clean development mechanism project design document … khan af project_gsp_pdd_010320… · clean...

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006

CONTENTS A. General description of project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 2 SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity: Partial substitution of coal with alternate fuels at DG Cement, Khofli Sattai Dera Ghazi Khan Plant Version 01 01/03/2012 A.2. Description of the project activity: Dera Ghazi Khan Cement Company (hereafter referred to as D.G. Cement) is a leading manufacturer of cement in Pakistan. DG Cement has two cement manufacturing plants, one at Khofli Sattai, District Dera Ghazi Khan and the other at Khairpur, District Chakwal. D.G. Cement Khofli Sattai Plant is part of Nishat Group which ranks among top five business houses of Pakistan. The project activity will be implemented at the Khofli Sattai Plant, District Dera Ghazi Khan. Pre Project Scenario The plant has two kilns with total clinker production capacity of 6700 TPD (Kiln 1: 2700 TPD & Kiln 2: 4000 TPD). These two kilns use coal as the fuel source for clinker production while HFO is consumed only for pre-heating purposes. Post Project Scenario The project activity involves the partial substitution of coal at the existing kilns with the available alternate fuels (Renewable agricultural waste such as, rice husk, corn cob, wheat straw, poultry waste, agro-waste and refused derived fuel (RDF) from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and tyre waste). In order to implement the proposed project activity a complete system (both RDF and TDF plants) for receiving, storing, and feeding alternative fuels will be built; the equipment shall be installed by VecoPlan of Germany Baseline Scenario The baseline scenario is the same as the scenario existing prior to the project activity and is the same as identified in the Section B.4 of the PDD. In the absence of the project activity, DG Cement shall keep using 100% of coal in the clinker production process. Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions The source of emissions in the baseline situation is the burning of coal for clinker production. The project activity will partially substitute coal with the alternative fuels (see section A.4.3 for details). The small amount of HFO used for preheating of kilns in the project activity will be the same as that in the baseline situation. The minor carbon dioxide emissions that will occur due to the project activity are associated with the burning of the alternative fuels such as Tyre Waste and RDF and transportation of these fuels (sources of emissions and type of emissions are described in detail is section B.3). As there is surplus

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 3 availability of biomass residues in the region, leakage emissions associated with it are considered to be zero in the project activity. Likewise, since the project activity does not use less carbon intensive fuels, there are no upstream leakage emissions involved. Project activity results in average annual emissions reduction of 158,781 tCO2 per year. Activities contributing to a sustainable development The project activity will result in sustainable development of the following:

Environmental Development

• Improvement of the local environment by reduction in CO2 emission to the atmosphere • Conservation of fossil fuel resources by reducing fossil fuel based energy generation • Use of municipal solid waste as RDF will help reduce the uncontrolled burning and decaying of

municipal solid waste

Social Development

• Alleviation of poverty by providing employment opportunities to the local community during construction and operational phase of the project activity

• Reduction in adverse health effects due to CO2 emissions

Economic Development

• Cost reduction for heat production due to lower price of alternative fuels • Employment opportunities for the local people

Technology Development

• Introducing modern technology in the country (technology transfer) • Playing an exemplary role in introducing sustainable development technology in the cement

industry A.3. Project participants: The table below illustrates the participants involved in the project activity. Contact information is provided in Annex 1.

Table A.3.1: Project participants

Name of Party involved ((host) indicates a host

Party)

Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants

(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party involved

wishes to be considered as

project participant (Yes/No)


Islamic Republic of Pakistan (host)

D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. (private entity) No

Islamic Republic of Pakistan Carbon Services (Private) Limited (private entity) No

Switzerland First Climate (Switzerland) AG (private entity) No

A.4. Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: A.4.1.1. Host Party (ies): Islamic Republic of Pakistan A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Punjab A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.: The project is located at: D.G. Khan Cement Factory KhofliSattai, District Dera Ghazi Khan Punjab, Pakistan The company is headquartered at: Nishat House, 53 – A, Lawrence Road, Lahore, Pakistan A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): Exact location of the plant, with respect to its geographical coordinates, is: Latitude: 30°32’62”, Longitude: 70°54’48”. The location of the project is illustrated in the figures below.


