc.) for the project activities (relative to the baseline if possible). The requirements for describing the project will also vary depending on the GHG Program requirements. Project proponents should refer to any applicable GHG scheme for any 7 additional requirements. ISO 14064-2 provides additional guidance on what is required from the project description section of project documentation. Is your project covered by this protocol? A project proponent using this protocol to develop project-specific documentation should provide a statement that explicitly references their use of this document, and provides clear justification for their choice of this protocol for their project. Based on the project description, the project proponent should refer to Section 2.1 Protocol Applicability above, when justifying their selection of this protocol. 2.3 Regulations, standards, and best practice guidance Regulations, standards, and best practice guidance, which were identified as relevant to Biofuels in Transportation projects during the development of this protocol, are described below. The listed regulations, standards, and best practice guidance are provided for reference only. The project proponent should consult the relevant authorities in order to identify the regulations, standards, and best practice guidance specifically applicable to their project and circumstances. In addition, although contractual requirements cannot be described in this protocol because of the uniqueness of each contract, project proponents should be aware of and document any contractual requirements that influence the project. For example, a contractual agreement can specify reporting requirements and ownership arrangements. These agreements should be reflected in final project documentation submitted to, for instance, GHG Program Authorities. 2.3.1 Federal, provincial, and municipal legislation, codes, guidelines As for any other transportation projects, biofuels can be subject to federal, provincial, municipal legislation, codes, and guidelines. The proponent shall consult the relevant authorities in order to identify the legislation applicable to the project. 2.3.2 Technical standards, requirements, and best practice Good Practice Guidance 8 In Canada, for Biofuels in Transportation technology projects, good practice guidance includes: For Biodiesel: 1. “2004 Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines” – U.S Department of Energy, DOE/GO-102004-1999, September 2004 This guide includes general Biodiesel information, B100 quality parameters, B100 characteristics and handling recommendations, and information on B20 blends including fuel characteristics and blending and handling recommendations. 2. “2005 Biodiesel User Manual” - Biodiesel Association of Canada (BAC), Spring 2005 This document is a compilation of the “2004 Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines” and an additional biodiesel document commissioned by the National Biodiesel Board, and is available through the BAC upon request. For Ethanol: 1. ASTM E1117 “Standard Practice for Design of Fuel-Alcohol Manufacturing Facilities” This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-48 on Biotechnology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass Conversion Systems This practice applies to all fuel alcohol manufacturing facilities (FAMF) as defined in Terminology ASTM E1705. This specification is primarily intended for, but not limited to, fermentation ethanol processes. This practice applies to both batch and continuous FAMF systems. Since a wide variety of equipment configurations can exist, this engineering practice describes the necessary general requirements common to all FAMF facilities. This practice is to be used in conjunction with applicable local, provincial and federal codes for designing, constructing and operating FAMF facilities. ASTM Practice E1117 is a recognized standard for evaluation performance and design practices for fuel ethanol manufacturing facilities. 2. “Guidelines for Establishing Ethanol Plant Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs” - Renewable Fuels Association, RFA Publication #040301, August 2004. This document provides guidelines for setting up a quality control program, and suggested batch testing frequency. The testing methods and specifications are those listed in ASTM D4806 “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline’s for use as an Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel”. 9 Criteria and Procedures In Canada, for Biofuels in Transportation technology projects, recognized criteria and procedures include: For Biodiesel: 1. BQ-9000 Quality Management System Requirements for the Biodiesel Industry – Approved by the National Biodiesel Accreditation Commission, November 2004 BQ-9000 is a quality management system requirement for the Biodiesel industry that was developed under the guidance of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB). The National Biodiesel Accreditation Commission (NBAC) is a committee of the NBB that has been created to administer a Biodiesel accreditation program. BQ-9000 includes quality management system requirements and Biodiesel sampling and testing requirements. The intent is that BQ-9000 accredited producers and BQ-9000 accredited marketers will ensure that the quality of the Biodiesel being produced and marketed meets D6751 quality parameters. For Ethanol: 1. “Fuel Ethanol Industry Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures” - Renewable Fuels Association, RFA Publication #960501, Revised December 2003 This includes information on specifications, transportation recommendations, conversion procedures, compatibility, storage and handling and a section on quality assurance and test methods. 2. ASTM E1344 “Standard Guide for Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-48 on Biotechnology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass Conversion Systems The purpose of this guide is to provide guidelines and evaluation criteria to enable a prospective purchaser, or lender, or both, to effectively review the plans, specifications, and plant operating concept of a mass produced fuel ethanol manufacturing facility (FEMF) and to determine whether its design, as proposed meets the requirements of ASTM design practice standards (ASTM Practice E1117). The guide is primarily intended for, but not limited to, fermentation ethanol processes. The guide is primarily intended for, but not limited to, small-scale (less than 1000 gal/day capacity) plants. Since a wide variety of equipment configurations can exist, this engineering practice describes the necessary general requirements common to all FAMF facilities. This practice is to be used in conjunction with applicable local, provincial and federal codes for designing, constructing and operating FAMF facilities. This is a comprehensive practice, including details such as; pumping and piping systems, ethanol 10 storage, wastewater, site facilities, grain handling and dry milling, batch cooking, continuous cooking, fermentation, distillation, and dewatering, and includes a design review checklist. 3. ASTM E869 “Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing Facilities” This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-48 on Biotechnology and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass Conversion Systems This test method covers the determination of performance characteristics of fuel ethanol manufacturing facilities. It is applicable for all starch, sugar and combination starch / sugar based fermentable feedstocks, as well as batch and continuous manufacturing processes. 11 3 Deciding Whether to Use Default Values 3.1 Life Cycle Approach As previously stated, this protocol provides flexible procedures and guidance for quantifying and reporting net GHG emission reductions from a range of Biofuels in Transportation projects. To provide credibility to these procedures, this protocol was developed using a comprehensive life cycle framework. For further descriptions and definitions of terms used in this and other sections, the project proponent should consult Annex 6.1. The overall systems approach used to develop this protocol is based on a life cycle framework, in-line with requirements of TEAM SMART and ISO 14064-2. This approach involves identifying GHG sources, sinks, and reservoirs (SSRs) for the project; delineating the assessment boundary; defining the project function; and quantifying each relevant SSR. The same procedure is also followed for the baseline system. This procedure allows for the identification of all types of activities (e.g. production, transportation, manufacture, operation, maintenance, utilization, and disposal) that may be attributable to a system over the full cradle-to-grave life-cycle, satisfying the completeness principle of the ISO 14064-2. The detailed procedure, as well as the outcomes of applying it to Biofuels in Transportation projects is presented in Section 4. More information on life-cycle assessment is provided in ISO 14040 series, which describes life cycle assessment of products and services (ISO 14040, 2005). In developing a protocol that is applicable to a range of Biofuels in Transportation projects, it is necessary to make certain assumptions at the various stages of the life-cycle approach. Such assumptions include, for instance, identifying project and baseline SSRs, activity levels and emission factors for these SSRs, baseline data, etc. In making these assumptions, TEAM has attempted to make the protocol as widely usable as possible with minimal or no modification, beyond the input of some key project variables by the proponent. Additionally, assumptions have been made to reflect the conservativeness principle of ISO 14064-2, such that emission reductions calculated using the default assumptions should not be overstated. 12 3.2 Considerations for Deciding Whether to Use Default Values Default assumptions and values of this protocol are provided in Section 4. However, the project proponent must decide whether to use the default assumptions and values, or to reassess some or all of the default assumptions to provide values and results that are more reflective of project-specific conditions, using the information and guidance provided in Section 5. By selecting the default values, the project proponent will be trading off the level of accuracy in the GHG quantification, in benefit of practicality and cost effectiveness. Therefore using the default values requires relatively less effort from the project proponent, but uses conservatively over-estimated project GHG emissions to ensure that GHG emission reductions are not over-estimated. Reviewing and modifying the default assumptions requires relatively more effort from the project proponent, but allows for more accurate quantification of GHG emissions to support potential claims for more GHG emission reductions. Table 3.1 provides additional insight into the implication of reassessing default assumptions. Table 3.1 Characteristics of using default values versus reassessing default assumptions Characteristic Using Default Values Reassessing Default Assumptions Based on the set of SSRs Identification of SSRs already identified in protocol. Depends on extent of reassessment – can range from the addition / removal of a limited number of SSRs to a complete re-application of a systematic SSR identification procedure. Quantification methodology SSRs may not entirely reflect the specific project. Use the spreadsheet based on default assumptions to simply calculate emissions. Emission reduction estimate Under-estimated emission reductions (conservative approach) Identified SSRs should closely match the specific project. Changes to SSRs or quantification methodologies require a more comprehensive overhaul of the spreadsheet. Modifications to numerical values relatively straightforward to accommodate using existing spreadsheet. More accurate estimates of emission reductions 13 Direct monitoring requirements Documentation For key project variables only, according to recommended monitoring plan Basic; focused primarily on justifying that the default values are appropriate for the project-specific circumstances May require an enhanced monitoring plan and more onerous monitoring requirements. Additional documentation for the justification of any changes made to default assumptions or values. The project proponent should consider the following issues when deciding whether or not to use the default values: Applicability of assumptions used to develop the default values, to the project. These assumptions are detailed in section 4.1. If the assumptions do not apply to the project in question (for example if the project proponent is the facility manufacturing the biofuel) then the project proponent will have to reassess the default values, as described in section 5. Cost Effectiveness, Practicality and Uncertainty: The project proponent should weigh the benefits of reviewing default assumptions with the associated costs and reduced practicality. For example, with respect to claiming GHG emission reductions, the value of credits is important in gauging whether something is cost-effective or not. Reviewing and modifying the default assumptions requires relatively more effort from the project proponent, but allows for more accurate quantification of GHG emissions to support potential claims for more GHG emission reductions. If the value of the additional emission reductions is less than the cost of providing and justifying a modified approach, it may be more cost-effective to continue using the default assumptions. Requirements of a Relevant GHG System: For example, if the resulting GHG emission reductions are to be sold into an existing emissions trading system, the requirements may be quite specific with regards to the level of accuracy and approach that must be taken to validate an emission reduction credit claim. This could mean employing standardized emission factors for specific aggregated SSRs (e.g. manufacturing) or performing a detailed life cycle assessment of all upstream and downstream SSRs to support the GHG emission reduction claim. Availability and Reliability of Data: Regardless of whether or not the project proponent is mandated to follow a prescribed methodology to determine GHG emissions/reductions, the proponent may be constrained by a lack of available information and data. For example, if the fuel, energy and materials necessary for the production of feedstock (e.g. wheat, corn, etc.) cannot be identified, then the proponent must make assumptions or employ standardized emission factors for specific upstream components. A decision tree is provided in 14 Figure 3.1 to assist proponents with determining whether or not to use default values. Note that the project proponent can select to use a combination of default values provided while reassessing the values for others. For more information on the default assumptions and outcomes of this protocol, see Section 4. 15 Figure 3.1 Decision tree for determining whether to use default values No Does the project meet the protocol applicability requirements (Section 2.1)? Yes No Does the project meet all assumptions for default approach (section 4.1)? Yes Is need for accuracy and comprehensiveness greater than default approach? No Yes Are there more accurate data or quantification methodologies available? No Use default values from section 4 Yes Is cost of project development using reassessed values offset by potential additional GHG emission reductions? No Yes Review and adjust default values using section 5 16 Are the Default Values Appropriate for Your Project? Based on the previous discussion, the project proponent must decide whether the default values will be used or whether the project proponent will review and adjust the default assumptions to obtain more representative values for the project. Additionally, the project proponent must provide clear justification for their choice based on their project. After deciding whether or not to use the default values, the project proponent should detail the GHG emission reduction quantification resulting from their project by developing the Project Master Plan (PMP), according to the requirements of the SMART Protocol and ISO 14064. Table 3.2 summarises the content of the PMP, and the corresponding reference section in this document, according to whether or not using the default values. Section 5.10 provides details on the reporting. 17 Table 3.2: Summarises the content of the PMP, and the corresponding reference section in this document Requirements for PMP Using Default Value Reassessing Default Asumption Assumption Requirements in Section 2.2 Describe the project Requirements in Section 2.2 Identify Regulations, standards and best practice guidance Requirements in Section 2.3 Requirements in Section 2.3 Specify and justify whether using default values or not Requirements in Section 3 Requirements in Section 3 Identify SSRs relevant for the project Not required – Justification provided in SSP. Requirement in Section 5.1 Identify and select baseline scenario Not required - Justification provided in SSP Requirement in Section 5.2 Identify SSRs for the Baseline scenario Not required - Justification provided in SSP Requirement in Section 5.3 Select and justify relevant SSRs for monitoring or estimation Requirement in Section 5.4. See example in Section 6 (Annexes) Requirement in Section 5.4 Quantification of GHG Emissions Quantify Activity Levels only – Requirements in Section 4.2 Requirement in Section 5.5 Quantification of GHG emission reductions or removal enhancement Requirement in Section 4.3 Requirement in Section 5.6 Development of monitoring plan Requirement in Section 4.4 – Refer to example in Section 6.0 (Annexes) Requirement in Section 5.7 18 Managing data quality Requirement in Section 4.5 Requirement in Section 5.8 Reporting the GHG Project Requirement in Section 4.6 Section 5.9 4 Using the Default Values This section of the protocol provides basic guidance and instructions for a proponent who wishes to use the default values provided in the protocol. The project proponent should consult Section 5, Reassessing Default Assumptions, to understand the assumptions and rationale used to determine the default values. 4.1 Overview of Default Values and Assumptions When using the default assumptions and values, it is expected that the project proponent will, at a minimum: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. identify and conform to relevant requirements of any relevant GHG program (if applicable), legislative and technical codes and standards (see Section 1) describe the project, including participants, project location, project type, project size, market role, etc. (see Section 2.2 ) review and affirm that the default values are appropriate for the project (see Section 4), and that the project meets default assumptions (see Section 4.1.1) select emission factors for SSRs relevant for the project according to tables of emission factors that are provided and organized by biofuel type (biodiesel and bioethanol), feedstock type (wheat straw, corn oil, tallow, used cooking oil, etc.) and combustion/use of specific biofuels (see Section 4.2) select and justify the most appropriate baseline emission factor to calculate displaced emissions that would have otherwise happened in the absence of the project (see Section 4.2) directly monitor and document required project-specific data on the type of biofuel, the quantify of use of biofuel and distances transported (see Section 4.4) calculate GHG emission reductions by subtracting the project GHG emissions from the baseline GHG emissions and indicate the attribution of emission reductions – however, whether or not the project proponent can claim credit 19 8. depends on the rules of the relevant GHG programme and/or other legal/contractual basis (see point 1 above and Section 4.3) report the project (see Section 4.7) 4.1.1 Default assumptions The following assumptions apply to the use of the default values derived from the protocol as described in Section 5. 4.1.1.1 General assumptions The GHG projects perspective assumes that the project proponent is the user of the biofuel (e.g. vehicle owner/operator), and does not manufacture the biofuel that is used. If another perspective is used (e.g. the manufacturer as project proponent), then default attributions may need to be changed (see Section 5). The function of the project is fuel use and the functional unit provided by the project is expressed in volume of biofuel used (e.g. litres of B10 biodiesel blend) over the project period. The Bioethanol is assumed to displace fossil fuel (petroleum gasoline) on a 1:0.66 volumetric basis, while the Biodiesel is assumed to displace fossil fuel (petroleum diesel) on a 1:0.95 volumetric basis. This assumes that 0.66 L of bioethanol and 0.95 of Biodiesel is required to produce the same amount of energy as 1L of project fossil fuel. This particular ratio is chosen as a conservative default factor because the ratio changes depending on the biofuel mix ratio with a conventional fuel as well as the production methods including various types of feedstock. Therefore, this ratio will ensure that the emission reduction is not over estimated. Because of various factors influencing the fuel displacement ratio, the user of this protocol is encouraged to select and justify a ratio that is suitable for the user’s project. See section 5.2 for justification. Full life cycle emissions for Biofuels in Transportation projects cover all the stages beginning with production of the biofuel feedstock and ending with combustion of the biofuel product. The default values are aggregated over this life cycle, and are represented in emission factors for each stage in the biofuel cycle. The default values for SSRs for biodiesel and bioethanol include aggregate emissions in the biofuel production process (i.e. consist of the aggregate CO2-equivalent emissions for the production of the biomass feedstock, additional processing of the biomass feedstock prior to biofuel production, biofuel production, and the manufacturing of any energy or ancillary chemical inputs to the process.) and for the use of the biofuel (CO2e combustion emissions for 1 liter of the fuel. No affected SSRs are assumed. Biomass feedstock production is assumed dedicated to feedstocks used in the GHG project for Biofuels in Transportation. In practice this means that it is assumed that there are no affected SSRs resulting from economic or social consequences of the project (i.e. leakage). In the case of main commodity products (like canola, corn or animal tallow), it is assumed that economic production of these quantities would not have happened otherwise. See section above on leakage. SSRs associated with biofuels are assumed to be equal to average (or typical) production in the sector. This means that incremental changes to agricultural production, as a result of 20 biofuels activities, are assumed to be no different than present average activities. This is important given that, if biofuel production were to increase substantially, there would be both/either a redirection of existing agricultural capacity and/or growth in new capacity. This would lead to changes in environmental, social and market impacts (market leakage) that are difficult to predict and are not considered here. 4.1.1.2 Baseline Assumptions The baseline is the most appropriate and best estimate of GHG emissions and removals that would have occurred in the absence of the project. For this protocol it is assumed that the biofuel fuel in transportation projects displaces fossil fuel, as determined in section 5.2. Therefore the default parameters in this protocol are applicable only to Biofuels in Transportation projects that displace petroleum diesel (in the case of biodiesel) or petroleum gasoline (in the case of ethanol). 