Figure A.4.1.4.1: Location of Plant

A.4.2. Category (ies) of project activity: As per the sectoral scope of the project activities mentioned in the list of sectoral scopes or accreditation of DOEs, the project activity falls under: Sectoral Scope 4 – Manufacturing industries A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity: DG Cement has two kilns at its Khofli Sattai Plant. The kilns use coal as fuel source for clinker production and heavy fuel oil (HFO) for pre-heating of kilns. The kilns have been supplied by FL Smidth. Specifications of the kilns are shown in table A.4.3.1 below:

Table A.4.3.1: Technical Specifications of Kiln-1 Parameters Kiln-1 Kiln-2

Guaranteed Kiln Output (TPD) 2700 4000 Guaranteed Heat Consumption (kcal/kg) 770 749 The project activity involves partial substitution of coal at the existing kilns with the available alternate fuels (Renewable agricultural waste such as, rice husk, corn cob, wheat straw, poultry waste, agro-waste and refused derived fuel (RDF) from Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and tyre waste). In order to implement the proposed project activity a complete system for receiving, storing, and feeding alternative fuels will be built; the equipment shall be installed by VecoPlan of Germany.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 6 Alternate Fuels comprising MSW, industrial waste, agriculture waste, etc. will be produced after segregation and separation of incoming wastes. These materials will first be taken to shredder for size reduction and then transported to the storage bin through drive chain conveyors. Storage bins are equipped with sophisticated loading and unloading equipment. Stored material will then be extracted through double screw conveyor and taken through drive chain conveyor and VECOBELT to the calciner floor. On reaching at the calciner floor, alternate fuel will first pass through screw conveyor and then to the weighing bin which is equipped with load cells. After extraction from the weighing bin, it will pass-through screw conveyor and aeration bin before entering into the calciner (combustion chamber). The project will be implemented in two phases. Phase 1 of the project has been commissioned in December 2011 which involved installation of following equipment:

Table A.4.3.2: Project Equipment Equipment Capacity

Shredder 20 t/h 25t/h

Discharge Shredder 200 m3/h Distribution Conveyor for 3 Storage System 200 m3/h

Loading & Unloading device Type C 300 m3/h intake 150 m3/h out-take



Discharge Double Screw for Storage 150 m3/h Discharge Double Screw for Storage 150 m3/h Discharge Double Screw for Storage 150 m3/h KKF 850 2K-U collect material from 3 Storages 150 m3/h KKF 850 2K-U to feed VECOBELT 150 m3/h VECOBELT 300 m3/h KKF 850 2K-U to Calciner 150 m3/h Schenk Multflax Screw Feeder 3-15 t/h Gate Valve

Phase 2 of the project is expected to be commissioned in August 2012 and will involve installation of following equipment:

• Additional feeding system • Screening unit • Tyre shredder • Dryer

The baseline scenario is the scenario existing prior to the start of implementation of the project activity and is the same as identified in section B.4 of the PDD. In the absence of the project activity, DG Cement shall keep using 100% coal in the clinker production process.


The major source of emissions in the baseline situation is the burning of coal for clinker production. The project activity will substitute coal with alternative fuels. Project emissions from additional electricity are considered zero as the project activity doesn’t result in consumption of additional electricity. However, as per the methodology requirement, the project emissions due to additional electricity consumption shall be monitored during the entire crediting period of the project activity. The amount of HFO used for preheating of kilns in the project activity will be the same as that in the baseline situation. The minor carbon dioxide emissions that will occur due to the project activity are associated with the burning of the alternative fuels such as Tyre Waste and RDF and transportation of these fuels (sources of emissions and type of emissions are described in detail is section B.3). As there is surplus availability of alternate fuel in the region, leakage emissions associated are considered to be zero in the project activity. Since the project activity does not use less carbon intensive fuels, there are no upstream leakage emissions involved. A brief overview of the energy and mass flows, estimated on the basis of designed values, is given in the table below:

Table A.4.3.3: Energy and Mass Flows Description Units Baseline Project

Pre-Heating of Kilns

HFO Consumption for Pre-Heating Purposes tons/yr 1,086.30 1,086.30 Energy Generated from HFO GJ/yr 47,179.32 47,179.32

Clinker Production Process

Clinker Production tons/yr 2,153,627.67 2,153,627.67 Coal Consumption tons/yr 273,851.28 175,264.82 Energy Consumption from Coal GJ/yr 6,831,207.76 4,371,972.97 Rice Husk consumption tons/yr 28,982.47 Energy Consumption from Rice Husk GJ/yr 368,885.22 Corn Cob consumption tons/yr 7,884.27 Energy Consumption from Corn Cob GJ/yr 122,961.74 Wheat Straw consumption tons/yr 24,610.82 Energy Consumption from Wheat Straw GJ/yr 368,885.22 Poultry Waste consumption tons/yr 11,472.23 Energy Consumption from Poultry Waste GJ/yr 122,961.74 RDF consumption tons/yr 41,855.92 Energy Consumption from RDF GJ/yr 737,770.44 Tyre Waste consumption tons/yr 4,350.95 Energy Consumption from Tyre Waste GJ/yr 122,961.74 Agro-Waste consumption tons/yr 50,636.05 Energy Consumption from Agro-Waste GJ/yr 614,808.70 Total Energy Consumed during Clinker Production GJ/yr 6,831,207.76 6,831,207.76 The project equipment is brand new and uses state of the art technology. The technology is environmentally safe as high carbon intensive fuels are displaced with less carbon intensive fuels. Hence the implemented technology in the project activity is safe.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 8 The project technology is not likely to be substituted by other or more efficient technologies within the crediting period of the project activity. The project involves transfer of modern technology from Germany to Pakistan. The import of new equipment not merely means technology transfer but skill transfer as well. This kind of technology would also encourage other cement companies to adopt similar technologies leading to further conservation of energy, fuel and environment. DGKCC is contributing significantly to the education of technicians with the necessary skills to properly maintain and operate such equipment. Several training sessions were organized and are planned in future. Vecoplan (the company involved in installation, commissioning, and training) officials were involved in the training. Topics presented covered the technical aspects of proper operation & maintenance of machinery & equipment.

A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: A fixed crediting period of 10 years starting from September 01, 2012 has been chosen with average annual emission reductions of 158,781 tCO2.

Table A.4.4.1: Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period

Years Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes of CO2e

Year 1 158,781

Year 2 158,781

Year 3 158,781

Year 4 158,781

Year 5 158,781

Year 6 158,781

Year 7 158,781

Year 8 158,781

Year 9 158,781

Year 10 158,781

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 1,587,810

Total number of crediting years 10

Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 158,781

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 9 A.4.5. Public Funding of the project activity: No public funding is involved in this project activity. SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: For the project activity, the approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0003 Version 07.4.0, “Emissions reduction through partial substitution of fossil fuels with alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels in cement or quicklime manufacture” is used. This Project Design Document also refers to the latest approved versions of the following tools: • Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (version

03.0.1.); • Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption (version

01). • Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 02.2.1) B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: The project activity fulfils all the applicability conditions of the chosen methodology, ACM0003 (version 07.4.0), this is shown in Table B.2.1 below:

Table B.2.1: Applicability of ACM0003 (version 07.4.0) for the Project Activity

Condition Project Activity/Baseline Scenario Source Applicability

The methodology is applicable to project activities in the cement or quicklime industry where fossil fuel(s) used in an existing clinker or quicklime production facility are partially replaced by less carbon intensive fuel(s) and/or alternative fuel(s)

The project activity involves partial substitution of coal consumed for clinker production with alternate fuels.

Project Feasibility Study

Applicable.

A significant investment is required to enable the use of the alternative fuel(s) and/or the less carbon intensive fossil fuel(s)

A significant investment of approximately 1.6 billion PKR is required for the realization of the project activity.

Project Feasibility Study Applicable.



During the last three years prior to the start of the project activity, no alternative fuels have been used in the project plant

No alternate fuels have been used in the project plant during the three year period of November 2007 – October 2010, prior to the start of the project activity i.e. October 23, 2010.

Daily Production Reports (2007 –2010) Applicable

The CO2 emissions reduction relates to CO2 emissions generated from fuel combustion only and is unrelated to the CO2 emissions from decarbonisation of raw materials (i.e. CaCO3 and MgCO3 bearing minerals)

There is no change in chemical composition of the raw material for kiln feed in the project situation, therefore CO2 emissions from decarbonisation are not affected by the project. The CO2 emissions reduction is related only to less coal combustion due to the project activity.

I.E.E Report Applicable

The methodology is applicable only for installed capacity (expressed in tons clinker/year or tons quicklime/year) that exists by the time of validation of the project activity

The project activity is restricted to the existing kilns having total installed capacity of 2700 TPD and 4000 TPD, having combine clinker capacity of 2,153,628 ton clinker/ year.