4.1.1.3 Production assumptions Biomass feedstock agricultural production (soybean, canola, corn) is based on USA average production data. Greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) include those emitted from the growth, cultivating and harvesting of biofuel feedstock crops. The data source assumes farming of crop on 1 planted acre for 1 year, based on a 3-year average. The data cover: seed production, tillage, fertilizer and pesticide application, crop residue management, irrigation, harvesting. The harvested acres were modeled to represent at least 90% of the planted acres. The impacts of producing 1 kg of seed are assumed equal to those of producing 1 kg of grain. Corn production (for both wet and dry milling) is based on North American average production provided by Michigan State University/Lawrence Berkeley Labs, 1995-1999 (Graboski 2002, Shapouri 2004, First Environment). Allocation between corn products (sugar, oil, meal, etc.) is based on product mass (Shapouri 2004, First Environment). Ethanol production, both wet and dry, assumes a new facility with a good yield based on USA statistical data. In either wet or dry milling, starch is converted to ethanol by fermentation. Mass balances are based on a large scale integrated ethanol facility that is operating efficiently. Under optimal commercial conditions a yield of 2.8 gallons/Bushel of corn (equivalent to 2.40 kg corn/L ethanol) is estimated. [Graboski 2002]. Other coproducts also result, depending on process route, as below. Default values for ethanol production from a wet mill assume 22.4 pounds of corn per gallon of ethanol produced (2.69 kg/L). Coproducts are protein, corn oil, unconverted starch, and non-reactive dry matter. These are combined to produce DDG (Distillers Dried Grains), which is sold mixed with another residue called thin stillage to produce either DDGS (Distillers Dries Grains with Solubles) or is sold wet as WDGS (Wet Distillers Grains with Solubles). Default values are based on a yield of 1.74 kg DDGS/L ethanol, the majority process. Based on these yields and USDA data [Shapouri 2004] on net energy balance of corn ethanol, the default values in the mass balance assume that 65% of corn is allocated on a mass basis to ethanol (wet-mill process). 21 Default values for ethanol production from a dry mill assume 21.3 pounds of corn per gallon of ethanol produced (2.55 kg/L). The default values assume coproducts of 0.034 kg corn oil per L ethanol, and two feed grain products, 0.054 kg corn gluten meal (CGM) and 0.302 kg corn gluten feed (CGF) per L ethanol [Graboski 2002]. Based on these yields and USDA data [Shapouri 2004] on net energy balance of corn ethanol, the default values assume that 63% of corn is allocated on a default values in the mass balance to ethanol (dry-mill process). Default values are based on a model for ethanol production from biomass using an enzymatic batch process [NREL 1999]. Includes GHG emissions from ancillary inputs (ammonia, lime) as well as energy inputs (natural gas for steam production and electricity). The model assumes approximately 65% cellulosic content of the biomass. No allocation since the sole commercial output of the process is ethanol. Note: default values for the enzymatic process do not represent modern proprietry advances in this technology. Default values are based on a model for ethanol production from biomass via the concentrated acid ethanol process [NREL 1999]. Includes GHG emissions from ancillary inputs (ammonia, lime, sulfuric acid) as well as energy inputs (natural gas for steam production and electricity). The model assumes approximately 65% cellulosic content of the biomass. No allocation since the sole commercial output of the process is ethanol. Seed oil for biodiesel (soybean and canola) processing assumes USA average production for 1998 (NREL 1999). The model includes transportation to the mill, storage, seed preparation, oil extraction, meal processing, oil recovery, solvent recovery and oil degumming. Data is based on an average mill in the US, which recycles more than two thirds of the hexane solvent. Allocations for milling of oil seed (soy and canola) products (oil and meal) was allocated on a mass basis Extraction of canola oil is based on the model for soybean oil production, with a different oil and meal yield. Canola oil processing is assumed to demand 45% of the energy compared to soy oil, on a per kg basis. Use and consumption of ancillary inputs (engine fluids, maintenance parts, etc.) are generally included within the SSR boundary but are all assumed to be equal from the baseline SSR to the project SSR, and are therefore excluded, unless otherwise noted. 4.2 Default Emission Factors The default emission factors established in this protocol provide the project proponent with a faster, cheaper way to quantify project GHG emissions. The SSRs associated with 22 Biofuels in Transportation projects were identified using the comprehensive life cycle framework described in section 5, and the associated emission factors were aggregated into 6 general categories (A, B, C, D, E, F), described below and illustrated in Figure 4.1. The emission factors are provided in the associated excel sheet according to their general category. 23 B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation, such as: 1. Production of project inputs F. Affected SSRs, such as: 1. Market Transformation 2. Activity Shifting 2. Transportation of project inputs to project site A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation, such as: C. Onsite SSRs During Project Operation, such as: E. Downstream SSRs After Project Termination, such as: 1. Production of raw materials and energy and transportation to manufacturing site 1. Production/Provision of product(s) and/or service(s) 1. Component decommissioning and site restoration 2. Maintenance 2. Waste management 2. Manufacturing of project components 3. Transportation of project components to project site Note: listing SSRs as “controlled” “related” is 4. Project siteand preparation, project project specific (e.g. whether component installation and the project proponent is a producer commissioning (e.g. renewable energy generator) or consumer (e.g. municipal fleet manager using bio-fuel)) D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation, such as: 1. Transportation of product(s) 2. Use of product(s) and/or service(s) 3. Waste management Figure 4.1 SSRs used to determine default values 24 A. Upstream SSRs before project operation, including: A1. Production of raw materials and energy and transportation to manufacturing site A2. Manufacturing of project components A3. Transportation of project components to project site A4. Project site preparation, project component installation and commissioning B. Upstream SSRs during project operation, including: B1. Production of project inputs B2. Transportation of project inputs to project site C. Onsite SSRs during project operation, including: C1. Operation C2. Maintenance D. Downstream SSRs during project operation, including: D1. Transportation of product(s) (i.e. electricity transmission & distribution) D2. Use of product(s) and/or service(s) D3. Waste management E. Downstream SSRs after project termination, including: E1. Component decommissioning and site restoration E2. Waste management F. Affected SSRs, including: F1. Market transformation F2. Activity Shifting The following sections provide explanations and justifications for the methodologies and assumptions used to calculate emission factors for aggregated SSRs. 25 4.2.1 Explanation of Procedure to Calculate Default Emission Factors The full life cycle emissions for a Biofuels in Transportation Project cover the stages from the production of the biofuel feedstock to the combustion of the biofuel product. Default values are not provided in this protocol for categories A, D and E, because these categories relate to emission factors for the upstream SSRs before project operation (A), the downstream SSRs during project operation (D) and the downstream SSRs after project termination (E). Category A, D and E are excluded from emission quantification for Biofuels in Transportation projects because it was assumed that there were no significant differences between project and baseline emissions for these SSRs (see Section 5.4.1 for criteria). Note that there are no default emission factors provided in this protocol for Category F (affected SSRs) because, as stated previously, it is assumed that the project is small, and does not have an impact on affected SSRs. Note that for large projects, this impact should be considered, and would need to be quantified according to the directives described in section 5. One of the preliminary steps required to determine an aggregated emission factor for the various stages of the lifecycle for the Biofuel in Transportation sector is to understand the upstream emissions generated from the agriculture practices and the biofuel production processes, which are related to Category B SSRs. To get a better understanding of these processes, various major sources of literature were identified and reviewed (see references section). The aggregate emissions over this life cycle can be represented as the “rolled up” values for each stage in the biofuel cycle. The default values for SSRs for biodiesel and bioethanol include values for the aggregate emissions in the biofuel production process (Category B SSRs) and for the use of the biofuel (Category C SSRs). The rolled up values for Category B consist of the aggregate CO2e emissions for the production of the biomass feedstock, additional processing of the biomass feedstock prior to biofuel production, biofuel production, and the manufacturing of any energy or ancillary chemical inputs to the process. The rolled up value for C consists of the CO2e emissions for the combustion of 1 liter of the fuel. A detailed explanation of the various sub-categories of Category B and C is provided in Annex 6.4. The default emission factors used to calculate project GHG emissions are organized into tables according to the type of biofuel used in the project (e.g. biodiesel or bioethanol; see Biofuels in Transportation - Quantification Spreadsheet, “Emission Factors” worksheet). The emission factors are further organized into categories that reflect general temporal and spatial life-cycle considerations, to satisfy the principles of completeness, relevance, transparency. These categories are further disaggregated to permit the project proponent to attribute GHG emissions according to whether the SSR is controlled (by the project proponent), related to the project (by material and energy flows into or out of the project), or affected by the project (by market changes such as activity shifting or market transformation). Emission factors are in units of mass of GHG per volume of fuel. An 26 explanation is provided in Annex 6.4 and in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. The default emission factors for Biofuels in Transportation projects were based on the comprehensive assessment presented in Section 5 and Annex 6.4, and can be found in the Biofuels in Transportation – GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. 27 4.3 Quantifying Emissions and Emission Reductions Quantification of net GHG emission reductions attributable to a project requires that project GHG emissions be compared against emissions from a suitable reference, or baseline, case. In this context, the baseline is a technology or practice that represents what would have occurred in the absence of the project, and should provide the same product or service as the GHG project so that they may be directly compared. In the analysis, emissions are tracked, where possible, based on the type of greenhouse gas (i.e. the six Kyoto GHGs: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 ) that is emitted, and on the attribution of the SSR, such as whether the SSR is: controlled by project proponent(s); related to the project (i.e., the SSR is physically related to the project or baseline system); or affected by the project (i.e., the SSR is economically associated with the project or baseline system). Once emissions or removals for each individual GHGs have been calculated, they are expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) and summed for an overall measure of GHG emissions for each SSR. GHG results for all relevant SSRs are then summed to provide an overall quantification of project and baseline emissions. The GHGs emissions for the project compared to the baseline are calculated by subtraction, thus providing the quantification of total GHG emissions reductions (or removal enhancements) for the project. Quantifying emissions and emission reductions for the project and baseline using the default values requires multiplying the level of activity of an SSR (e.g. the quantity of fuel used at the SSR) by the GHG emission factor for the activity (e.g. mass of CO 2 per unit of fuel combusted), resulting in a GHG emission for each SSR in units of mass of GHG. When using the default values, the emission factors for the project and the baseline have been developed for each SSRs (see Section 4.2) and are represented in the Microsoft excelbased spreadsheets. This Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet transparently presents all quantification procedures outlined in the protocol, allows project proponents to input key project-specific data (e.g. activity levels of key project functions) in a simple manner, and provides emissions quantification results according to the default assumptions presented in this protocol. Should a proponent decide to modify the default assumptions, this spreadsheet would also need to be modified accordingly. Equations and examples can also be found in Section 5.5. 28 4.4 Monitoring Plan Following the quantification of the GHG emission for each SSR of the project and the baseline, the project proponent is required to develop a monitoring plan that should be applied during project implementation. Data monitoring focuses on the measurement of parameters necessary to calculate the GHG emission reductions of a project. It includes tasks and procedures to monitor, collect, assess, analyze and document, on a regular basis, data and information that are of importance for quantifying and reporting the performance and objectives of the project and baseline SSRs considering relevant criteria. For this protocol monitoring is defined generally, to include measurement, estimation, modelling, calculation and/or use of recognized reference factors. More precise terms are also used: Direct measurement is the measurement of project-specific or baseline-specific GHG emissions Estimating is the approximation of GHG emissions by measurement of other non GHG project or baseline parameters (such as inputs, outputs or activity levels) and/or using published data, recognized reference factors, calculations, etc. When using the default values, the project proponent is expected to measure or estimate and document the activity levels required as inputs in the quantification spreadsheets such as the biofuel type, the distance travelled for each type of biofuel, and the volume of each type of biodiesel used (see Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet, “Inputs” worksheet). For an example of a full monitoring and estimation plan, the project proponent should consult Annexes 6.10 and 6.11. In most cases the amount and type of biofuel purchased will be documented on project proponent invoices. Additionally, if the biofuel does not have the same power output as the fossil fuel, then the project proponent shall measure the energy content or power output of the biofuel (or biofuel blend) and compare it to the power output of the fossil fuel historically used. This will then require adjustment of the 1:0.66 or 1:0.95 offset assumptions shown in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet, “Inputs” worksheet. The spreadsheet provides the required fields that the proponent must fill in (see Table 4.1). The proponent should refer to the “Guidance” worksheet for further instructions. 29 Table 4.1: Project inputs for the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet (with example data). Project Inputs Project Fuel Information Biofuel Type Feedstock Bioethanol Corn (Dry Milling) Project Fuel Use Information Volume Project Biofuel Combusted 10000 L Baseline Inputs Baseline Fuel Information Fossil Fuel Type Baseline Combustion Information Vehicle / Engine Type Vehicle / Engine Control Type (if applicable) Baseline Fuel Use Information Baseline Fuel to Project Fuel Factor Volume Baseline Fuel Combusted Gasoline Light-duty automobile Tier 0, New 3-way catalyst 1 10000 L Baseline Fuel / L Project Fuel L 4.5 Managing Data Quality The protocol provides data management procedures designed to ensure data quality and integrity, and methodologies for addressing uncertainty and conducting sensitivity analyses. It is recommended that the project proponent establish and maintain quality assurance and quality control plans and procedures, linked to the monitoring plan as appropriate, to manage data and information relevant to the project and baseline. The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan establishes, justifies and documents the criteria and procedures used to assure that elements owned and/or controlled by the project proponent are tested and directly monitored with known precision and reproducibility. 30 The QA/QC plan focuses specifically on those elements and components that are controlled and those that contribute to the GHG emissions profile/performance of the projects. It is necessary to specify the QA/QC requirements used to establish the quality of the data controlled by the proponent. This will include detailing how precision and accuracy will be presented. Annex 6.5 provides a generic QA/QC plan, consistent with TEAM reporting requirements. 4.6 Risk Management Plan Under the requirements of TEAM, the project proponent should develop a risk management plan for the new technology. Refer to the SMART Protocol for further details on this. See example in Section 6.0 (Annexes). 4.7 Reporting the Project This protocol can be used to help satisfy two typical GHG reporting requirements: Preparation of pre-project (also refered to as ex-ante) project documentation based on estimated project results before the emission reductions or removals occur, which is used to describe the project and the methods and approaches that will be used to quantify GHG emissions and removals for the project and baseline. For TEAM, this documentation is referred to as a Project Master Plan (PMP). Completed project documentation is typically subject to validation by a program authority, funding agency or other relevant organization. Preparation of post-project (also referred to ex-post) emission reduction/removal report, which includes assertions of the GHG emission reductions or removals of the project based on the actual project data and the methods and approaches documented in the validated project documentation. Completed emission reduction/removal reports are typically subject to verification by an independent 3rd-party. The reporting of the project should conform to the requirements specified by the GHG scheme, and those specified by ISO 14064-2 (2006). The content of the project report is described in Table 3.2, section 3. TEAM projects require that the project proponent use the SMART methodology for reporting the project, and are refered to SMART for further guidance on reporting for TEAM projects. TEAM requires an ex-ante PMP and a final quantification report ex-post. 31 5 Reassessing Default Assumptions As described in section 3, the protocol was developed using a comprehensive life-cycle framework to determine the SSRs, activity levels and emission factors applicable to Biofuels in Transportation projects. It was developed based on the project function of fuel use (see Section 4.1.1).The framework also allows the project proponent to have greater flexibility in determining more accurate GHG emissions reductions by providing projectspecific evidence relating to activities (SSRs), emission factors, and monitored activity levels. The protocol framework is structured in a way that corresponds to the ISO 14064-2 to facilitate an easier second or third-party validation/verification of the use of this protocol to conform to the requirements of that standard. The framework was applied in steps as shown in Figure 5.1. The first two steps, “Identifying relevant requirements” and “Describing the project”, were discussed in Section 1.2 and Section 2.2, respectively. Each of the remaining steps, presented in the sections below, is structured as follows: ISO 14064-2 requirements are identified Appropriate procedure(s) or criteria needed to meet the requirements are identified and developed The specific outcome of applying the procedure(s) is described Guidance is provided for reassessing the default values as part of a customized project approach 32 Identify Relevant Requirements Section 1.2 Project Baseline Describe the Project Section 2.2 Identify and Select Baseline Section 5.2 Identify SSRs Section 5.1 Identify SSRs Section 5.3 Select Relevant SSRs Section 5.4 Select Relevant SSRs Section 5.4 Quantify SSRs Section 5.5 Quantify SSRs Section 5.5 Calculate Emission Reductions Section 5.6 Develop Monitoring Plan Section 5.7 Managing Data Quality Section 5.8 Develop Report and Reporting Plan Section 5.10 Figure 5.1 Steps used in development of protocol 33 5.1 Step 1: Identify Project SSRs The project proponent should refer to Section 5.3 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.1.1 Procedure used to Identify SSRs for Project The following procedure, used to identify the SSRs related to Biofuels in Transportation projects, allowed for the identification of all types of activities (e.g. production, transportation, installation, operation, maintenance, utilization, and decommissioning) that were attributable to Biofuels in Transportation projects over the full cradle-to-grave lifecycle. The following steps (see Figure 5.2) were systematically applied to identify SSRs for the project and to determine their attribution: 1. Potential SSRs for the system that are controlled (managed, owned, controlled by contract) by the project proponent were identified. The behaviour or operation of a “controlled SSR” is under the direction and influence of the project proponent through financial, policy, management or other instruments. For example, the project proponent will control and/or own the vehicles that provide the transportation services using the biofuel. However, when hiring a trucking company to ship a load, the shipping is not controlled, even though the proponent has exerted some control by specifying who will do the shipping, what is being shipped, and to where. 2. Potential SSRs that are physically related to the direct project were identified. Products, materials and energy inputs/outputs were traced upstream to origins in natural resources and downstream along life-cycle. Material and/or energy flows into, out of, or within the project come from, or go to a “related SSR”. For example, the project proponent would have no reasonable control over the related SSRs associated with Biofuels in Transportation projects. However, these activities are still influenced by the project’s scope – e.g. utilizing 1,000,000 litres of biodiesel will require more biomass feedstock then the utilization of 1000 litres. This project-related decision will then indirectly cause upstream GHG emissions 34 associated with the growing and processing of biomass feedstock. As such, these SSRs would be considered related by material and energy flows. 3. Potential SSRs that were economically affected by the project were identified. The economic and social consequences of the project (compared to the baseline) were considered, and activities, market affects, and social changes that result from, or are associated with the project activity, were assessed. Identify SSRs Identify SSRs Controlled by the Project Identify SSRs Related to the Project through Material and Energy Flows Identify SSRs that are Economically Affected by the Project Climate Change Technology Early Action Measures Figure 5.2 Process for Identifying SSRs Justification for Procedure to Identify SSRs for the Project The systems approach is a generic “streamlined life cycle assessment” to consider in high breadth and depth all types of activities (e.g. production, transportation, installation, operation, maintenance, utilization, decommissioning, etc.) and associated inputs and outputs that may be attributable to the project. The systems approach is appropriate because it follows generally accepted practice (reflects ISO 14040 LCA series) and, when properly applied with documented criteria and assumptions (here based on industry and project references, experts and reviewers), satisfies the principles of completeness, relevance and transparency. The results from the application of the systems approach to the biofuel sector have been reviewed by various experts (LCA, biofuel experts, transportation experts, auditors, GHG experts) and interested parties to confirm the procedure and the results are generally acceptable. 35 The level of aggregation of SSRs reflects a balance of transparency and practicality considering the needs of intended users. Where intended users require greater transparency, the project proponent shall amend the procedure accordingly. 5.1.2 SSRs Identified for the Project The SSRs identified for Biofuels in Transportation projects are illustrated in Figure 5.3 and described in Annex 6.7. 36 A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation 1. Production and Transportation of Materials & Energy 2. Manufacturing of Project Components A1.1 Steel Production & Transportation A2.1 Vehicle Manufacturing A1.2 Aluminium Production & Transportation A2.2 Biofuel Facility Components Manufacturing 3.Transportation of Components to Project Site A3.1 Vehicle Acquisition A3.2 Biofuel Facility Components Transportation A1.3 Polymer Production & Transportation A1.4 Fibreglass Production & Transportation A1.5 Copper Production & Transportation Others (Project Specific) 4. Site Preparation installation and Commissioning B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation 1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B1.1 Biomass Feedstock Production B2.1 Biomass Feedstock Transportation B1.2 Biomass Feedstock Processing B2.2 Processed Biomass Transportation B1.3 Chemicals Production B2.3 Chemicals Transportation B1.4 Biofuels Production B2.4 Biofuels Transportation Other (Project Specific) Other (Project Specific) A4.1 Biofuels Facility E. Downstream SSRs after Project Termination 1. Decommissioning and Site Restoration E1.1 Decommissioning 2. Waste Management E2.1 Transport of Waste E2.2 Waste Management C. Onsite Project SSRs 1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) 2. Maintenance C2.1 Maintenance C1.1 Engine Operations (Biofuel Use) C1.2 Transportation Service D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation 1. Transportation of Product(s) 2. Use of Product(s)/Service(s) 3. Waste Management Figure 5.3 Default SSRs Identified for Biofuels in Transportation Project 37 5.1.3 Guidance to Proponent The project proponent should review the identified SSRs, and determine if there are any SSRs identified that should not be included, based on the proponent’s project. Additionally, any SSRs not already identified should be added as appropriate. Justification for changes from the defaults should be provided. The project proponent should then review all identified SSRs, and determine whether each is controlled, related or affected. In Biofuels production, should the proponent choose to re-analyze “Category B” SSRs, they should be cautious that biomass system can be complex. For example: in some cases the whole system of SSRs may perform one or more functions (e.g. food production and energy production); some individual SSRs may serve more than one specific functions (e.g. oil seed extraction produces both meal and oil); and biomass by-products should be carefully considered as to whether they are wastes or co-products (which may vary be region and economic factors). The function(s) (products, goods and services) provided by the system of SSRs should be determined comprehensively (see Section 2.2 Description of the GHG project for this requirement). Further general guidance can be found in ISO 14064-2 (2006), TEAM SMART (2004), and WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol (2005). 38 5.2 Step 2: Identify and Select Potential Baselines The project proponent should refer to Section 5.4 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.2.1 Procedure used to Identify and Select Baseline The baseline is the most appropriate and best estimate of GHG emissions and removals that would have occurred in the absence of the project. For this protocol a barriers test was used in the selection of the baseline for Biofuels in Transportation projects, keeping in mind the wide range of possible projects, and the their locations. The application of the barriers test to this protocol is described in the following section. 5.2.2 Identification and Selection of Baseline In a Biofuels in Transportation Project, the functional service provided by the project system might be fuel use, or transport or “energy output” from the vehicle engine, directly related to the combustion of fuel. The baseline scenarios method considers what other means would have provided this functional service, in the absence of the project. The focus is on fuel and energy options. Biofuels in Transportation projects are generally designed to displace the use of traditional fuels in a fuel-switching framework. For example, biodiesel is switched for diesel and bioethanol for gasoline (and bio-methane for natural gas). Considerations include the exact use of the biofuel including the equivalence of service from traditional to bio-fuel. Three potential baseline scenarios were identified: 1. 2. The project itself as a baseline (the use of biodisiel or ethanol, or a blend using any of these, as transportation fuel). It is conceivable that, in the absence of the designated project, the activities of the project would have occurred nonetheless; thus the project itself is the first candidate baseline scenario. Business-as-usual (B.A.U), in this case, the use of petroleum fuel as energy source in the vehicle. It is assumed that gasoline would be the B.A.U. fuel for projects involving ethanol and diesel would be the fuel for projects involving biodiesel. It is conceivable that, in the absence of the project, nothing exceptional would have taken place. For example, no capital expenditure would have occurred and the project would not have been built, or standard site operations would have 39 continued as they had been. Thus, the BAU is a standard and necessary scenario to consider. Another alternative fuel or energy option for the vehicles (e.g. natural gas, fuel cell, hybrid electric, etc.). 3. The barriers test is used to determine which of the potential baseline scenarios identified is the appropriate baseline for the project. The potential baseline scenarios were assessed against barriers. The potential baseline scenario that was not affected by any of the barriers was identified to be the actual project baseline scenario. Table 5.1 Barriers test on potential baseline scenarios Barriers Option 1 Project Financial/ Budgetary: No barrier: No investment required by proponent Technology and Barrier: maintenance: maintenance Additional and different needed for implementation maintenance required of fuel use (minor) Option 2 Option 3 Business-AsOther alternative fuel Usual No barrier Barrier: Investment required for new infrastructure No barrier Barrier: Additional and different maintenance required, extent unknown. Technology and maintenance: infrastructure changes for new technology Technology and maintenance: inadequate supply of fuel No barrier: No barrier no additional maintenance Market structure: no incentives to invest in alternative fuel infrastructure Barrier – OVERCOME No barrier Funding provided to offset infrastructure costs for biodiesel Barrier - OVERCOME Funding provided given to offset costs for biodiesel fuel for the project Resource availability: cost Barrier – OVERCOME of fuel Funding provided given No barrier No barrier Barrier: purchase of alternative fuel technology (e.g. modify propulsion system) Barrier: Varies from fuel to fuel, supplies would need to be developed or arranged. (higher barrier for new fuels, eg. hydrogen) No barrier where infrastructure is exists, e.g. for natural gas) Barrier: Varies from fuel to fuel (higher barrier for new fuels, eg. hydrogen); (lower barrier where incentives exist, e.g. for natural gas) Barrier: Fuel costs and availability 40 to offset cost of biodiesel purchase vary 41 Results of barriers test Option 1 (the project as potential baseline scenario) exhibited a number of significant barriers that negated its viability as a baseline. Option 3 exhibited numerous diverse and complex barriers. The use of other alternative fuels would have required concerted efforts and financing greater than the biodiesel project option. Option 2, the status quo diesel or gasoline baseline scenario was therefore the default baseline option, since it showed no barriers. This is perfectly logical given that it was the business-as-usual scenario, and was reasonably the activities that would have occurred in the absence of the project. As such, and as described in Section 2.1 on Protocol Applicablity, based on the scope of this protocol, the default baseline selected for Biofuels in Transportation projects was that bioethanol would displace fossil fuel on a 1:0.65 volumetric basis and biodiesel would displace it on a 1:0.95 volumetric basis. The project baseline is determined specifically where biofuels are used in vehicle transportation to displace the use of petroleum fuels: Gasoline fuel, where the project biofuel blend contains bioethanol Petroleum diesel fuel, where the project biofuel blend contains biodiesel Justification of Baseline ratio of biofuel substitution The default baseline scenario assumes that the ratio of substitution is 1:0.65 and 1:0.95 (one volume of biofuel in the project fuel offsets an equal volume of petroleum fuel). The higher heating value (HHV) of ethanol is 23.6 MJ/l and for gasoline is 34.7 MJ/l. This would suggest a default displacement ratio or 1:0.68 on an energy basis; if you were to assume there were some combustion efficiency gains with the ethanol that number might be somewhat higher, but in order to be conservative it is assumed that the displacement ratio is 1:0.65 for ethanol. Similarly biodiesel has a HHV of 36.9 MJ/l and diesel has a HHV of 38.7 MJ/l. This would suggest a default value around 1:0.95 for biodiesel. Thus these assumptions are a conservative ratio given normal biofuel performance, and can be adjusted in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. 5.2.3 Guidance to Proponent Should the proponent desire to change the ratio of biofuel substitution to a value that is less conservative, they are required in this Protocol to provided evidence in support of the ratio used. In some cases, such as a liquid project biofuel displacing a gas (at standard temperature and pressure) baseline fuel (e.g. propane or natural gas), this volumetric ratio 42 would need to be adjusted in order to maintain the accuracy of the quantifications. See section 5.7 for more details. Should one of the default baselines not be used, the project proponent shall select and justify the baseline used. The discussion in Annex 6.6 provides the project proponent with further guidance on selecting and justifying the baseline. 5.3 Step 3: Identify Baseline SSRs The project proponent should refer to Section 5.5 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.3.1 Procedure to Identify Baseline SSRs The procedure used to identify SSRs for the baseline is similar to the procedure used to identify SSRs for the project (Section 5.1). It differs from the procedure used for the identifying project SSRs in that SSRs in the baseline scenario are hypothetical. Thus, guidance on the baseline needs to be understood in terms of hypothetical attributions (what would have been controlled, related, affected). When identifying SSRs in the baseline, a similar level of aggregation was maintained between analogous SSRs of the project and baseline. Additional criteria for identifying SSRs in the baseline scenario included: System expansions necessary to match all functions in the project system, thus ensuring equivalence of service. System expansions required to capture and quantify project SSRs (or corresponding baseline SSRs) that are economically affected with the project activities (leakage). The criteria and procedures in Section 5.1 were applied to identify SSRs related to Biofuels in Transportation baseline scenarios. Following this, the SSRs identified in the project were compared to those identified in the baseline scenario. 5.3.2 Identified Baseline SSRs The identified baseline SSRs are illustrated in Figure 5.4 and described in Table 6.6 (Annex 6.7). 43 B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation 1. Production and Transportation of Materials & Energy A1.1 Steel Production & Transportation A1.2 Aluminium Production & Transportation 3.Transportation of 2. Manufacturing of Project Components Components to Project Site A3.1 Vehicle Acquisition A2.1 Vehicle Manufacturing A2.2 Fossil Fuel Facility Components Manufacturing A3.2 Fossil Fuel Facility Components Transportation A1.5 Copper Production & Transportation Others (Project Specific) 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site 1. Decommissioning and Site Restoration B1.1 Crude Oil Extraction B2.1 Crude Oil Transportation B1.2 Fossil Fuel Production B2.2 Fossil Fuel Transportation E1.1 Decommissioning 2. Waste Management A1.3 Polymer Production & Transportation A1.4 Fibreglass Production & Transportation 1. Production of Project Inputs E. Downstream SSRs after Project Termination Other- Products Transportation Other (Project Specific) 4. Site Preparation installation and Commissioning E2.2 Waste Management C. Onsite Project SSRs A4.1 Fossil Fuel Facility 1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) E2.1 Transport of Waste 2. Maintenance C2.1 Maintenance C1.1 Engine Operation (Fossil Fuel use) C1.2 Transportation Service D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation 1. Transportation of Product(s) 2. Use of Product(s)/Service(s) 3. Waste Management Figure 5.4 Default SSRs Identified for Baseline Scenarios for Biofuels in Transportation Project 44 5.3.3 Guidance to Proponent The project proponent shall identify the baseline SSRs according to the above procedure and add any SSRs as appropriate for the proponent’s project. Additionally, the project proponent shall compare the project and baseline SSRs as follows. The proponent shall list and compare the project’s identified SSRs with those identified in the baseline scenario as shown in Table 5.2. Because the project system and baseline scenario provide the same function and are based on the same functional unit, there must be equivalence of service and thus comparability at the system level. There may also be comparability at the SSR level, though it is to be expected that not all SSRs identified for the project will be directly comparable to analogous baseline SSRs. Table 5.2 Sample comparison of project and baseline SSRs. P refers to Project and B refers to Baseline. SSR.0.0 is a generic identifier for this table only. SSR Identifier SSR name Attribution Associated with P B SSR.0.0 Steel Production & Transportation Related X SSR.0.0 Biomass Feedstock Production Related X Crude Oil Extraction Related X SSR.0.0 Comments X This SSR is present only in the project, not in the baseline. X 45 5.4 Step 4: Select and Justify Relevant SSRs The project proponent should refer to Section 5.6 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.4.1 Procedure to Select Relevant SSRs The following procedures and criteria were applied to assess in sequence whether each identified SSR (including its inputs and outputs) was relevant for the project and for the baseline scenario, and to determine whether it was necessary to quantify the emissions by direct measurement or estimation in order to determine GHG emission reductions. If any criterion was determined in the negative, then the SSR was not necessary to quantify GHG emission reductions. A. Is the SSR new or changed from the baseline scenario to the project system? If it is not, the SSR is not relevant to quantification of GHG emission reductions, unless (C) applies. B. Does the SSR directly emit (or remove) GHGs? If it does not, the SSR is not relevant to quantifying GHG emission reductions and removals, unless (C) applies. C. Is the SSR needed to determine the level of activity for other elements? If it is not, the SSR is not relevant to quantification of GHG emission reductions. D. Are GHGs emissions estimated to be lower for the project SSR than for the corresponding baseline SSR? If there is evidence to support the estimate, then the SSR can be excluded from quantification because it is conservative to underestimate GHG emission reductions. The lack of data and/or information for a specific SSR does not provide a justification for the exclusion of the SSR. In these cases emissions will have to be estimated based on professional judgment. Once these criteria were applied to each SSR, any SSRs excluded were identified and tabulated to show the excluded SSR, exclusion criterion, and a description of the reason for exclusion. 46 5.4.2 SSRs Relevant to Project and to Baseline The SSRs that were identified as being relevant to the project and were included for direct monitoring or estimation are shown in Figure 5.5 and in Table 6.5. These are the SSRs subject to monitoring or estimation. 47 A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation No relevant SSRs for this category B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation 1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B1.1 Biomass Feedstock Production B2.1 Biomass Feedstock Transportation B1.2 Biomass Feedstock Processing B2.2 Processed Biomass Transportation B1.3 Chemicals Production B2.3 Chemicals Transportation B1.4 Biofuels Production B2.4 Biofuels Transportation (Project Other Specific) (Project Other Specific) E. Downstream SSRs after Project Termination No relevant SSRs for this category C. Onsite Project SSRs 1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) 2. Maintenance C2.1 Maintenance C1.1 Engine Operations (Biofuel Use) D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation No relevant SSRs for this category Figure 5.5 Default SSRs included in the scope of study for Biofuels in Transportation Projects 48 The SSRs that were identified as being relevant to the baseline and were included for direct monitoring or estimation are shown in Figure 5.6 and described in Table 6.6. Table 5.3 shows the SSRs that were excluded from quantification based on the criteria discussed above. Table 5.3 SSRs excluded from quantification in Biofuels in Transportation projects and Baseline scenarios. SSR Identifier SSR Name Criteria for exclusion Criteria A A1.1 Steel Production and Transportation A1.2 Aluminium Production & Transportation Criteria A A1.3 Polymer Production & Transportation Criteria A A1.4 Fibreglass Production & Transportation Criteria A A1.5 Copper Production & Transportation Criteria A A1.6 Others Criteria A A2.1 Vehicle Manufacturing Criteria A A2.2 Plant Component Manufacturing Criteria C A3.1 Vehicle Criteria A Justification Unchanged by the project: Minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project, therefore no change in the Materials and Energy required for production or manufacturing Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project. Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the manufacturing of the vehicle for the project Biofuels plants are smaller so smaller components manufactured, therefore fewer emissions Unchanged by the project: No change or 49 SSR Identifier SSR Name Criteria for exclusion Acquisition A3.2 Criteria C E1.1 Plant component transportation Plant installation+ commissioning Transportation Service Decommissioning E2.1 Transport of Waste Criteria A E2.2 Waste Management Criteria A A4.1 C1.2 Criteria C Criteria A Criteria A Justification very minimal change in the transportation of the vehicle to the project site Biofuels plants are smaller so lighter components, therefore fewer emissions Biofuels plants are smaller, therefore fewer emissions This SSR is unchanged from the baseline by the project activity Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in decommissioning Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the transportation of waste from the vehicle in the project versus the baseline scenario Unchanged by the project: No change or very minimal change in the waste management for the vehicle in the project versus the baseline scenario 50 A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation No relevant SSRs for this category B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation 1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B1.1 Crude Oil Extraction B2.1 Crude Oil Transportation B1.2 Fossil Fuel Production B2.2 Fossil Fuel Transportation B1.x Other (Project Specific) B2.x Other Products Transportation E. Downstream SSRs after Project Termination No relevant SSRs for this category C. Onsite Project SSRs 1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) 2. Maintenance C2.1 Maintenance C1.1 Engine Operation (Fossil Fuel use) D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation No relevant SSRs for this category Figure 5.6 Default SSRs included in the scope of study for Biofuels in Transportation Baseline Scenarios 51 5.4.3 Guidance to Proponent In customized project-specific applications of this procedure, the project proponent shall determine if there are any relevant SSRs not identified in this protocol, and add them as appropriate. Figure 5.7 presents a decision tree to assist the project proponent with amending the default SSRs relevant for the project. The project proponent shall exclude any SSRs justified as not relevant to the specific project, but the project proponent can not justify excluding SSRs based on lack of data availability. If the project proponent is uncertain about the existence of an SSR for a specific project, then the SSR should remain. In this protocol, upstream SSRs before project operation (Category A SSRs as described in section 5) are aggregated because it is not practical or cost-effective to analyse every raw material for all components that are part of a biofuel project, but this should not limit the project proponent from identifying and analyzing additional raw materials and/or SSRs that are not listed, should the proponent have reason to believe it is prudent to investigate these further. Finally, the project proponent shall amend Figure 5.5, Table 5.3 and Table 6.5 to include project-specific relevant SSRs. The figure and table for in-scope SSRs for the project should properly categorize and identify the SSRs and be part of the final project documentation. Direct measurement versus estimation of emissions The proponent shall identify, justify, estimate and document any project SSR emissions not subject to direct measurement. If direct measurement of the SSR emission is not within the means and resources of the project (i.e., not cost-effective), the project proponent shall estimate the SSR emission. Estimation shall include measurement of activity levels, inputs and/or outputs when feasible and shall follow the principles of conservativeness, completeness and accuracy. Further, for Criteria C, discussed above, if there is evidence to support and justify the omitting or underestimating of a project SSR, then the project proponent can exclude the SSR from quantification because it is conservative to GHG emission reductions to do so. The project proponent shall refer to TEAM (2004) for further guidance on estimation and monitoring of SSRs. 52 No For every SSR Consider default identified SSRs relevant for the project Does each SSR identified exist in the project? #2 Eliminate SSRs that do no exist and return to step #2 #1 Yes Based on your project design, are there any SSRs not identified? No #3 Re-evaluate Is operation or behaviour under direction of proponent through financial, policy, management or other instruments? Yes Yes SSR is controlled List these SSRs and amend the figure No No. Eliminate from and return to Step #2 Yes SSR is affected Is the SSR influenced by project activity by changes in market demand or supply? No Does the operation or step have material or energy flows into or out of the project? Yes SSR is related Figure 5.7 Decision Tree to Identify and Categorize SSRs Relevant for the Project 53 5.5 Step 5: Quantification of GHG Emissions The project proponent should refer to Section 5.7 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.5.1 Procedure to Quantify GHG emissions This section covers quantification of GHG emissions for both the baseline and the project. For the purposes of the SMART, GHG quantification is the process of obtaining a value for GHG emission and removal for each of the SSRs selected for quantification (in both the project and baseline systems) in the previous step. Note that some SSRs can be grouped together for quantification. Thus the quantification of GHG emission from a source could be done by: Direct measurement of the GHG emission from the source Estimation of the GHG by using emission factors (measured or estimated), inputs, outputs and activity levels. For a detailed description of the GHG quantification please refer to the SMART protocol. In selecting the quantification methodology, the primary characteristic considered was the accuracy (both of the parameter and calculation) of the chosen quantification methodology. The quantification procedure chosen for the default values in the Biofuels in Transportation project protocol is a calculation based on the estimation of GHG emissions for each relevant SSR by using its activity level and emission factor (as described below). The Estimation of GHG emission is obtained through: Measurement of the level of project/baseline activity when feasible. Emission factors obtained via measurement, conservative estimation or documented sources During the research and assessment to obtain data and information relevant to the biofuel sector in order to establish and apply procedures, type, availability, and quality of data was such that quantification of GHG emissions is appropriate using emission factors (e.g. rather than direct measurement of GHGs or other procedure). 