Project Feasibility Study

Applicable

The biomass is not chemically processed (e.g. esterification to produce biodiesel, production of alcohols from biomass, etc) prior to combustion in the project plant but it may be processed mechanically or be dried at the project site. Moreover, any preparation of the biomass, occurring before use in the project activity, does not cause other significant GHG emissions (such as, for example, methane emissions from anaerobic treatment of waste water or from char coal production)

Biomass used in the project activity is not chemically processed and will be combusted directly in the kilns. Only physical operations like drying, classification, size reduction, storage, dosing, etc. shall take place. No chemical reactions are involved.

I.E.E Report Applicable



The biomass used by the project facility is stored under aerobic conditions

The alternative fuels to be used by the project facility will be stored under aerobic conditions. D. G. khan cement Plant shall have 02 aerobic storage sheds of dimensions 53.65*59.43*11.13 m3 and 100*60*11 m3 together with 05 loading and unloading bins each with dimension 17*5*8.5 m3. The total storage capacity for the materials shall be around 8500 tons. Further to this the storage capacity available in open floor area of the plant shall be around 25000 tons.

I.E.E. Report Applicable

“In cases where renewable biomass from dedicated plantation is used,…natural regeneration”

The project activity will not use any renewable biomass from dedicated plantation and thus it cannot result in any kind of land degradation.

I.E.E. Report

This condition is not applicable to the project activity.

The applicability conditions outlined in the latest available versions of the following tools have to be fulfilled as well: • Combined tool to identify the

baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality

• Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from disposal of waste at a solid waste

disposal site; • Tool to calculate project or

leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion;

• Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption.

The latest versions of the following tools have been used in the PDD • Combined tool to identify

the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (version 03.0.1);

• Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption” (version 01.00).

• Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version 02.2.1)

The project activity fulfils all the applicability conditions as outlined in the tools applicable to the project activity

Latest version of the referred

tools Applicable



The methodology is not applicable to project activities that implement efficiency measures in production of clinker, such as changing the configuration/number of pre-heaters

The project activity does not implement efficiency measures or modifications in the existing clinker production process.

I.E.E. Report Applicable

Finally, this methodology is only applicable if F2 (the continuation of the current fuel mix) or F3 (adifferent fossil fuel mix portfolio) results to be the most plausible baseline scenario for the use of fuelsin the cement plant and if one or several of the followingscenarios, as explained in the “Procedure forthe selection of the most plausible baseline scenario anddemonstration of additionality” result to be themost plausible baseline scenario for the use of alternative fuels: • For the fate of any wastes

originating from fossil sources: scenarios W1 and/or W3

• For the fate of any biomass residues: scenarios B1, B2 and/or B3;

• For the fate of any renewable biomass: scenario R1.

For the project activity, F2 is the most plausible baseline scenario for the use of fossil fuels at the project plant, W3 and B1 and B3 result to be the most plausible baseline scenarios for use of alternative fuels. Since the project activity does not use any renewable biomass, hence condition R 1 is not applicable (identification of baseline scenario is discussed in detail in section B.4).

Daily Production

Reports, I.E.E Report.

Applicable

B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary: The physical project boundary covers all production processes related to clinker production, including:

• The pre-heaters, where the heat of exhaust gas is used to heat the inputs for clinker production; • The pre-calciner, where fuels are fired for the pre-calcination of the inputs for clinker production; • The kiln tube, where fuels are also fired and where the calcinations process takes place; • On-site storage and on-site transportation and drying of alternative fuels (if alternative fuels

areused in the project activity); • The vehicles used for transportation of alternative fuels to the project site; • Where biomass residues are used, the project boundary includes the sites where the

biomassresidues would be dumped, left to decay or burnt in the absence of the project activity;

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 13 The project boundary is shown in figure below

Figure B.3.1: Project boundary

Project Boundary

Imported and local coal

Consumption of coal in the Kiln

Tyre Waste

Transportation from sites to the project plant

Recycling of tyre waste using Tyre recycling plant

CO2

Consumption of tyre waste in the Kiln

CO2

CO2

MSW


CO2

Recycling of MSW to RDF using RDF recycling plant

Consumption of RDF in the Kiln

CO2

Biomass residue

dumping site

Clinker Production

Recycling of Biomass residues using recycling plant

Consumption of Biomass residues in Kiln

Electricity consumption by the RDF and Tyre Waste recycling

CO2

Cement Production


CO2

CO2

CO2

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 14 Emission sources and gases included in or excluded from the project boundary are described in Table B.3.1.