54 General GHG quantification procedure using Emission Factors Generally, the emissions are determined by taking the product of the activity level of an SSR and the emission factor associated with the SSR as follows: Equation 5.1 Ei = AL* EF Where: E= Emissions of greenhouse gas i= Greenhouse gas type AL= Activity Level (e.g. quantity of fuel used in m3) EF= Emission Factor (e.g. emission factor of the combustion of the fuel in t CO2e/m3) GHGs are quantified for each identified default SSR where applicable. The quantification procedure was based on using data and information about: 1. 2. 3. 4. Inputs (e.g. raw materials, fuels, etc.) Outputs (e.g. volume or mass of material, electricity, etc. produced by the SSR) Level of activity (e.g. distance traveled) GHG Emission factor(s) for specific activities associated with the SSR (e.g. combustion – x tonnes CO2e/litre of fuel; manufacturing - x tonnes CO2e/tonne of material manufactured). The emission calculation requires consideration of the units used and any conversion factors necessary to produce the appropriate activity level. In general, inputs, outputs and activity level data can be obtained by: Direct measurement such as continuous or periodic sampling (measured) Performing mass and energy balances on the system (estimated) Manufacture/supplier specification documents (e.g. quantity of steel used in the manufacture of the pylon) (estimated) Professional estimation using published data or information collected from external similar sources. (estimated) Activity levels may be relatively simple, such as the amount of a material produced or quantity of fuel used (e.g. tonnes or m3), or they may be more complex. For instance, for transportation emissions, an activity level in units of tonnes-km is often used, representing the product of mass of goods X distance transported. 55 An emission factor may be specifically determined in the project through measurement of the SSR; or it may be secondary, estimated via appropriate selection from published or private sources. Thus emission factors can be obtained by: Measurement: undertaking a detailed assessment of the specific activity and developing from first principles - measuring all related activities and then normalizing the overall emissions to a specific parameter (e.g. tonnes CO2e/tonne of steel produced) Estimation: Estimating using data derived from historical operations, external but similar processes, facilities or areas of operation or from published life cycle assessments performed on related industries, processes or activities or professional judgement. Documented Emission Factors are also estimated and include using emissions factors from recognized origins such as an industry association, national GHG inventory, GHG program, or an international body (e.g. IPCC). The default factors in this protocol were mainly estimated using documented references. Like activity levels, emission factors may be relatively simple or more complex. In all cases, the units of an emission factor must include the reciprocal of the units of the matching activity level. For example, when calculating transportation emissions using a tonnes-km activity level, the associated emission factor would be in units of GHGs per tonnes-km. To promote the use of GHG emission factors that are the most robust and have the highest possible accuracy, the project proponent should use the following methods in decreasing order of preference: a) Empirical evidence of: i) Standard GHG emission outputs for measured inputs under known conditions of a specific GHG sources and sinks; or ii) Stoichiometric and mass balance measurements and calculations for a specific GHG sources and sinks or process with all losses accounted; b) Empirical evidence for similar or comparable GHG sources and sinks or processes; c) Manufacturers’ specification of output for specific or similar GHG sources and sinks under known conditions; d) Externally supplied emission factor specific to a specific area, region, province or state; e) Externally supplied emission factor specific to a country or region of countries; f) Externally supplied average emission factor for international use. Once emissions or removals of individual GHGs were calculated, they were expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per unit time and summed for an overall measure of GHG emissions for each SSR. Additionally, emissions were tracked in the quantification (where possible) based on greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) and also on the attribution of the SSR: a) SSRs controlled by project proponent(s) 56 b) SSRs related to the project - i.e. the SSR is physically related to the system c) SSRs affected by the project – i.e. the SSR is economically associated with the system. When using emission factors for the individual greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), the following general equation was used for estimating the CO2 equivalent emission for the SSRs: n Equation 5.2 CO2 e Ei GWPi i 1 Where: CO2e = emissions of CO2 equivalent (mass) i= greenhouse gas type n= total number of greenhouse gases emitted by the SSR Ei = emissions of greenhouse gas, i (mass) GWPi = Global Warming Potential of greenhouse gas i Once emissions or removals of individual GHGs are calculated, they are expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) and summed for an overall measure of GHG emissions for each SSR. Then the GHG results for all SSRs in a system are “rolled up” across the entire system, accounting for the individual activity of each SSR to the total system. A total account for the system is generated describing GHGs by type and attribution. Lastly, the flux in GHGs for the project compared to the baseline is calculated, thus providing the quantification of total GHG emissions reductions (and removals enhancements) for the project, also broken down by type and attribution (see Section 5.6). 5.5.2 GHG emissions for Project and Baseline The Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet was developed to include all the estimations that were done for each SSR on the basis of the type of gas. The spreadsheet provides a basis to establish, justify and document procedures to quantify project GHG emissions and removals for each SSR, using established emission factors (i.e. referenced to a standardized, by a recognized authority). The spreadsheet includes all assumptions that were required for performing a quantification of the emissions from each project scenario. 57 The emission factors are provided in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet in the “Emission Factors” worksheet. These emission factors are current as of the date of this protocol. GHG quantification procedures used in the spreadsheet are organized by category (A, B, C, D, E) and sub-categories (corresponding to the assessment framework and the figure and table presenting SSRs). The GHG Calculation Spreadsheet performs the calculations necessary to estimate GHG emissions and/or emission factor for each SSR. Individual SSRs are then rolled up by the spreadsheet to provide a total GHG emission rate for the project. This number can then be normalized. 5.5.3 Guidance to Proponent The project proponent should follow the procedure for selecting the quantification methodology for the proponent’s project as outlined in section 5.5.1. Where there are existing quantification methodologies, either approved by the relevant GHG program, or otherwise available, they should be considered for use. In the event that there are two quantification methodologies with similar uncertainties, the principle of conservativeness applies and the most conservative quantification methodology should be selected. When there is not an obvious choice of quantification methodology based on accuracy, the default choice should over-estimate the project emissions. Once the project proponent has determined the quantification methodology, the project documentation should list the identified SSRs, parameter data, whether directly measured, estimated or documented sources, indicator/unit, reference, monitoring frequency and rationale for quantification methodology selection and the errors. Table 6.14 in Annex 6.11 has been provided to show how this information may be documented. When using customized (i.e. not standardized or established) quantification procedures, the proponent shall provide sufficient documentation to allow for reproduction by independent parties. The project proponent is refered to the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet in the “Guidance” worksheet for calculating GHG emissions related to the proponent’s specific project. When modification to the exisiting GHG quantification spreadsheet is required, the project proponent is advised to build a new spreadsheet as necessary to better represent his/her project. Quantifying Uncertainty The proponent shall establish, justify and document uncertainty analysis procedures to quantify the uncertainty of project GHG emissions and removals quantified in the GHG project report(s) according to Annex 6.8. Specifically, as much as possible, a level of uncertainty should be determined and reported with each input and activity level in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. Where precise uncertainty is indeterminate, then a conservative estimate should be made. 58 To conduct a rigorous analysis of emissions and emission reduction uncertainties using monitored data from the project, it is recommended that the proponent follow the procedures for uncertainty estimation and propagation published by the IPCC in Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2000), and in particular Chapter 6 of this document. 59 5.6 Step 6: Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions The project proponent should refer to Section 5.8 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.6.1 Procedure to Quantify GHG emission reductions The procedure used for calculating the GHG emission reductions was the process of subtracting the project emissions from the baseline emissions. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to examine the variance in the resulting emission reductions when project assumptions are changed. This analysis is accessible in the supporting spreadsheet document in the “sensitivity” tab, which includes a list of parameters, instructions and sensitivity results. 5.6.2 GHG emissions reductions The GHG emission reductions calculated based on the above procedures are found in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. Emission reductions, based on the proponent’s project inputs, are displayed in the “Detailed Results” worksheet, with a high-level summary of results provided on the “Inputs & Summary” worksheet. 5.6.3 Guidance to Proponent The proponent should consult the “Guidance” worksheet of the Biofuels in TransportationGHG Quantification Spreadsheet for how to use the spreadsheet to quantify GHG emission reductions for the specific project. Annex 6.8 provides further guidance on uncertainty analysis and Annex 6.9 provides guidance on sensitivity analysis for the project GHG reductions and the baseline. 60 5.7 Step 7: Monitoring Activities for the Project and Baseline The project proponent should refer to Section 5.10 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.7.1 Procedure for Measurement and Estimation Activities in the Project and Baseline In order to provide accurate and timely GHG emission reporting and quantification, it is necessary to develop and prepare a monitoring plan. The objective of the monitoring plan is to ensure adequate information is provided as evidence to fulfill the project objectives and the needs of the intended user(s) (e.g. GHG program, technology advancement fund, etc.) such as calculating the emission reductions that result from the project implementation. The procedure for developing a monitoring plan for this protocol considered several issues. As a first step, appropriate methodologies that will be useful in evaluating GHG emissions and reductions are identified. Depending on the phase and activity of the Biofuels in Transportation Project, different approaches can be used to provide such quantifications. The methodology to evaluate the baseline emissions will also need to be identified. The plan must include the monitoring procedures for all GHG emitting activities of the project. It also must cover monitoring roles and responsibilities and GHG information management systems. It is easiest to develop the monitoring plan based on the parameter data required in the project and baseline calculations. In some cases, the monitoring plan will specify different parameter data than that required to perform the project design calculations, since the quantification methodologies will be different between the project design and implementation stage. In such a scenario, it is important to determine the quantification methodology associated with the SSR and the associated parameter data during the implementation phase. Usually, there are estimated or documented parameter data for the project design stage and measured parameter data for the project implementation stage. Once the monitoring parameters are determined, the selection of monitoring method for each parameter depends on various considerations such as function, need for accuracy, and economics. As previously mentioned, for this protocol monitoring is defined generally, to include measurement, estimation, modelling, calculation and/or use of recognized reference factors. More precise terms are also used here: Direct measurement is the measurement of project-specific or baseline-specific GHG emissions, 61 Estimating is the approximation of GHG emissions by measurement of other non GHG project or baseline parameters (such as inputs, outputs or activity levels) and/or using published data, recognized reference factors, calculations, etc. The monitoring plan shall include both directly measured GHG emissions and all project and baseline parameters relevant to the estimation of GHG emissions. The selection of monitoring method depends on various considerations such as monitoring objective, costs, access to information, etc. The monitoring frequency will depend on the monitoring method, need for accuracy, and the variability of the parameter data. In some cases, the the method itself will establish the limits on the monitoring frequency (e.g., a data acquisition system that is capable of a number of monitoring per second). Consequently, the need for accuracy and the variability of the parameter are interrelated and the selection of the frequency of monitoring will consider these factors. The higher the need for accuracy in the parameter data, and the greater the variability in the data, the higher the frequency of measurements. Once the monitoring method and frequency are determined, additional documentation is required in the project documentation for the: Justification of the selection of the monitoring method Justification of the selection of the monitoring frequency 5.7.2 Monitoring/Estimations of Activities for the Project Based on the requirements and discussion above, a monitoring template was developed for this protocol. This template can be found in Table 6.14 (Annex 6.11). This table includes both measured and estimated parameters. In this protocol, upstream SSRs before project operation (Category A SSRs as described in section 5) are aggregated and represent only major classifications of raw materials, because it is not practical or cost-effective to analyse every raw material for all components that are part of a biofuel project. 5.7.3 Guidance to Proponent The project proponent can modify Table 6.14 in Annex 6.11 based on the proponent’s project. The project proponent must monitor all activity levels associated with the relevant SSRs, but the emissions might be estimated or directly monitored depending on the situation. The project proponent should determine whether SSR emissions can be directly monitored, accurately, completely and consistently, within the means and resources of the project and whether direct monitoring of the SSR emission is justified on the basis of benefits versus costs. If direct monitoring of the emission from a relevant SSR is not within the means and resources of the project (i.e., not cost-effective), the emission shall be estimated. Estimation shall follow the principles of conservativeness, completeness and accuracy. 62 If the proponent decides to use emission factors other than the default emission factors provided in this protocol for biofuel combustion, there is additional guidance to monitoring of the project and baseline activities in Annex 6.10. GHG information system ISO 14064-2 (2006) requires that a GHG information management system be implemented. The GHG information management system should consider the following. The data that results from monitoring comprises the dynamic information that must be collected, calculated, aggregated and reported. Static data (e.g., GWP, emission factors, etc.) must also be maintained. It is recommended that the project proponent establish a systematic method of collecting, maintaining, and storing this information. The GHG information management system can be in hard copy (e.g., records, documents) or electronic (e.g., spreadsheets, databases) form. An adequate GHG information management system will have sufficient and appropriate evidence to establish a data trail from data collection to GHG information reporting. This GHG information management system will have appropriate data controls to ensure that the information residing in the system is accurate and complete. There is no universal GHG information management system because they evolve to suit the needs of the project. Consequently, this protocol cannot specify a GHG information management system. It can outline the principles of good information management. A good information management system is one that is capable of operating without significant error, fault or failure during a specified period in a specific environment. The underlying principles of good information management are: availability, security, integrity, and maintainability. 1 Availability: The information management system is available for operation. This has implications for the users of the system as they must be able to input new or revised information into a system. It has implications for the users who access the information for reporting and other purposes. It has implications for support personnel who monitor and make system changes when needed. Security: The information management system is protected against unauthorized physical and logical access. This implies that access must be restricted to authorized users. These principles are based on the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts, Management's Discussion and Analysis - Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure, Part 2: General Disclosure Principles, May 2004 and have been modified to fit with TEAM requirements and the climate change context [reference: Christine Schuh, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2005] 1 63 Integrity: The information management system processes the information completely, accurately, timely and in an authorized manner. System processing addresses all systems components and phases of processing (e.g., collection, calculation, aggregation, and reporting). Sufficient data controls need to be established over the processing of dynamic data and the changing of static data. Maintainability: The information management system can be updated when required in a manner that continues to provide system availability, security and integrity. 64 5.8 Step 8: Managing Data Quality The project proponent should refer to Section 5.9 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.8.1 Procedure for Managing Data Quality There was no specific procedure for managing data quality developed for this protocol since this is a project-specific or company-specific issue. Consult guidance section below. 5.8.2 Guidance to Proponent It is recommended that the project proponent establish and maintain quality assurance and quality control plans and procedures, linked to the monitoring plan as appropriate, to manage data and information relevant to the project and baseline. Additionally, for biodiesel, data quality management should include a quality system such as BQ-9000 Quality Management System Requirements for the Biodiesel Industry, which includes quality management system requirements and Biodiesel sampling and testing requirements. For ethanol, data quality management should include a quality system such as Fuel Ethanol Industry Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures, which includes information on quality assurance and test methods. The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan establishes, justifies and documents the criteria and procedures used to assure that SSRs controlled by the project proponent are tested and monitored with known precision and reproducibility. The QA/QC plan focuses specifically on those components that are controlled and those that contribute to the GHG emissions profile/performance of the projects. It is necessary to specify the QA/QC requirements used to establish the quality of the data controlled by the proponent. This will include detailing how precision and accuracy will be presented. Annex 6.5 provides a generic QA/QC plan, consistent with TEAM reporting requirements. 65 5.9 Step 9: Develop a Risk Management Plan Under the requirements of SMART the project proponent is expected to develop a risk management plan. Note that this is not a requirement under ISO, and is an important issue under the TEAM program since it deals with new technologies. Refer to SMART for further details on the SMART Protocol. See example in Section 6.0 (Annexes). 5.10 Step 10: Reporting the Project The project proponent should refer to Section 5.13 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the necessary requirements. 5.10.1 Procedure to Report the Project The reporting requirements of ISO 14064-2 and the SMART protocol were used in this protocol. 5.10.2 Reporting the Project The structure of this section follows the reporting requirements that have to be completed by the project proponent for a GHG project. Reporting contents are also summarized in Table 3.2 (see section 3). 5.10.3 Guidance to Report the Project The reporting of the project should conform to the requirements specified by the GHG scheme and by ISO requirements as noted above. The project proponent should refer to the SMART (TEAM 2004) for further guidance on reporting the project. Reporting principles 66 An important aspect of reporting is adequate disclosure. There are two principles underlying adequate disclosure: materiality and usefulness. 2 1. Materiality assesses whether the information presented in the report should be material to the decision-making needs of users. It is the project proponent’s responsibility to identify address and communicate quantitative and qualitative information necessary for users to understand and evaluate the project’s nature, changes and future positions. Reports should be materially accurate at the time of their release. Determining material information relies on judgment and experience. If it is a borderline decision, the information should probably be considered material. 