Table B.3.1: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation

Base

line

Emissions from fossil fuels displaced in the project plant (BEFF,y)

CO2 Yes Main emission source

CH4 No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity

N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity

Methane emissions avoided from preventing disposal or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues

CO2 No It is assumed that CO2 emissions from surplus biomass residues do not lead to changes of carbon pools in the LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) sector

CH4 Yes Included

N2O No Minor source

Proj

ect A

ctiv

ity

Emissions from the use of alternative fuels (PEk,y)

CO2 Yes Main emission source


N2O No Minor source. Neglected for simplicity Emissions from the use of less carbon intensive fossil fuels (PEk,y)

CO2 No Not applicable

CH4 No Not applicable

N2O No Not applicable

Emissions from additional electricity consumption as a result of the project activity (PEEC,y)

CO2 Yes Can be a significant emission source



Emissions from additional fossil fuel consumption as a result of the project activity (PEFC,y)

CO2 No Not applicable



Emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y)

CO2 Yes Can be a significant emission source



Emissions from the CO2 No Not applicable


Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation (PEBC,y)



B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario: The identification of baseline scenario is done as per the “procedure for the selection of the most plausible baseline scenario and demonstration of additionality” provided in ACM0003 (version 07.4.0) which states that the baseline scenario should be identified and additionality be assessed using the most recent approved version of the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (version 3.0.1)”. Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity According to ACM0003, in applying step 1a of the “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”, the following scenarios are considered, as alternatives to the proposed CDM project activity: Possible alternatives to the fuel mix for cement manufacturing F1: The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity (i.e. use of alternative

fuels and/or less carbon intensive fuels) F2: Continuation of current practice, i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement

production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix F3: The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels, however, with a different fuel

mix portfolio, taking into account relative prices of the fuels available. The scenarios may be used on one fuel or a different mixes of fuel.

F4: The currently used fuels are partially substituted with alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels other than those used in the CDM project activity and/or any other fuel types, without using the CDM. If relevant develop different scenarios with different mixes of alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels and varying degrees of fuel switch from traditional to alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels

F5: The construction and operation of a new cement plant Since the project activity uses alternative fuels, the following alternatives are considered: Possible alternatives to waste originating from fossil sources used as alternative fuel

W1: Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator without utilizing the energy from the incineration W2: Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator with use of the energy (e.g. for heat and/or

electricity generation)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 16 W3: Disposal of the waste at a managed or unmanaged landfill W4: The use of the waste at other facilities, e.g. other cement plants or power plants, as a feedstock or

for the generation of energy W5: The recycling or reutilization of the waste W6: The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the waste

in the project plant Since the project activity uses biomass residues, the following alternatives are considered: Possible alternatives to biomass residues used as alternative fuel B1: The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under mainly aerobic conditions. This applies,

for example, to dumping and decay of biomass residues on fields B2: The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under clearly anaerobic conditions. This

applies, for example, to deep landfills with more than 5 meters. This does not apply to biomass residues that are stock-piled or left to decay on fields

B3: The biomass residues are burnt in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes

B4: The biomass residues are sold to other consumers in the market and used by these consumers, such as for heat and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as feedstock in processes (e.g. the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.

B5: The biomass residues are used for other purposes at the project site, such as for heat and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as feedstock in processes (e.g. the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.

B6: The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the biomass residue in the project plant

Since the project activity does not use any renewable biomass; No alternative scenarios related to use of renewable biomass are considered. Outcome of Step 1a: List of plausible alternative scenarios to the project activity. All the alternatives F1 to F5, W1 to W6 and B1 to B6 mentioned in Step 1a are plausible alternatives to the project activity. Sub-Step 1b: Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations All of the alternatives identified above are in compliance with the mandatory laws and regulations governing the cement manufacturing process in Pakistan. There are no legal, national, or sectoral policies in place which prohibit the project proponent from opting out any of the alternatives, F1 to F5, W1 to W6 and B1 to B6 which are outcome of step 1a of the tool, in the project years. Outcome of Step 1b: All the alternatives F1 to F5, W1 to W6 and B1 to B6 mentioned in Step 1a are in compliance with the mandatory applicable laws and regulations governing the cement manufacturing process in Pakistan.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 17 Step 2: Barrier analysis Sub-step 2a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternative scenarios A list of barriers that would prevent implementation of alternative scenarios is presented below:

• Technological barrier: Instability in clinker production process, unavailability of skilled labor to operate the technology.

• Barriers due to Prevailing Practice: Prevailing industry practice in the country. • Other barriers: High capital cost, alternative use (other than that in the project activity) of

biomass in the project site, unavailability of less carbon intensive fuels in the region of project activity.