2. Usefulness assesses whether the information presented should embody the qualities of reliability, comparability, consistency over reporting periods, relevance and understandability. o Reliability – refers to information that is complete and offers a fair presentation. It represents faithfully what it purports to represent and avoids the use of excessive language. It is neutral, balanced, and free from material error. o Comparability – refers to sufficient information being provided so that similarities and differences among time periods can be discerned and evaluated. o Consistency over reporting periods – significant information should be updated and explained unless it becomes irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, why this is so should be explained. o Relevance – information that has feedback value and is timely. o Understandability – the use of plain language and graphics to enhance understanding These principles are based on the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts, Management's Discussion and Analysis - Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure, Part 2: General Disclosure Principles, May 2004 and have been modified to fit with TEAM requirements and the climate change context [reference: Christine Schuh, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2005] 2 67 6 Annexes 6.1 Terminology Table 6.1 General Terminology Term Affected SSR Abbreviation Attribution Baseline Controlled SSR Coproduct Direct Measurement Downstream Emission factor Estimation EF Definition SSR influenced by a project activity by changes in market demand or supply for associated products or services. “Leakage” in international GHG terminology. Categorization of SSR as controlled, related or affected. The scenario which would have occurred in the absence of the proponent’s technology. SSR under the direction and influence of the project proponent through ownership, financial, policy, management or other instruments. The case where an activity, process or operation provides more than one product or functional output. The measurement of project-specific or baseline-specific GHG emissions Refers to temporal positioning of activities that must happen after the operation of the project. The conversion unit to convert activity data into GHG emissions (e.g. intensity of greenhouse gases). An emission factor may refer to a combination of a specific fuel and technology (e.g. Environment Canada National Inventory emission factors) or an entire project (project emission factor). The approximation of GHG emissions by measurement of other non GHG project or baseline parameters (such as inputs, outputs or activity levels) and/or using published data, recognized reference factors, calculations, etc. 68 Global Warming Potential GWP ISO principles Level of activity or Activity Level Life cycle analysis LCA Monitoring Project Quantification Related SSR Source, Sink or Reservoir Upstream SSR A conversion factor for a specific GHG to units of carbon-dioxide equivalent. The principles used to develop this protocol are transparency, relevance, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and conservativeness [ISO 14064-2:2006] The size or magnitude of an SSR. Compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle. Also: life cycle assessment Defined generally, to include measurement, estimation, modelling, calculation and/or use of recognized reference factors. See also: direct measurement, estimation The proponent’s specific technology/service being assessed in this analysis with respect to a baseline scenario. Quantification refers to the general procedures used to determine the GHG emissions from the project and baseline. An SSR that is not directly controlled by the proponent but is associated with the GHG project by material and/or energy flows. An element identified in the project or baseline that emits, removes or stores GHGs. Refers to temporal positioning of activities that must happen prior to the operation of the project. 6.2 GHG programs The project proponent should consider monitoring the status of the following initiatives. 6.2.1 Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM) and the System of Measurement And Reporting for Technologies (SMART) http://www.team.gc.ca/ 69 Within the TEAM’s Business Plan and Management Framework, TEAM is committed to report the technical performance and GHG mitigation potential of TEAM funded projects. The purpose of the SMART is to provide the basis, in terms of process, general requirements and guidance, to develop and/or evaluate the project proponent’s processes and documentation to substantiate the technology performance claim(s) and assess the GHG mitigation potential. The SMART offers many benefits to both project proponents and government programs. Project proponents benefit by establishing credibility, gaining experience and know-how, showing leadership, building competitive advantage, maintaining constructive government and public relations, and developing a network of partners and relationships to link to technology markets, GHG markets, and government initiatives. The Government of Canada benefits in the confidence and knowledge that its investments have real-world results, are fiscally responsible, build capacity in the private sector, and reduce risks associated with climate change. 6.2.2 Kyoto Protocol – Joint Implementation http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/ji/items/1674.php Joint Implementation (JI) is a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol whereby Annex I countries (e.g. Japan or European countries) can implement projects in other Annex I countries (such as Canada) that result in GHG emission reductions or removals, and receive credit in the form of emission reduction units (ERUs). ERUs can be used to help achieve national emission targets under the protocol. Projects starting from the year 2000 that meet JI requirements may be listed as JI projects, though ERUs may only be issued in relation to periods from 2008 onwards. 6.2.3 Kyoto Protocol – Clean Development Mechanism http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/2718.php The clean development mechanism (CDM) is a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol whereby Annex I Parties can implement projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I Parties, in return for Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). The CERs generated by such project activities can be used by Annex I Parties to help meet their emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol. CDM projects are required to assist with sustainable development in host countries, and meet other requirements. As with ERUs under Joint Implementation, projects starting from the year 2000 that meet CDM requirements may be listed as CDM projects, though CERs may only be issued in relation to periods from 2008 onwards. 6.2.4 European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/emission.htm 70 The EU ETS is a multinational CO2 emissions trading scheme that covers approximately 12,000 facilities, representing nearly half of Europe’s CO2 emissions, when it came into effect in January 2005. The ETS is designed to assist EU member states in achieving their target emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. The scheme is generally restricted to the following sectors: energy activities, production and processing of ferrous metals, the mineral industry, and some pulp and paper activities. Under the scheme, each member nation develops a national plan that determines the total quantity of national emission allowances available for allocation to companies, subject to approval by the European Commission. At present, GHG reduction projects undertaken in Canada would not be eligible to trade CO2 emission reductions into this scheme. 6.2.5 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) http://www.rggi.org/ The RGGI is a cooperative effort among nine U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States to develop a cap and trade trading scheme that will initially focus on CO2 emission from electricity generation in the region. In the future, the scheme could be extended to other sectors and greenhouse gases. Eastern Canadian Provinces and New Brunswick are observers in the process. 71 6.3 Identification and Assessment of Risks Relevant to Biofuels in Transportation Projects Table 6.2: Generic risk management considerations Identify Risk Assess Risk Technical Risks Equipment malfunction or breakdown resulting in interrupted operation Availability of trained maintenance staff resulting in more frequent and longer periods of down-time Availability of local service contractors resulting in more frequent and longer periods of down-time Availability and access to replacement parts resulting in increased length of down-time Lack of maturity of technology used, resulting in interrupted operation Environmental & Health Risks Force majeure – Minor lightning strike, hurricane, ice storm, extreme weather conditions, resulting in Mitigate Risk Manage Risk Preventative Maintenance Program will minimize equipment failure or breakdown Trained maintenance staff will minimize the frequency and period of down-time Implement a Preventative Maintenance Program Local service contractors will minimize the frequency and period of downtime The availability of replacement parts critical to the operation of the specialized equipment will minimize the period of downtime An emergency preparedness plan Train in-house maintenance staff on the proper operation and service of the facility Retain the services of one or more local equipment service contractors Maintain a stock of replacement parts on-hand Establish an emergency preparedness plan to deal with an environmental 72 Identify Risk Assess Risk equipment failure or down-time Observation of adverse environmental impacts of project Market Risks The potential development of a (competing) superior technology Policy Risks Changes to standard industry practices resulting in a change of baseline and reduction of GHG reduction associated with project Changes to future regulations which would change the baseline and reduce available GHG reductions that could be claimed Financial Risks Financial complications at the proponent level, resulting in inability to pursue operation Mitigate Risk Manage Risk catastrophe or major equipment failure Thorough environmental impact assessment fulfilling fed/prov requirements to minimise potential impacts and confirm public acceptance Minor Minor None Consider the financial impact of the potential reduction carbon credits Minor None Consider the financial impact of the potential reduction carbon credits 73 6.4 Technology and SSR Categories Description The following categories were used to determine default emission factors. (Make sure this is mentioned in SSR section) 6.4.1 Upstream SSRs During Project Operation Upstream SSRs During Project Operation are categorized as “B” in Figure 4.1. Biomass Feedstock Production Biofuels are produced from a variety of biomass feedstocks, including commodity agricultural inputs (e.g., corn and canola seed), agricultural waste (e.g., wheat straw) and animal by-products (e.g., tallow). 1) Commodity agricultural products: The inputs and outputs for the production of wheat, corn, canola, and soybeans come from life cycle data developed for the USDA. The data covers the entire USA, and is weighted by tillage practice. The inputs that generate GHG emissions for this SSR include agricultural chemicals, fertilizers and fuels for harvesting and transportation. While there is likely a wide range of values for each of these inputs – depending on the size of the farm, weather, agricultural practice, etc. – this US-wide average is representative and can be considered sufficiently conservative. Note that other feedstocks for biofuels are possible, but were not included in this protocol.3 2) Agricultural waste products: Agricultural waste products (e.g., wheat straw) are considered to be ‘burden free’ since the agricultural activities that have emissions are due to the production of the commodity crop. Most waste products are left on the field, burned or cleared to produce a low value coproduct. Any GHG emissions for these waste products come from the diesel fuel required to harvest the waste matter from the field and ship it to the processing facility. 3) Animal by-products: beef tallow can be used to produce biodiesel. The beef waste is generated at a slaughterhouse, and the beef fat is shipped to the processing plant to render the tallow into an oil suitable for biodiesel production. Any GHG emissions for the animal by-products comes from the collection and transport of the waste fat to the rendering plant. 3 Other potential biomass feedstocks for biodiesel include various oilseeds like mustard. For bioethanol, switch grass, wood and other cellulostic sources have been suggested. 74 Biomass Feedstock Processing Biobased feedstocks need additional processing before they are used to produce the biofuels – biomass needs to be turned into and oil to produce biodiesel, and corn needs to be milled prior to the production of bioethanol. Biodiesel The biodiesel production process consists of the transesterification of oils and fats. To convert a biobased feedstock into oil, the feedstock requires: 1) For the soy or canola oil, the feedstock needs to be crushed to extract oil from the seed/bean. The GHG emissions from this process come from the manufacturing of the chemical inputs to the oil extraction process (e.g. hexane) and the energy required to mill the agricultural material. The values used in the rollup numbers come from a generic model of soybean oil production developed for the USDA. For canola oil, the process is similar, though canola oil production is more efficient because the seed yields more oil than soybeans. 2) For tallow, the beef fat needs to be thermally transformed into tallow. The process requires inputs of natural gas and electricity, which are the two sources of CO2e emissions for the facilities. The rolled up data for beef fat rendering comes from data provided by a renderer, as reported by National Research Council [2002]. 3) For used vegetable oil, the process is similar to the tallow production process. The used oil is transformed into yellow grease using natural gas and electricity. The grease is transported to the biodiesel plant for processing. Bioethanol Corn ethanoal plants are integrated: they combine feedstock processing with biofuel production in a continuous process. In this report these two steps are considered together under biofuel production Biofuel Production Biodiesel The emission factors for biodiesel production come from two sources – a ‘generic’ model for biodiesel production produced for the US Biodiesel Board (USDA/NREL 1998, First Environment) and the SMART BIOBUS (2004) TEAM project. While the generic biodiesel production process and the BIOBUS example are similar, their emphasis is on different feedstocks: 1. Biodiesel from soybean oil: the biodiesel production process is modeled using data for the typical inputs and production yield from a standard biodiesel facility in the USA (USDA/NREL 1998, First Environment). The data are, in general, representative of a 75 generic biodiesel production process. The GHG emissions come from energy inputs for steam and electricity use. The canola process was modeled based on the soy oil process, using a higher oil content for seed. 2. Biodiesel from tallow or yellow grease: the biodiesel data for the production of the fuel from rendered tallow or yellow grease. The data comes from the SMART BIOBUS (2004) report, and the emissions are driven by energy inputs and raw material consumed in the process. Bioethanol For Bioethanol production, the data focuses on the production of ethanol from cornstarch and the production of ethanol from agricultural waste via either the enzymatic or concentrated acid process. For corn bioethanol, the corn is either dry milled or wet milled. Wet milling produces more co-products than dry milling. For the rolled up data, the ethanol production process is aggregated with the data for the corn wet and dry milling, since a number these plants operate inline, making it difficult to segregate out the emissions specific to just the starch processing stages. The emissions from wet and dry milling come mainly from energy inputs at the plant and a few ancillary chemicals. 1) Bioethanol from corn: the data for ethanol production is aggregated with the data for the upstream processing of the corn to produce starch – corn wet milling or dry milling. The CO2e emission from these two processes comes primarily from energy inputs to the process. 2) Bioethanol, concentrated acid: cellulose can be converted into ethanol through acid hydrolysis of the biomass. The inputs to the production process include ammonia, lime, sulphuric acid and steam, and the aggregate emissions contain the values for these inputs as well. The values for the model represent feedstock material that is about 65% cellulose and hemicellulose. 3) Bioethanol, enzymatic: cellulose can also be converted into ethanol through the enzymatic conversion of the biomass into sugars. The production process includes steam, lime, ammonia and electricity. Most of the CO2e for this SSR comes from the production steam to drive the process. 76 6.5 Managing Data Quality Note: the following QA/QC plan guidance is modified from QA/QC procedures prepared by ETV Canada Inc. 6.5.1 Introduction It is recommended that the project proponent establish and maintain quality assurance and quality control plans and procedures, linked to the monitoring plan as appropriate, to manage data and information relevant to the project and baseline. The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan establishes, justifies and documents the criteria and procedures used to assure that elements owned and/or controlled by the project proponent are tested and monitored with known precision and reproducibility. The QA/QC plan focuses specifically on those elements and components that are controlled and those that contribute to the GHG emissions profile/performance of the projects. It is necessary to specify the QA/QC requirements used to establish the quality of the data generated on site. This will include detailing how precision and accuracy will be presented, where: Precision is the agreement between repeated measurements of the same quantity; and Accuracy is the agreement between a measurement and an accepted or known value. Quality Assurance Quality assurance is defined as the management system that is in place to ensure that QC procedures are being performed correctly. Quality assurance (QA) is a set of operating principles that, if strictly followed during sample collection and analysis, will produce data of known and defensible quality, namely, the accuracy of the result can be stated with a high level of confidence. Quality assurance planning includes the following: Cover sheet with plan approval; Staff organization and responsibilities; Sample control and documentation procedures; Calibration procedures; Internal quality control activities; Data assessment procedures for accuracy and precision, and data reduction, validation, and reporting. Quality Control 77 Quality control is defined as the procedures established and observed in the field/on site to ensure that the end results of testing and monitoring activities meet the intended data quality objectives. Quality control is a technical document that specifies activities required to achieve data quality objectives and describes how all data are assessed for precision, accuracy, completeness, comparability, and compatibility. Sections of the Plan The QA/QC plan includes the following sections: Samples Analytical methodology Quality control (for the technology and for the monitoring and the analysis of samples) Instrument/equipment calibration and frequency Assessment of data during the project Data review, verification and validation Reporting The project proponent is advised to consider the guidance established by the US EPA and ETV Canada for quality assurance plans and quality control procedures in addition to guidance presented here. 6.5.2 Samples No testing or monitoring program will result in the generation of a sole data set. The data generated during testing and monitoring will instead consist of several related data sets. Generally, the data collected can be categorized as either performance parameters, or operating conditions. Performance parameters: Parameters that provide direct measures of the activity of the project or baseline system, such as amount of energy consumed, amount of product produced, etc. Operating Conditions: Any parameter, variable, or condition that has, or could have, a significant impact on system performance should be considered an operating condition. For instance, climatic conditions could be considered operating conditions. Replication and Number of Samples In order that individual system anomalies be accounted for it is generally recommended that at least three replicates (the minimum number of replicates for statistical acceptability) located in the same area, same size range, and having the same types of loads should be monitored. If the systems are significantly different, then the uncertainty of the data 78 collected from each is increased and will reduce the confidence level of the projected GHG emission reductions. Number of Samples The number of samples for testing or monitoring must be sufficient to demonstrate the desired 95% confidence of the results. For the data to be statistically robust, a minimum of ten data points from each sampling location must be collected to constitute an acceptable “data set”. A preferred statistically sound data set requires about 30 data points. A 95% level of confidence level is generally the peer review quality accepted objective. When determining savings, one is estimating a difference level rather than measuring the level of consumption, therefore a greater absolute precision is required. Typically, when determining difference, a larger sample size is recommended than that for measuring the level of consumption (IPMVP, 2002). Sampling Frequency and Period Sampling times or ‘frequency’ refers to the number of times during the test or monitoring period that the samples are to be collected. As a minimum, the sample frequency must provide a reasonable characterization of system performance under the operating conditions identified. In general, sampling intervals should be chosen based on the expected frequency of changes. In practical applications, this may vary from as little as 5 minutes or less to as long as 1 hour or more within each sample. Sampling period refers to the length of time that the monitoring plan is in place. Seasonal variations in natural systems necessitate sampling over each of the seasons. A minimal study period for a project is typically one year in order to capture performance under an entire seasonal cycle (except where a project system is not operating for a particular portion of the year due to ice, etc.). Sampling Records Records of sampling and equipment maintenance must be kept current and accessible for review. Records must include: Date and time of all sampling activity. Sample identifications Sample collection method (e.g. data acquisition system); Identification of sampling staff; Malfunctions and corrective action taken; Maintenance log including frequency and type of maintenance performed on equipment, etc., Calibration and repair log for on-line analyzers Any other relevant information. 79 Any sampling malfunctions/problems during sample collection should be reported and recorded. Sampling Chain of Custody It is essential to insure sample integrity from collection to data reporting. This includes the ability to trace possession of the data throughout the data collection, analysis, and reporting process. This is referred to as chain of custody and is important in demonstrating data control when litigation is involved. This will also prove useful when justifying data quality during verification audits. Records should be maintained regarding chain of custody. Where data will be collected, stored and transferred electronically, chain of custody can be demonstrated through computer-generated logs of data collection and transfer times. In the case of manually monitored and collected data (e.g. reading a thermometer), or where electronic data is transferred manual via CD, memory stick, etc., a chain of custody record should accompany the data. This record should include: Data label, including description; Signature of collector / transferor; Date, time, and address of collection / transfer; Data type; Data analysis request sheet; and Signature of persons involved in the chain of possession, including dates. 6.5.3 Analytical Methodology The section of the QA/QC plan on analytical methodology should document all the methods used to analyze collected data, and methods should be clearly referenced or justified. Any modifications to existing methods or in-house methods should be explained and validated. In case of an in-house method, the standard operating procedure (SOP) should be referenced and included in the appendix. All the instrumentation/equipment used for the analyses should be listed, and the level of accuracy, precision and bias obtained from the analyses should be discussed. If third parties perform certain analysis, then a list of these analyses as well as the turn-around time expected should be provided, and the credentials of the third parties documented. 6.5.4 Quality Control The section on quality control may be divided in two different categories: Quality control on the process (technology); Quality control for the collection and analysis of samples. Quality Control on the Process (Technology) 80 The section for the quality control of the technology should include the standard operating procedures (SOPs) and the maintenance requirements. The SOPs should detail the procedures for the start-up, operation and shut down of the technology. The health & safety requirements and the SOPs should be read and understood by the personnel working with the technology. Quality Control of the Data Collection The section on quality control for the collection and analysis of samples should contain information about the activities undertaken to assess/demonstrate the reliability and confidence of the data obtained. Data collection must provide sufficient quality data to help assess the validity of the technology. A data collection quality control checklist (Table 6.3) is provided to guide and ensure that quality data is generated. Many of the items identified in the checklist have been previously described. However, those criteria requiring explanation are explained below. Table 6.3 Quality Control Criteria Checklist Test Criterion Personnel Credentials and Contact Information Health, Safety & Training Requirements Operating Conditions Number of Samples Sampling Times/Frequency Sample Chain of Custody Calibration Monitoring Process Data Collection Data Storage and Archiving Minimum Standard Established Personnel The personnel responsible for collecting the data must be identified. They must have an acceptable level of knowledge and experience related to the equipment used and data to be collected. The ideal system for this application would have data loggers installed at each unit and collectively connected to a central database facility. Credentials and Contact Information Names and credentials should be supplied for personnel involved with the following: Calibration of all data acquisition systems (DAS) (list for each DAS element; all site DAS calibration should be done by one person at one location) 81 Installation of DAS at the project sites (list for each DAS element): Commissioning of DAS at project sites (list for each DAS element): Health, Safety & Training Requirements Training must be provided to the operators to ensure effective, efficient and safe work. Training materials should cover both operation and safety aspects. A simple checklist can be prepared to ensure that the requirements for Health and Safety and Training have been satisfied by the testing agency and by each participant in the demonstration testing. An example of this checklist is presented in Table 6.4. Table 6.4 System Operations, Health, Safety, and Training Requirements Checklist Requirement User Manual(s) Provided Standard Operating Practices Available Operation & Maintenance Procedures Specified MSDS Available WHMIS Information Posted Safety Plan Developed Emergency Response Plan Prepared Protective Equipment Identified Off Site “Hands On” Training Provided On Site “Hands On” Training Provided Acknowledged Data Storage and Archiving To ensure the security of data after collection, it is necessary to develop procedures for storing and archiving data. These procedures are intended to guard against accidental loss or corruption of data, due for instance to computer malfunction, fire, etc. 6.5.5 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency This section identifies when and how the different instruments / equipment maintenance and calibration will be done. The procedures followed for the maintenance and the calibration of the instruments, the standards utilized, the frequency of the calibrations and the acceptable errors should be documented. The procedure followed to record the calibrations and the maintenance work should also be documented. The detection limit of each instrument used for analysis should also be documented. Any SOPs containing this information may be included in the appendices. The project proponent should submit credentials of any third parties performing monitoring or analysis. It is highly recommended that instrumentation be calibrated with procedures by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Usually, sensors and metering 82 instrumentation are selected based in part on the ease of calibration and the ability to hold calibration (IPMVP, 2002). 6.5.6 Data Assessment The data assessments to identify potential problems early in the project and allow for corrections may include the following: surveillance, proficiency testing and technical audits of field, laboratory or data management activities. The frequency of these assessments during the span of the project should be justified and documented. Data assessment is an iterative activity. Initial results should be evaluated and compared to expectations from the proposed experimental design. Deviations from expected results should be investigated to determine if the deviations are due to unusual operating conditions or unexpected feed conditions. If the deviations are actually unexpected responses, then changes to the experimental design, operating conditions or feed conditions can be made early in the program to continue with testing that satisfies the test objectives. It is important to note that these data represent a “start up” situation, but may not be acceptable for long term demonstration of the technology performance. Although a detailed data assessment naturally follows the data collection process, it is important to at least identify how the data will be assessed for the specific application. The assessment strategy has a direct impact on the quantity and quality of data to be collected. It therefore warrants consideration during the design of the testing program. Data should be assessed based on the principles of relevance and quality. A number of criteria must be met with regard to both of these principles. To complement the relevance and quality criteria for assessing data, the following are examples of additional tools available for evaluating raw data generated during the testing and monitoring programs. Development and/or use of mathematical equations to describe relationships between key variables in a process. These equations could be used to compare predicted with observed results. Mass and/or energy balances around a process to ensure that all major inputs and outputs are accounted. Statistical techniques to determine means, variances and confidence limits for measured data, and to test hypotheses (i.e., claims). Measurement Uncertainty Uncertainty in the measurement of system parameters (including greenhouse gas emissions and reductions) needs to be taken into consideration when monitoring and evaluating the performance and impacts of projects. For example, for GHG emission reduction measurements, uncertainties include the following (Vine and Sathaye, 1999): The use of simplified representations with averaged values, i.e. emission factors. 83 The uncertainty in the scientific understanding of the basic processes leading to emissions and removals for non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases. The uncertainty in measuring the project baselines, which can’t be directly measured or are fully representative. The accuracy of the measurements can be improved in two general ways (IPMVP, 2002): 1. Reducing biases by using measured values in place of assumed or stipulated values. 2. By reducing random errors, either by increasing the sample sizes, using a more efficient sample design, or/and applying better measurement technique such as the use of data logging and an automated central data collection facility. The precision of measurements and results should be reported in one of the two following ways (Vine and Sathaye, 1999): 1. Quantitatively: by specifying the standard deviation around the mean for a bell-shaped distribution, or providing confidence intervals around mean estimates. 2. Qualitatively: by indicating the general level of precision of the measurement i.e. low, medium or high. 6.5.7 Data Review, Verification and Validation This section includes the procedure followed when reviewing the data obtained. It is a final review of the data to determine whether it is accepted or rejected. The calculations are reviewed, the templates are inspected to ensure that all the data has been properly entered, and the chain of custody is reviewed. The verification process is the evaluation of the conformance/compliance of the data set to the methods or procedures outlined in this plan, for example, the location of the samples taken, the sampling methods used, etc. The validation process goes above and beyond the review and verification. It focuses on the specific needs of the project and determines whether or not the data obtained meets these needs. The process is performed to ensure that the project stakeholders make decisions based on relevant and accurate data. 6.5.8 Reporting Upon completion of the monitoring program and data analysis (or periodically for longterm monitoring), a monitoring report should be prepared which contains all raw and analyzed data, description of the methods used for data collection and analysis, QA/QC description and plan. 84 6.6 Selecting the Baseline Scenario This section is provided to guide the proponent, should they desire to select another baseline than the one developed in this protocol. 6.6.1 General methods Four methods for selecting the baseline scenario are generally considered: 1. Project specific method, which uses a project-specific procedure and information on the specific circumstances of the project to select the baseline scenario. For example, some project specific considerations may include: o current practice o planned changes or upgrades o standard or regulated industrial practice 2. GHG performance standard method, which identifies existing or planned activities, plants, or practices to establish a performance standard, which is used as the baseline emissions. o standard or regulated industrial practice o best available technology or superior industrial practice o emerging technology or alternative practice 3. Retrofit procedure, which uses historical emissions for baseline emissions. 4. Consideration of any relevant GHG program baseline requirements. The project-specific method is most appropriate for Biofuel in Transportation projects because it is one of the four generally accepted practices, and when properly applied, with documented criteria and assumptions, it satisfies the principles of relevance, transparency, completeness and accuracy. A GHG performance standard method could be very complex for transportation projects because of the many differences in transportation services (ridership, modal switch, type of vehicle, type of fuel, composition of transportation fleet, etc.). Another issue with the use of the performance standard is that transportation service performance (i.e. fuel economy, efficiency of services) is very dependent on the environmental conditions (i.e. snow, cold weather). In Canada, considering all the complex relationships between these parameters, 85 there is not a sufficient dataset to establish a performance standard. Even if a Performance Standard could be established, it may be expensive. Given that Biofuels in Transportation projects are based on a fuel switch and do not involve a change of equipment, the retrofit procedure is not applicable. Lastly, no GHG program baseline requirements are presently in effect. 6.6.2 Considerations for Selecting Baseline Scenario for Biofuels in Transportation Projects The selection of the baseline using the project-specific method can be conducted by assessing several potential baselines and selecting the most appropriate and conservative scenario. The selection of the baseline is a two-step process for ensuring that the baseline selected is comparable to the project and that it represents the “business-as-usual” scenario. The following questions can be used to select the Biofuels in Transportation projects baseline: Step 1: Is the baseline comparable to the project? Does the baseline provide the same service as the project? Does the baseline have the similar operational capabilities as the project? Does the baseline have the similar operational lifespan as the project? Step 2: Does the baseline represent the “business as usual” scenario? Does it represent what could have happened in the absence of the project? Is it standard industry practice or the predominant process/technology in the industry today? Step 3: Is the baseline conservative? Is it the conservative choice? 6.6.3 Project-specific Method In selecting the baseline scenario for Biofuels in Transportation using the project-specific method, there are a number of considerations for selecting the scenario that would best represent what would have happened in the absence of the project: The transportation service provided: What fuel, vehicle mode or transport service would have been provided otherwise? Would the service have been equivalent? The biomass baseline: What would have happened to the agricultural production or biomass product in the absence of the project? Would it have been produced? How would it have been used otherwise? 86 Co-products: Would any co-products have been produced alternatively? Would an alternative product (e.g. petroleum based glycerine vs. bio-based glycerine) have been produced in the absence of the project? Would the alternative be equivalent? These issues are considered below in the context of the protocol requirements. Equivalence of service ISO 14064-2 section 5.4 requires the project proponent to select or establish criteria and procedures for identifying and assessing potential baseline scenarios, wherein the baseline is equivalent to the project in type and level of activity of products or services. This is further supported in ISO 14064-2 section A.2.4, which states that using functionally equivalent units (i.e. the same level of service is provided by the project and the baseline scenario) is part of satisfying the consistency principle; and section A.3.3.1, which states that to ensure an appropriate comparison of the project and baseline … the services, products or function generally include a quantitative measure, and demonstrate functional equivalence. The project proponent shall select and justify the baseline scenario on the basis of equivalence of service of the project system and the baseline scenario. Equivalence of service ensures that the baseline is a fair comparison to and an accurate representation of what would have happened in the absence of the project. The project proponent shall make a statement regarding the degree of comparability of the baseline scenario to the project system. The project proponent shall also justify any weaknesses, lack of or risks of lack of comparability (and/or lack of equivalence) between the project system and the baseline scenario. Deviations in equivalency are sometimes unavoidable, in which case, the baseline shall be constructed so as to be conservative towards the measurement of GHG emissions reduction, and any deviations should be justified. Transportation service In the case of this Biofuels in Transportation protocol, the core service provided by the project is transportation. For biofuels used in transportation, the common functional unit for the service will be amount of fuel used, the distance travelled, and the time over which transportation service is provided. The details of the service may include characteristics that are required in a statement of equivalence of service, such as specific distance, type or mode of transportation, power output or profile of engines, vehicle reliability, or similar function(s) provided by or related to the fuel. The same and equivalent power service needs to be provided by the baseline scenario. Co-Products Biofuels systems are intended to provide a core service of fuel or transportation. The production of both biofuels generates other products, which are recovered and used in other 87 product systems. They are considered as coproducts. Examples of co-products, services or functions that may be present in the broadest scope of a biofuel projects include: waste management service (e.g. disposal of restaurant grease) enhanced agricultural performance (e.g. removal of wheat straw may enhance crop growth) by-product food crops (e.g. soy protein from soy bean for soy oil as biomass feedstock for biodiesel) animal feed (e.g. canola meal by-product for use in feed blend) industrial commodities (e.g. corn oil, corn sugars in various forms from milling processes) industrial chemical production (e.g. glycerine by-product from biodiesel production) energy (e.g. by-product steam or power energy from bioethanol production) The treatment of these kinds of co-products is an important consideration for biofuel systems, and needs to be addressed in one of two ways: Co-product allocation, at the SSR level. This approach does an apportioning or allocating of energy resources, raw materials, pollutants, etc. from the common (shared) production steps to the specific product being studied (i.e. the fuel) and the coproducts. Inputs and outputs of the common steps can be partitioned across the coproducts on various bases, including (for example): mass, dry mass, energy content, economic value. o In this Protocol, allocations have been used for the biofuels SSRs, as documented in the source references. See section 4.1.1.3 on production assumptions used for the default values. Baseline expansion, where for each particular good or service provided as a function of the project system, the baseline system must be constructed to provide an equivalent function For example, if a co-product of biodiesel production is bio-glycerine, it might be matched by traditionally produced petroleum glycerine; or if the biofuel system provides a service of agro-waste disposal, the baseline system might use composting as a means of providing the equivalent waste management service. Regardless, system functions must be identified for both the project and baseline, and then the equivalence of functions must be carefully correlated between the project system and the baseline system. Identification and relevance of SSRs may need to be readdressed if equivalency is not obtained. Biomass baseline effects With respect to the biomass baseline, this protocol assumes that the biomass feedstock production is dedicated to feedstocks used in the GHG project for Biofuels in Transportation. In practice this means that it is assumed that there are no economic affects (leakage). Biofuels is a young and emerging sector in Canada, therefore there is a potential for market changes to result from increases in biofuels activities. This protocol is limited to consideration of known activities only. Thus, it is assumed in the guidance/requirements 88 that quantifications are provided on a business-as-usual basis and that activities associated with biofuels are assumed to be equal to average (or typical) production in the sector. This means that incremental changes to agricultural production, as a result of biofuels activities, are assumed to be similar to present average activities. In particular, this is important given that, if biofuels production were to increase substantially, there would be both/either a redirection of existing agricultural capacity and/or growth in new capacity. This would lead to changes in environmental, social and market impacts (market leakage) that are difficult to predict and are not considered here. The following discussion considers answers to the questions: What would have happened to the agricultural production or biomass product in the absence of the project? How would it have been used otherwise? Affected baseline SSRs In the case of main commodity products (like canola oil, corn sugar/starch or animal tallow), it is assumed that economic production of these quantities would not have happened otherwise. Baseline scenarios should consider appropriate diversion activities on a feedstock specific and region specific basis. Activities in the project need to be considered carefully for coproducts, and potential baselines to reflect the co-products need to be considered. Related baseline SSRs There are numerous potential related baseline SSRs that concern biomass feedstock production and processing: combustion of biomass, e.g. field burning of agricultural waste waste disposal of biomass, e.g. animal wastes industrial use of biomass chemicals, e.g. animal tallow alternative use of biomass in forestry products high value use of agricultural biomass as animal feed (e.g. corn, hay) low value use of agricultural biomass (e.g. animal bedding use of straw) Time period An important consideration in all baselines is that the baseline scenario must cover the same time period as the project. A statement shall be made regarding the comparability of the time period of the baseline scenario to the project. Any differences in time period between the project system and the baseline scenario shall be justified. 89 6.7 Default Identified SSRs for Project and Baseline 6.7.1 Default SSRs for Project Table 6.5 presents the results of applying the systems approach procedure to identify default SSRs for biofuel projects, as well as proposed default attribution of the SSRs. Table 6.5 Overview Table of Default Identified SSRs Relevant for the Biofuels in Transportation Project SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default Attribution Category A – Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation A1 Production and Transportation of Materials & Energy (Used in Manufacturing Project Components)4 The upstream production SSRs incorporate activities associated with the conversion of raw materials (e.g. iron ore, lime, petroleum) and energy into useable products (e.g. steel, cement, fibreglass). In subsequent stages of the life cycle, these useable products are transported and then manufactured into vehicle and biofuel facility components. The upstream transportation SSRs include all that is involved in the transport of the upstream production SSRs (e.g. steel, aluminium, fibreglass, etc.) to the site where they will be transformed into the components. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation. A.1.1 Steel Refers to aggregated source Related Production & representing all activities, Transportation inputs of materials and energy for production of steel (all different types, including cast iron) and transportation to manufacturing facility. A.1.2 Aluminium Refers to aggregated sources Related Production & representing all activities, Transportation inputs of materials and energy for production of aluminium and transportation to As described elsewhere in this document, these sources represent the main activities and inputs/outputs relevant in this part of the life-cycle for the project. 