Sub-step 2b: Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers In this step barrier analysis has been conducted with respect to each alternative so as to select the most plausible baseline scenario for the project activity. The results are provided in Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 below followed by details given in case of each alternative.

Table B.4.1: Barrier analysis for F1 to F5

Alternative

Sub-step 2a:Identify Barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternative scenarios

Comments

Technological Barrier

Prevailing Practice Barrier

Other Barriers

F1

This alternative turns out to be a plausible baseline scenario to the project activity only in conjunction with B6 and W6

F2

This alternative turns out to be the most plausible baseline scenario to the project activity

F3 X X

This alternative could be excluded from the further consideration. See explanation below


F4 X X


F5 X


Alternative F1: The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity (i.e. use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fuels). Barriers Faced: None Explanation: This alternative is not prevented by any of the identified barriers. Alternative F2: Continuation of current practice, i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix. Barriers Faced: None Explanation: This alternative is not prevented by any of the identified barriers because the continuation of the current practice bears no additional costs; the technology is well-known and is widely used in the country. There are no legal, national, or sectoral policies in place which either prohibit the project proponent from the continuation of current practice in the project years or force the project proponent to undertake the project activity. Hence, it is the most plausible baseline scenario. Alternatives F3: The continuation of using only fossil fuels and no alternative fuels, however, with a different fuel mix portfolio, taking into account relative prices of the fuels available. The scenarios may be used on one fuel or a different mixes of fuel. Barriers Faced: Technological barrier (Instability in clinker production process), Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country). Explanation: This alternative is not in consonance with common practice at cement industry in Pakistan. Most of the cement plants in Pakistan primarily use imported coal (because of its purity and low sulphur content) for clinker production. Local coal and pet coke are also used but only in minor fractions. Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) is primarily used for pre-heating of the kilns and thus cannot be associated with clinker production. At DG Cement imported coal has been a preferred choice because its high purity and local coal has only been sparingly used because of its high sulphur content. Thus using local coal in larger quantities could not only create environmental issues but also translate into a serious technological barrier resulting in damage of the clinker production equipment or compromise the clinker quality. Also this

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 19 alternative is not a prevailing practice in the industry of Pakistan. Therefore, this alternative is excluded from further consideration as baseline scenario. Alternative F4: The currently used fuels are partially substituted with alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels other than those used in the CDM project activity and/or any other fuel types, without using the CDM. If relevant develop different scenarios with different mixes of alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels and varying degrees of fuel switch from traditional to alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fuels. Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country), Other Barriers (unavailability of less carbon intensive fuels in the region of project activity). Explanation: The use of other alternative fuels is not possible due to two reasons: (i) Unavailability of NG due to severe gas shortages in the country. The use of NG faces other barriers i.e. unavailability of less carbon intensive fuels in the region of project activity. (ii) Incineration of alternative fuels other than those used in the project activity is not possible as use of alternative fuels is not a common practice at Cement Industry in Pakistan. Therefore, alternative F4 is prevented both prevailing practice barrier and by other barriers. This alternative is excluded from the further consideration as baseline scenario. Alternative F5: The construction and operation of a new cement plant Barriers Faced: Other Barriers (High capital cost) Explanation: Of all the alternatives discussed so far, this is the most unlikely scenario to happen because of its very high costs which could be many times greater than the project activity cost. Even if a new cement plant is constructed, it shall consume same type of fuels which are currently being utilized in DG Cement, so it shall not make any changes in the CO2emissions during its operation. Therefore, it is excluded from the further consideration as baseline scenario.


Table B.4.2: Barrier analysis for W1 to W6

Alternative


Comments

Technological Barrier

Prevailing Practice Barrier

Other Barriers

W1 X


W2 X


W3


W4 X X


W5 X X


W6

This alternative turns out to be a plausible baseline scenario to the project activity only in conjunction with F1 and B6

Alternative W1: Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator without utilizing the energy from the incineration Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 21 Explanation: This alternative is prevented by prevailing practice barrier as incineration of waste in a waste incinerator without utilizing the energy from the waste incineration is not a common practice in the Pakistan. There are no facilities in the country for the waste incineration. Alternative W2: Incineration of the waste in a waste incinerator with use of the energy (e.g. for heat and/or electricity generation) Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country) Explanation: This alternative is prevented by prevailing practice barrier as incineration of waste in a waste incinerator with utilization of the energy from the waste incineration is not a common practice in the Pakistan. There are no facilities in the country for the waste incineration. Alternative W3: Disposal of the waste at a managed or unmanaged landfill