4 90 SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default Attribution manufacturing facility. Refers to aggregated source Related representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of polymer and transportation to manufacturing facility. A.1.4 Fibreglass Refers to aggregated source Related Production & representing all activities, Transportation inputs of materials and energy for production of fibregalss and transportation to manufacturing facility. A.1.5 Copper Production Refers to aggregated source Related & Transportation representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of copper and transportation to manufacturing facility. Other Material Refers to aggregated source Related Production & representing all activities, Transportation inputs of materials and energy for production of other materials such as HDPE, oil/grease, paint used in the various components of the vehicles and biofuel facility. A.2 Manufacturing of Project Components The upstream manufacturing SSRs include all energy inputs required to transform the upstream production SSRs (e.g. steel, aluminium, fibreglass, etc.) into components and ultimately entire upstream manufacturing SSRs (e.g. vehicles). Emissions associated with the main material inputs have already been accounted for in the ‘Production’ stage of the life cycle (e.g. for steel production, aluminium production, etc.). As such, the main input for the manufacturing of the vehicles and biofuel facility components from the upstream production SSRs will be a form of energy, such as electricity, diesel, etc. A.2.1 Vehicle Refers to all activities Related Manufacturing involved in manufacture of vehicles. A2.2 Biofuel Facility Refers to all activities Related Components involved in manufacture of Manufacturing components for the biofuel plant. A.1.3 Polymer Production & Transportation 91 SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default Attribution A.3 Transportation of Components to Project Site The transportation of main project components (e.g. vehicle) from the manufacturer sites to the project site. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation. A3.1 Vehicle Refers to transport of vehicle Related Acquisition to project site A3.2 Biofuel facility Refers to transport of Related Components components from the biofuel transportation plant to project site A.4 Site Preparation Installation and Commissioning Site preparation refers to construction of access roads, cutting trees and clearing the overburden, levelling/preparing the ground and construction of support structures. Installation refers to building and assembly structures and components. Commissioning refers to start-up phase. Emissions for planning, assessments, engineering, travel, etc. are also estimated. A4.1 Biofuel Facility Refers to all activities Related involved in the installation and commissioning of the biofuel plant Category B - Upstream SSRs During Project Operation B.1 Production of Project Inputs B1.1 Biomass Feedstock Refers to all activities Related Production involved in the seed production, tillage, fertilizer and pesticide application, crop residue management, irrigation, harvesting. B1.2 Biomass Feedstock -For Canola and Soy (Refers Related Processing to all activities involved in the transportation to the mill, storage, seed preparation, oil extraction, meal processing, oil recovery, solvent recovery and oil degumming). -For Corn (Refers to all activities involved in the wet milling of raw corn to produce corn oil and other by products. Allocation between products based on mass.) -For tallow & yellow grease rendering (Refers to all 92 SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description activities involved in the processing of waste fats to refine the oil for use as feed to biodiesel process.) B1.3 Chemicals Refers to all activities Production involved in the processing and distribution of chemicals B1.4 Biofuels Refers to all activities Production involved in the transportation of input and the energy required for the production of biodiesel B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B2.1 Biomass Feedstock Refers to all activities Transportation involved in the transportation of the biomass feedstock to the mill or plant B2.2 Processed Biomass Refers to all activities Transportation involved in the transportation of the processed biomass feedstock to the biofuel production plant B2.3 Chemical Refers to all activities Transportation involved in the transportation of the chemicals to the biofuel production plant B2.4 Biofuels Refers to all activities Transportation involved in the transportation of the biofuel to the distributor or project site Category C - Onsite Project SSRs C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) C1.1 Biodiesel use Refers to all activities involved in the use/combustion of biofuels C1.2 Transportation Refers to all activities Service involved in the operation of vehicle for transportation purposes C.2 Maintenance Default Attribution Related Related Related Related Related Related Owned Owned 93 SSR Identifier SSR Name C2.1 Maintenance SSR Description Includes all ancillary inputs (fluids, maintenance parts, etc.) and other maintenance activities. Category D - Downstream SSRs During Project Operation D.1 Transportation of Product(s) D.2 Use of Product(s)/Service(s) D.3 Waste Management Category E – Downstream SSRs after Project Termination E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration E1.1 Decommissioning Includes all decommissioning activities for the vehicle E.2 Waste Management E2.1 Transport of Waste Refers to transportation of waste to recycling and landfilling for the project components and structures E2.2 Waste Includes the landfill Management emissions, refurbishing emissions and the recycling emissions Default Attribution Owned Owned Owned Related 6.7.2 Default SSRs for Baseline Table 6.6 presents the results of applying the systems approach procedure to identify default SSRs for Biofuels in Transportation projects, as well as proposed default attribution of the SSRs. Table 6.6 Overview Table of Default Identified SSRs Relevant for Baseline Scenarios of Biofuels in Transportation Projects SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Category A – Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation A.1 Production and Transportation of Materials & Energy A.1.1 Steel Refers to aggregated source Production & representing all activities, Transportation inputs of materials and energy for production of steel (all different types, including cast iron) and transportation to Default Attribution Related 94 SSR Identifier SSR Name A.1.2 Aluminium Production & Transportation A.1.3 Polymer Production & Transportation A.1.4 Fibreglass Production & Transportation A.1.5 Copper Production & Transportation A1.7 Other Material Production & Transportation SSR Description manufacturing facility. Refers to aggregated sources representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of aluminium and transportation to manufacturer of vehicle components. Refers to aggregated source representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of polymer and transportation to manufacturer of vehicle components. Refers to aggregated source representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of fibreglass and transportation to manufacturer of vehicle components. Refers to aggregated source representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of copper and transportation to manufacturer of vehicle components. Refers to aggregated source representing all activities, inputs of materials and energy for production of other materials such as HDPE, oil/grease, paint used in the various components of the vehicles. Default Attribution Related Related Related Related Related A.2 Manufacturing of Project Components 95 SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default Attribution The upstream manufacturings SSRs include all energy inputs required to transform the upstream production SSRs (e.g. steel, aluminium, fibreglass, etc.) into components and ultimately entire upstream manufacturing SSRs (e.g. vehicles). Emissions associated with the main material inputs have already been accounted for in the ‘Production’ stage of the life cycle (e.g. for steel production, aluminium production, etc.). As such, the main input for the manufacturing of the vehicles from the upstream production SSRs will be a form of energy, such as electricity, diesel, etc. A.2.1 Vehicle Refers to all activities Related Manufacturing involved in manufacture of vehicles. A2.2 Fossil Fuel Facility Refers to all activities Related Component involved in manufacture of Manufacturing components for the Fossil fuel plant. A.3 Transportation of Components to Project Site The transportation of main project components (e.g. vehicle) from the manufacturer sites to the project site. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation. A.3.1 Vehicle Refers to transport of vehicle Related Acquisition to project site A3.2 Fossil Fuel Refers to all activities Related component involved in the transportation transportation of components for the Fossil fuel plant. A.4 Site Preparation Installation and Commissioning Site preparation refers to construction of access roads, cutting trees and clearing the overburden, levelling/preparing the ground and construction of support structures. Installation refers to building and assembly structures and components. Commissioning refers to start-up phase. Emissions for planning, assessments, engineering, travel, etc. are also estimated. Refers to all activities Related A4.1 Fossil Fuel involved in the installation Facility and commissioning of the Fossil Fuel plant Category B - Upstream SSRs During Project Operation B.1 Production of Project Inputs The upstream Production of Project Inputs SSRs include all energy and materials required to produce the fuel and the chemicals required for that fuel production. B1.1 Crude Oil Refers to all materials and Related Extraction energy required for the extraction of crude oil B1.2 Fossil Fuel Refers to all the Related Production transportation of the crude 96 SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default Attribution oil and the energy required for the production of fossil fuels (i.e. gasoline, diesel, etc…) B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site The transportation of the project inputs from the production site to the project site to the project site. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation. B2.1 Crude Oil Refers to all activities Related Transportation involved transportation of the crude oil to the refining plant B2.2 Fossil Fuel Refers to all activities Related Transportation involved in the transportation of the Fossil fuels to the project site C. Onsite Project SSRs C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) C1.1 Engine Operation Refers to all activities Owned (Fossil Fuel use) involved in the use/combustion of fossil fuels C1.2 Transportation Refers to all activities Owned Service involved in the operation of vehicle for transportation purposes C.2 Maintenance C2.1 Maintenance Includes all ancillary inputs Owned (fluids, maintenance parts, etc.) and other maintenance activities. D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation D.1 Transportation of Product(s) D.2 Use of Product(s)/Service(s) D.3 Waste Management E. Downstream SSRs after Project Termination E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration E1.1 Decommissioning Includes all Owned decommissioning activities for the vehicle E.2 Waste Management E2.1 Transport of Waste Refers to transportation of Owned waste to recycling and landfilling for the project 97 SSR Identifier SSR Name E2.2 Waste Management SSR Description components and structures Includes the landfill emissions, refurbishing emissions and the recycling emissions Default Attribution Owned 98 6.8 Quantifying Uncertainty The following discussion is meant to guide project proponents in handling uncertainty. 6.8.1 Uncertainty approach Sources of uncertainty in the quantification of emissions include scientific uncertainty, parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty, and uncertainty propagation. Scientific uncertainty is related to incomplete knowledge of emission processes – or example global warming potentials. These uncertainties are common to every project and can be excluded from the uncertainty analysis. Parameter uncertainty is related to the measured or estimated data used in the quantification methodology. Model uncertainty is associated with the quantification methodology. Uncertainty propagation occurs when the uncertainties associated with the parameters are propagated through the quantification and consolidation process. Refer to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Reporting Instructions (Volume 1), Annex 1, for further references in these terminology and uncertainty calculations. 6.8.2 Uncertainty in Project Emissions Table 6.7 is a template for the proponent to document uncertainties for each SSR. Alternatively, the project proponent can modify the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet to include uncertainty. Additionally, if appropriate, the project proponent should document the model uncertainty as shown in Table 6.8. Table 6.7 Template for parameter uncertainties in Project Scenario. Project proponent should insert sources of parameter uncertainty and the extent of uncertainty. SSR ID SSR Description Associated Input Material Parameter Type Parameter Uncertainty Project Scenario total CO2e Parameter Uncertainty Propagation 99 Table 6.8 Template for model Uncertainty for Project Scenario. Project proponent should insert sources of model uncertainty and the extent of uncertainty. SSR ID SSR Description Associated Input Material Model Type Model Uncertainty5 Project Scenario total CO2e Model Uncertainty Propagation (Project proponents should also insert a table with the total uncertainty for the project) 6.8.3 Uncertainty Analysis for Baseline Emissions Uncertainties for the baseline emissions are calculated in the same way as for the project emissions. Parameter uncertainty (Table 6.9), model uncertainty (Table 6.10), and combined uncertainty can be determined for the baseline and documented according to the templates or through the in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. Table 6.9 Template for parameter Uncertainty for Baseline SSR ID SSR Description Associated Input Material Parameter Type Parameter Uncertainty6 5 Emission factor uncertainty is assumed using uncertainty intervals based on the rounding protocol (see www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_99_report/sec4_e.cfm) where one significant figure has >50% uncertainty, two significant figures have between 10 and 50% uncertainty, and three significant figures have less than 10% uncertainty. According to the rounding protocol, the number of significant figures applied to GHG summary tables based on uncertainty of emission estimates for fossil fuel industries and electricity and steam generation is three. 6 Parameter uncertainties provided here are associated with measurement accuracy of the material input for each SSR. 100 Baseline total CO2e Parameter Uncertainty Propagation Table 6.10 Template for Model Uncertainty for Baseline SSR ID SSR Description Associated Input Material Model Type Model Uncertainty7 Baseline total CO2e Model Uncertainty Propagation 7 Emission factor uncertainty is assumed using uncertainty intervals based on the rounding protocol (see www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_99_report/sec4_e.cfm) where one significant figure has >50% uncertainty, two significant figures have between 10 and 50% uncertainty, and three significant figures have less than 10% uncertainty. According to the rounding protocol, the number of significant figures applied to GHG summary tables based on uncertainty of emission estimates for fossil fuel industries and electricity and steam generation is three. 101 6.9 Procedure for Conducting a Sensitivity Analysis on the Project Sensitivity analysis is a qualitative analysis that consists of examining the likely variance in the resulting emission reductions when the protocol assumptions are changed (e.g., the project is implemented in alternative locations, there are alternate fuel production and delivery techniques, etc.). Table 6.11 provides a simple sensitivity analysis by varying parameters affecting the project scenario or baseline. Table 6.11: Template for Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity Parameter Default value Variations in Parameter Potential Variation in GHG emissions Discussion 102 6.10 Monitoring the Baseline and Biofuels Project 6.10.1 Baseline monitoring The protocol does not provide any guidance on monitoring baseline parameters. 6.10.2 Monitoring of biofuels production In the case where these SSRs are controlled or owned by one of the project partners, this section provides general guidance in addition to specific considerations for the project. Energy GHGs are associated with the energy requirements for heat and power. Typically steam is used to heat the reaction, which, in turn, may be derived in a number of ways, often utilizing on-site combustion of fossil fuels. Processes may be run as batch or continuous, depending on the technology employed. An accurate mass balance of the materials used assists in determining quantity and quality of both the glycerine and the biodiesel, and thus the energy and material requirements per unit of product. Materials Feedstock issues are addressed elsewhere (for example, see vegetable oil production in Section 6.4.1). In a complete GHG measurement ancillary requirements and GHGs associated with input materials like acids and other reactants need to be identified, evaluated and analyzed if relevant. Methanol is provided here as an example. Methanol emissions Methanol is used in biodiesel production. It is typically produced from natural gas with associated GHGs. It is an indirect GHG source itself, with a GWP of approximately 4.4 kg CO2e/kg. However, it is not be included in the account, as it is not one of the six inventoried GHGs. Nonetheless, there is a risk of emissions of methanol from methanol handling and from the biodiesel reaction, particularly if the reaction vessel is not well contained, which should be considered in the GHG account, and noted separately. Unused amounts of methanol are recovered from the biodiesel process and reused in a closed loop. The amount recovered is general small (e.g. approximately 1%), and not entered as a recycling loop to offset the methanol requirement. About 10% of the input feedstock is methanol that is consumed in the transesterification. 103 By-products The issue of by-product glycerine from biodiesel is important to address, as its use may offset GHGs from petroleum glycerine production. 6.10.3 Monitoring of biodiesel processes General procedures for testing biodiesel during reaction processes are described here. Based on the mass and energy balance of the SSR, emission factors are correlated to the level of activity for the SSR, using a SSR functional unit of 1 litre of biodiesel production. GHG emissions associated with each input and output are calculated for the full process. An aggregate emission factor for biodiesel production is then determined by summation of the individual contributions, expressed in kg CO2e/L B100. For biodiesel, the most pertinent parameters are distillation, acid number and glycerine, as these are the most difficult specifications to attain in the final product. These are also the most critical parameters in terms of biodiesel quality and, along with cloud point, for performance operability. Biodiesel Process Pre-Process Testing: Titration: All vegetable oil is stabilized by neutralizing the free fatty acids (FFA’s). Adding caustic soda to the feedstock material and measuring pH will determine the correct amount of catalyzing materials required for the reaction. For example, if 6 g/L of NaOH is required for neutralization of the FFA’s, and 3.5 g/L is required for the transesterification process, then 9.5 g/L NaOH is required for the batch process. Intermediate Biodiesel Process – Observations: If the reaction has reached a high level of conversion, the product mixture will form two liquid phases. The top phase would be the alcohol and the esters, and the bottom phase would be the glycerol. In a reaction that did not reach full conversion, the unreacted lipids and bound glycerol would solidify in the bottom layer. Biodiesel can be significantly contaminated with both free and bound glycerol, triglycerides and alcohol due to incomplete transesterification and / or insufficient purification. This is indicated by a murky or hazy looking product in the Biodiesel. Excessively hazy glycerine and / or the presence of solids in the glycerol may also be an indication of either poor conversion, or an inefficient process, or both. 104 The presence of these minor contaminants can be detrimental to engines and the environment through pollution. Intermediate Biodiesel - Testing: Acid Number Titration: This is typically done after the first reaction, as a measure of FFA conversion. The acid number is a titration technique that measures the presence of acids. It is specified in the Biodiesel standard to ensure the proper aging properties of fuel, as well as a good manufacturing process. Acid number reflects the presence of free fatty acids or acids used in the manufacturing process of Biodiesel. Acid number may also reflect the degradation of Biodiesel due to thermal degradation. Glycerine: This is typically done after the second reaction to measure the presence of total glycerine. The degree of conversion completeness of the Biodiesel is indicated by the amount of free and total glycerol present in the Biodiesel. If the glycerine level exceeds 0.24%, this is an indication that the reaction was not complete, and the product does not meet specification. The solution is to react the Biodiesel with a 3:1 molar ratio of methanol-NaOH solution / Biodiesel to allow the reaction to go to completion. Biodiesel Washing Process - Testing: pH: Testing for pH is a crude, qualitative check for leftover solvents and catalysts. Alkyl esters are neutral compounds. Therefore, if the pH is not 7.0, the wash cycle should be repeated. To investigate the effectiveness of the washing process, samples of ester, wash water, and glycerine are collected from the Pilot Plant and measured. The amount of residual catalyst can be measured by titrating the ester, glycerine and wash water with 0.01 N HCl using phenolphthalein indicator. Soap content can be determined by carrying the titration to the yellow end point of bromophenol blue. Wash Water: A visual check can be done during the draining process. Waste water should be clear. If it appears cloudy at all, or has any odd coloration, the wash cycle should be repeated. The soap test is a crude, qualitative observation. It involves simply shaking the wash water vigorously and observing whether soap foam or film was formed. 105 A pH check of the waste water is a crude, qualitative check for residual materials in the wash water. If they are present in sufficient qualities to alter the pH to anything other than 7.0, additional washing may be needed. 6.10.4 Monitoring of bioethanol processes General procedures for testing bioethanol during reaction processes are described in the following section. 6.10.4.1 Biofuel quality testing (QA/QC) Biodiesel Fuel-grade biodiesel must be produced to industry specifications in order to insure proper performance. As such, biodiesel is required to meet or exceed ASTM D 6751: Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels [ASTM D6751], which dictates a number of measurements and tests. The results of these tests support a completed Certificate of Analysis (COA) for a fuel. All Biodiesel fuel produced for sale as a blending stock is required to meet ASTM D6751 “Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels”. Grade S15 is for 15 PPM grade B100 Biodiesel blend stock and is intended for on-road use. Grade S500 is for 15 PPM grade B100 Biodiesel blend stock and is intended for off-road use. Table 6.12- Biodiesel quality testing as per D 6751 requirements Quality Parameter Flash Point (closed cup), C, min. Water & Sediment, volume %, max. Kinematic viscosity, 40 C, mm 2/s Sulfated ash, % mass, max. Sulfur, % mass (PPM), max. Copper strip corrosion, max. Cetane number, min. Cloud point Carbon residue, % mass, max. Acid number, mg KOH/g, max. Free glycerin, % mass, max. Total glycerin, % mass, max. Phosphorous content, % mass, max. Distillation temperature T90, C, max. (Atmospheric equivalent temperature, 90% recovered) ASTM Test Method D93 D2709 D445 D874 D5453 D130 D613 D2500 D54530 D664 D6584 D5453 D4951 D1160 Grade S15 Grade S500 Spec. Limits Spec. Limits 130 0.050 1.9 - 6.0 0.020 0.0015 (15) No. 3 47 report 0.050 0.80 0.020 0.240 0.001 360 130 0.050 1.9 - 6.0 0.020 0.05 (500) No. 3 47 report 0.050 0.80 0.020 0.240 0.001 360 Bioethanol 106 Fuel-grade bioethanol must be produced to industry specifications in order to insure proper performance. As such, biodiesel is required to meet or exceed ASTM D4806 “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline’s for use as an Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel”. Table 6.13 - ASTM D4806 “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline’s for use as an Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel” Quality Parameter Ethanol volume % , min. Methanol vol % , max. Solvent-washed gum, mg/100 mL, max. Water content, volume %, max. Denaturant content, volume %, min. Denaturant content, volume %, max. Inorganic Chloride content, ppm (mg/L), max. Copper content, mg/kg, max. Acidity (as acetic acid CH3COOH), mass% (mg/L), max. pHe Appearance Sulphur ppm, max. Specification Limits ASTM Test Method 92.1 0.5 5.0 1 1.96 4.76 40 (32) 0.1 0.007 (56) 6.5 to 9.0 Clear & Bright 30 D5501 D5501 D381 E1064 D512 D1688 D1613 D6423 Visual examination D5453 6.10.5 Monitoring of biofuels use (Engine operation) This SSR refers to the operation of the vehicle engine, and focuses on combustion of fuel to generate energy output. Use and consumption of ancillary inputs (engine fluids, maintenance parts, etc.) are generally included within the SSR boundary but are all assumed to be equal from the baseline SSR to the project SSR, and are therefore excluded, unless otherwise noted. Empirical sampling is the best way to monitor GHG emissions directly. This is preferably accomplished with instruments mounted on the vehicle while in use. Alternatively, lab measurements are effective when carried out on an equivalent engine, including emissions controls. An emission factor per unit of activity (e.g. g CO2 per L diesel fuel consumed) is then calculated to represent each operating mode of the SSR. In the calculation of GHGs for the system, the emissions factor is multiplied by the level of activity for the SSR to determine emissions. 107 6.11 Generic Monitoring Template Table 6.14 Generic monitoring template for the SMART SSP Protocol for Biofuels in Transportation SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Error Section A -Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation A.1 Production & Transportation of Materials and Energy (includes the extraction of the raw material, transportation of the raw material to the refining site, refining of the raw material to the product and transportation of the product to the manufacturing facilities.) A1.1 Steel production and transportation Emission factors for steel production Estimated Tonnes GHG8 (e.g., recognized emissions / reference tonne steel factors) 8 Supplier Government agency Industry association LCA study Once (when actual material selections are known) Practically impossible to monitor Too many sources of production GHG is used in the template, although the project proponent should have disaggregated values by different GHG (CO2, CH4, N20) or CO2e. 108 High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Amount of steel delivered/ used Estimated kg or tonnes (e.g., recognized reference factors) Distance traveled for steel by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the manufacturing plant Emission factors for transportation A1.2 Aluminium Emission factors for Production and aluminium Transportation production Amount of aluminium delivered/ used Indicator/ Unit Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of material km Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne aluminium Estimated Kg or tonnes (e.g., recognized reference factors) Reference Supplier Government agency Industry association LCA study Odometer distance National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once (when actual material selections are known) Information taken from manufacturer specifications Once- When delivery occurs. Or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Error Once (when actual material selections are known) High Once (when actual material selections are known) High 109 High High High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Distance traveled for steel by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the manufacturing plant Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Odometer distance A1.3 Polymer Emission factors for Production and Polymer production Transportation Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne Polymer National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of material km Amount of Polymer delivered/ used Estimated Kg or tonnes (e.g., recognized reference factors) Distance traveled for steel by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the manufacturing plant Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Estimated Tonnes (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of reference material km factors) Reference Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Odometer distance National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Error Once (when actual material selections are known) High Once (when actual material selections are known) High Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Low 110 low High High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter A1.4 Fibreglass Emission factors for Production and Fibreglass Transportation production Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Estimated Tonnes GHG (e.g., recognized emissions / reference tonne Fibreglass factors) Amount of Estimated Kg or tonnes Fibreglass delivered/ (e.g., recognized used reference factors) Distance traveled for steel by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the manufacturing plant Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Estimated Tonnes (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of reference material km factors) Reference Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Odometer distance National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once (when actual material selections are known) Error Once (when actual material selections are known) High Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Low 111 High High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter A1.5 Copper Emission factors for Production and Copper production Transportation Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Estimated Tonnes GHG (e.g., recognized emissions / reference tonne Copper factors) Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Amount of Copper delivered/ used Estimated Kg or tonnes (e.g., recognized reference factors) Distance traveled for steel by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the manufacturing plant Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Odometer distance Estimated Tonnes (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of reference material km factors) National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once (when actual material selections are known) Error Once (when actual material selections are known) High Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Low 112 High High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne other material Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Amount of other material delivered/ used Estimated Kg or tonnes (e.g., recognized reference factors) Distance traveled for steel by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the manufacturing plant Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Odometer distance A1.6 Other Emission factors for other material material Production & production Transportation Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) A.2 Manufacturing of Project Components Estimated A2.1 Vehicle Emission factor for Manufacturing of (e.g., recognized Manufacturing vehicle (bus, car, reference vessel, truck, etc…) factors) # of vehicles Measured purchased (e.g. purchase order/invoice) A.3 Transportation of Project Components to Site Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once (when actual material selections are known) Error Once (when actual material selections are known) High Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Low High Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of material km National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Tonnes CO2e/vehicle LCA Manufacturing specs Once (when purchasing vehicle) Med # Vehicles Invoice Once (when purchasing vehicle) None 113 High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Map Odometer Kg or tonnes Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) A.4 Site Preparation, Installation and Commissioning Section B -Upstream SSRs During Project Operation B.1 Production of Project Inputs Emission factor for Measured or B1.1 Biomass production of estimated Feedstock biomass feedstock Production and (Soybean, wheat, Transportation Corn, Canola, Animal husbandry) Weight of feedstock Measured or used to produce estimated biofuels used in project Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of material km A3.1 Vehicle Distance traveled by vehicles to get to Acquisition project site Weight of vehicle delivered Emission factor for transportation Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once (when purchasing vehicle) Error Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Once (when actual material selections are known) High NA High Kg CO2e/kg of feedstock US LCI Database, NREL others Check for updates yearly High Kg of feedstock From feedstock processor or biofuels producer Once Med 114 Low SSR Identifier and Name Parameter B1.2 Biomass Emission factor for Soybean Oil Feedstock Processing Production Emission factor for Canola Oil Production Emission factor for Corn Oil Production Emission factor for Tallow Rendering Emission factor for Yellow Grease Rendering Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Kg CO2e/Kg of oil produced National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Kg CO2e/Kg of oil produced Kg CO2e/Kg of oil produced Kg CO2e/Kg of oil produced Kg CO2e/Kg of oil produced Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Periodically Updated Error Periodically Updated Low Periodically Updated Low Periodically Updated Low Periodically Updated Low 115 Low SSR Identifier and Name Parameter B1.3 Chemicals Emission Factors for Chemical production Production Amount of Chemicals delivered B1.4 Biofuels Emission factor for biodiesel production Production Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once (when actual material selections are known) Error Estimated Kg GHG (e.g., recognized emissions / Kg reference chemicals factors) Reference Documented from supplier GHG inventories LCA study Estimated Kg or tonnes (e.g., recognized reference factors) Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel estimated produced From feedstock processor or biofuels producer Once High National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Periodically Updated Low Periodically Updated High Periodically Updated High Periodically Updated High from Virgin Oil Emission factor for biodiesel production from Tallow Measured or estimated Kg CO2e/L fuel produced Emission factor for ethanol production from Corn (dry milling) Emission factor for ethanol production from Corn (wet milling) Measured or estimated Kg CO2e/L fuel produced Measured or estimated Kg CO2e/L fuel produced 116 High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Periodically Updated Error Emission factor for ethanol production (Enzymatic) Measured or estimated Kg CO2e/L fuel produced Emission factor for ethanol production (concentrated acid) Measured or estimated Kg CO2e/L fuel produced National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Periodically Updated High B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site B2.1 Biomass Weight of Feedstock Measured or delivered estimated Feedstock Kg of feedstock From feedstock processor or biofuels producer Odometer Invoices Once Med Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Low National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories From biofuels producer Once (when distance travelled is known) High Once Med High B1.5 Others Transportation to processing or Distance traveled production plant for feedstock by truck, rail, and sea from the growing site to the refining/ processing plant Emission factor for transportation B2.2 Processed Biomass Feedstock Transportation Measured or estimated Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Weight of Processed Estimated Feedstock delivered (e.g., recognized reference factors) Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of feedstock km Kg of processed feedstock 117 SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated to biofuels production plant Distance traveled for processed feedstock by truck, rail, and sea from the refining to the production plant Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Weight of chemicals Estimated B2.3 Chemicals delivered (e.g., recognized Transportation reference factors) Distance traveled Estimated for chemicals by (e.g., recognized truck, rail, and sea reference from the refining to factors)the manufacturing plant Emission factor for Estimated transportation (e.g., recognized reference factors) Weight of Biofuels Estimated B2.4 Biofuels delivered (e.g., recognized Transportation reference factors) Indicator/ Unit Reference Odometer Invoices Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Error Low Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of processed feedstock km Kg of chemicals National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories From biofuels producer Once (when distance travelled is known) High Once Med Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Odometer Invoices Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Low Once (when distance travelled is known) High Once Med Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of chemicals km National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Kg/L of biofuels Delivery Invoice Pump metres 118 SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Distance traveled for biofuels by truck, rail, and sea from the producing plant to the user Emission factor for transportation Estimated Km by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km reference by sea factors) Estimated (e.g., recognized reference factors) Estimated B2.5 Other Weight of other products delivered (e.g., recognized Products Transportation reference factors) Distance traveled Estimated for other product by (e.g., recognized truck, rail, and sea reference factors) Emission factor for transportation Indicator/ Unit Tonnes CO2e/tonnes of biofuels km Kg of other product Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Estimated Tonnes (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes km reference factors) Reference Odometer Invoices National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories From other product processor or biofuels producer Odometer Invoices National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Error Once Med Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Once (when distance travelled is known) Low 119 Low High High SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Section C - Onsite Project SSRs C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s) Measured Kg or L C 1.1 Biofuels Weight/ Volume of biofuels used Use OR Distance traveled Biodiesel analysis Measured or % showing % biofuel estimated in vehicle fuel Measured CO2 Measured or g/L emissions at tailpipe estimated from combustion of 1 liter fuel Reference Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Error Invoices for biofuels purchases Every time biofuels is purchased/Used Low Certificate of analysis from producer/supplier Every time biofuels is purchased / received / shipped As necessary (ideally, every 6 months) or with new supplier or with new feedstock or with new blend As necessary (ideally, every 6 months) or with new supplier or with new feedstock or with new blend As necessary (ideally, every 6 months) or with new supplier or with new feedstock or with Low Accredited Laboratory (e.g. ETC) Measured N2O emissions at tailpipe from combustion of 1 liter fuel Measured or estimated g/L Accredited Laboratory (e.g. ETC) Measured CH4 emissions at tailpipe from combustion of 1 liter fuel Measured or estimated g/L Accredited Laboratory (e.g. ETC) 120 Low (1-2%) Low (1-2%) Low (1-2%) SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference C.1.2 Transportation Service Ratio of Energy content (Power produced) from 1 L of Biofuels versus 1 Litre of normal (baseline) fuel Measured Bhp/L e.g. Testing done in Lab on engine to compare baseline fuel versus biofuels Accredited Laboratory (e.g. ETC) Fuel Filter changes Measured or estimated Maintenance division Monitoring Frequency and Rationale new blend Once Error Whenever filter changed none med C.2 Maintenance C2.1 Maintenance # filter/time period Other Measured or maintenance estimated requirement Section D - Downstream SSRs During Project Operation D.1 Transportation of Product(s) D.2 Use of Product(s)/Services D.3 Waste Management Section E - Downstream SSRs after Project Termination E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration E.1.1 Decommissioning List parameters relevant to decommissioning (e.g. equipment use, associated emissions, Estimated 121 SSR Identifier and Name Parameter equipment transport, etc.) E.2 Waste Management Amount and type of E2.1 components to be recycled Transportation of components Amount and type of for recycling, components to be reuse, or reused disposal Amount and type of components to be disposed Distance traveled for recycled components by truck, rail, and sea (accounted for separately) Distance traveled for reused components by truck, rail, and sea (accounted for separately) Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Error Estimated Tonnes Manufacturer specs Once high Estimated Tonnes Manufacturer specs Once high Estimated Tonnes Manufacturer specs Once high Estimated Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Odometer Invoices Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Low Estimated Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Odometer Invoices Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Low 122 SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Distance traveled for disposed components by truck, rail, and sea (accounted for separately) Estimated Km by truck, km by rail, km by sea Odometer Invoices Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne Emission factor (sink) for aluminum recycling Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne Emission factor (sink) for polymer reuse Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne Emission factor (sink) for fibreglass recycling Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne Emission factor (sink) for copper recycling Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories E.2.2 Waste Emission factor (sink) for steel Management recycling Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Once- When delivery occurs. or Several times – Each delivery Error Update Yearly High Update Yearly High Update Yearly High Update Yearly High Update Yearly High 123 Low SSR Identifier and Name Parameter Measured or Estimated Indicator/ Unit Reference Emission factor (sink) for other material recycling Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne Emission factor for land filling Estimated Tonnes GHG emissions / tonne National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories National Emission factors LCA GHG inventories Monitoring Frequency and Rationale Update Yearly Error Update Yearly High High 124 125 7 References ASTM D 6751 – 3: Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels. ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants and is the direct responsibility of subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non-Aviation Gas Turbine, and Marine Fuels. Current edition approved May 10, 2003. Published July 2003. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA. Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 -1999 Emission and Removal Estimation Practices and Methods, April 2001 http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts, Management's Discussion and Analysis Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure, Part 2: General Disclosure Principles. May 2004 First Environment: Personal communications, Brian Glazebrook, First Environment Inc., Washington DC: 2005 Graboski, M.S., 2002, Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol. Prepared for the National Corn Growers Association (USA). Colorado School of Mines, August 2002. Greenhouse Gas Division of Environment Canada, Factsheet 3 - Transportation: 19901999. “Table 3. Trends in Shipping/Freight-Related GHG Intensity”. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/factsheet3_e.cfm#freight. Accessed by GHGm, September 2004. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2000). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). International Standard, ISO 1404097 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. Geneva, 1997. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). 2006. International Standard, ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse Gases Part 2 – Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, 2006. International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol. (2002). Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings – Volume I. Kadam, K, Camobreco, V, Glazebrook, B, Forrest, L, Jacobson, W, Simeroth, D, Blackburn, W, Nehoda, K, Environmental Life Cycle Implications of Fuel Oxygenate 126 Production from California Biomass. NREL/TP-580-25688. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). May 1999. Levelton Engineering Ltd. and (S&T)2. 2002. Assessment of Biodiesel and Ethanol Diesel Blends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Exhaust Emissions, and Policy Issues. Report to Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. National Offset System Program. 2005. Developing an Offset System Quantification Protocol or Methodology Guide, Environment Canada. NRC 2004. Jim Rollefson, Gloria Fu, Albert Chan. Assessment of the Environmental Performance and Sustainability of Biodiesel in Canada, Prepared for: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada. National Research Council Canada, Ottawa: November 2004. NRC: National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Yellow Grease, Tallow Production, based on data from Rothsay, unpublished data sheet, July 2002. NREL: Kadam, K, Camobreco, V, Glazebrook,B Forrest, L, Jacobson, A. Environmental Life Cycle Implications of the Use of California Biomass in the Production of Fuel Oxygenates. February 1999 Rollefson, J., G. Fu, A. Chan. 2004. Assessment of the Environmental Performance and Sustainability of Biodiesel in Canada. Prepared for: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada, November 2004. Rothsay. Personal communications with Claude Bourgault, Rothsay/Laurenco. JulySeptember 2004. Shapouri, Hosein; James Duffield, Andrew McAloon, Michael Wang. THE 2001 NET ENERGY BALANCE OF CORN-ETHANOL. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. SMART BIOBUS: 2004. System of Measurement and Reporting on Technology (SMART) Final Report: COM-81 “BIOBUS Project”, Prepared by GreenhouseGasMeasurement.com. Prepared for Climate Change Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM), Government of Canada, Ottawa: September 2004. TEAM, 2004: Climate Change Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM), Requirements and Guidance for the System of Measurement And Reporting for Technologies (SMART), January 2004. US LCI database: US Life Cycle Inventory Database, accessed Jan. 2005. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (http://www.nrel.gov/lci/). US Life Cycle Inventory Database, www.nre/.gov/lci, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, accessed Dec. 2004 to Mar. 2006. 127 USDA/NREL: Sheehan, J, Camobreco, V, Duffield, J, Graboski, M, Shapouri, H. Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. A Joint Study Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy. NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503. Final Report, May 1998. Vine, E., and Sathaye, J. (1999). Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Verification, and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change Mitigation. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. Wang, M. 2001, Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel Cycle Model for transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies, ANL-ESD-TM-163. World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). GHG Protocol for Project Accounting. Washington & Geneva: Nov. 2005. 128