Barriers Faced: None

Explanation: This alternative is not prevented by any of the presented barriers. As disposal of waste in the managed or unmanaged landfills is the common practice in the Pakistan. Alternative W4: The use of the waste at other facilities, e.g. other cement plants or power plants, as a feedstock or for the generation of energy Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country), Other Barriers (High capital cost) Explanation: Use of waste in the other cement plants is not a common practice1 in Pakistan. Most of the cement plants use fossil fuels for their clinker production. This alternative is also prevented due to the high capital cost as use of waste for the clinker production requires state of the art waste recycling plants. These recycling plant are very costly and requires high upfront cost and operational and maintenance cost. That is why this alternative is not a common practice in the country. Alternative W5: The recycling or reutilization of the waste

Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country), Other Barriers (High capital cost) Explanation: The recycling and utilization of the waste in the country is not the common practice. The use of waste requires a recycling plant which is very costly. It requires high upfront and operational and maintenance cost. That is why this alternative is not the suitable baseline scenario. Alternative W6: The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the waste in the project plant

1As demonstrated in section b.5 “common practice analysis”

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 22 Barriers Faced: None

Explanation: This alternative is not prevented by any of the presented barriers.

Table B.4.3: Barrier analysis for B1 to B6

Alternative


Comments Technological

Barrier Prevailing

Practice Barrier Other Barriers

B1


B2 X


B3


B4 X


B5 X


B6

This alternative turns out to be a plausible baseline scenario to the project activity only in conjunction with F1 and W6

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 23 Alternative B1: The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under mainly aerobic conditions. This applies, for example, to dumping and decay of biomass residues on fields

Barriers Faced: None Explanation: The surplus biomass residue would be dumped or left to decay under mainly aerobic conditions in the absence of the proposed project activity. Therefore, Alternative B1 is a realistic baseline alternative for unused biomass. Hence this alternative is a likely baseline scenario. Alternative B2: The biomass residues are dumped or left to decay under clearly anaerobic conditions. This applies, for example, to deep landfills with more than 5 meters. This does not apply to biomass residues that are stock-piled or left to decay on fields

Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country) Explanation: Dumping of biomass residue under clearly anaerobic condition is not a common practice in the country. Normally the biomass residue are dumped or left for decay on field or burnt in an uncontrolled manner for storage efficiency. Hence this alternative is not a likely baseline scenario as it faces prevailing practice barrier. Alternative B3: The biomass residues are burnt in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes

Barriers Faced: None

Explanation: Burning of surplus biomass residues in an uncontrolled manner without utilizing them for energy purposes is the most prevalent practice in Pakistan. Hence this alternative is a likely baseline scenario. Alternative B4: The biomass residues are sold to other consumers in the market and used by these consumers, such as for heat and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as feedstock in processes (e.g. the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc.

Barriers Faced: Prevailing Practice (Prevailing industry practice in the country) Explanation: As discussed earlier it is not a common practice in Pakistan to utilize biomass residue in industry. Biomass is usually dumped or burnt at site of production as a means of disposal. Hence this alternative is not a likely baseline scenario as it faces prevailing practice barrier. Alternative B5: The biomass residues are used for other purposes at the project site, such as for heat and/or electricity generation, for the generation of biofuels, as feedstock in processes (e.g. the pulp and paper industry), as fertilizer, etc. Barriers Faced: Other barriers (alternative use (other than that in the project activity) of biomass in the project site). Explanation: This is not a likely scenario as there is no other possible use (other than incineration in the kiln) of alternative fuel at the plant.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 24 Alternative B6: The proposed project activity, not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the use of the biomass residue in the project plant Barriers Faced: None Explanation: This alternative is not prevented by any of the identified barriers. Outcome of Step 2b: List of alternative scenarios to the project activity that are not prevented by any barrier. Alternative 1 F1, W6, B6: The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity (i.e. use of alternative fuels in the project plant such as tyre waste, RDF from municipal solid waste and biomass residue). Alternative 2 F2, W3, B1 and B3: Continuation of current practice (i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix, municipal solid waste is disposed at a managed or unmanaged landfill and the continuation of dumping of biomass residue under aerobic condition and burning biomass residues in an uncontrolled manner). As further discussed in section B.5 alternative 1 is economically less attractive than alternative 2. Hence alternative 2 has been identified as the baseline scenario. B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality): “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (Version 03.0.1)” and recommendations of ACM0003 Methodology is used for setting the baseline and the assessment and demonstration of additionality. The project timeline is provided in table below:

Table B.5.1: Project Timeline Milestone Date Source

CDM awareness June 2007

Email communication between Carbon Services and DGKCC

Investment Decision October 2, 2010 Project Approval Documentation

Contract for with VecoPlan for Phase-I (start date of the project activity) October 23, 2010 Contract between DGKCC

and equipment supplier Letter of credit October 28, 2010 Letter of Credit Intimation to UNFCCC and DNA (Designated National Authority) Pakistan

April 4, 2011 Prior CDM consideration notification submitted through e-mail both to


UNFCCC and DNA, Pakistan

Project Commissioning of Phase-I December 2011 Company Information Validation contract with DOE Feb 08, 2012 Validation Contract Expected Project Commissioning of Phase-II August 2012 Company Information

As per the recommendations of the methodology ACM0003 (version 7.4.0) “Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality (version 03.0.1)” is used for selecting the baseline scenario and the assessment and demonstration of additionality. As per the tool, the following steps need to the applied: Step 1: Identification of alternative and baseline scenarios Step 2: Barrier analysis Step 3: Investment analysis Step 4: Common practice analysis

Step 1: Identification of alternative and baseline scenarios Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity This step has been described in detail above (section B.4 in the PDD). Sub-step 1b: Consistency with mandatory laws and regulation This step has been described in detail above (section B.4 in the PDD). Step 2: Barrier analysis Sub-step 2a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternative scenarios This step has been described in detail above (section B.4 in the PDD). Sub-step 2b: Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers This step has been described in detail above (section B.4 in the PDD). Outcome of Step 2b: List of alternative scenarios to the project activity that are not prevented by any barrier. Alternative 1 F1, W6, B6: The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity (i.e. use of alternative fuels in the project plant such as tyre waste, RDF from municipal solid waste and biomass residue). Alternative 2 F2, W3, B1 and B3: Continuation of current practice (i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix, municipal solid waste is disposed at a managed or unmanaged landfill and the continuation of dumping of biomass residue under aerobic condition and burning biomass residues in an uncontrolled manner).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 26 Step 3: Investment Analysis: As discussed in the section above, it is required to substantiate the additionality by conducting a benchmark analysis comparing the alternatives as identified in step 2. The investment analysis is done in line with the “Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (Version 5.0.0)”2 The reasoning provided in the following paragraphs clearly reveals that the criteria employed for the selection of type of IRR and the corresponding benchmark are as per the guidance provided in paragraphs 12-14 of Annex 5 to EB 62. It is stated in Paragraph 12 of Annex 5 to EB 62 that “In cases where a benchmark approach is used the applied benchmark shall be appropriate to the type of IRR calculated. Local commercial lending rates or weighted average costs of capital (WACC) are appropriate benchmarks for a project IRR. Required/expected returns on equity are appropriate benchmarks for equity IRR. Benchmarks supplied by relevant national authorities are also appropriate if the DOE can validate that they are applicable to the project activity and the type of IRR calculation presented” Furthermore, Paragraph 13 of Annex5 to EB 62 states that “In the cases of projects which could be developed by an entity other than the project participant the benchmark should be based on parameters that are standard in the market.” With regard to the proposed CDM project activity:

• The investment analysis is in compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 12 of Annex 5 to EB 62 as it is based on the calculation of project IRR and its comparison with the commercial lending rate (14.92%) evaluated at the time of investment decision.

• The chosen benchmark is in compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 13 of Annex 5 to EB 62 as the project activity could have been implemented by an entity other than DG Cement.

• As per guidance provided in Paragraph 14 of Annex 5 to EB 62, “Internal company benchmarks/expected returns (including those used as the expected return on equity in the calculation of weighted average cost of capital-WACC) should only be applied in cases where there is only one possible project developer...” The reasoning provided in the preceding paragraph clearly shows that this is not the case; therefore, use of equity IRR or internal benchmark is not appropriate the context of the current project activity.

The discussion provided above clearly shows that the selection of project IRR and the corresponding benchmark are appropriate for the purpose of conducting investment analysis of the project activity. Below it is demonstrated that the Internal Rate of Return for the project activity, i.e. (project IRR) is lower than the benchmark and the project IRR surpasses the benchmark return only with an additional revenue stream from sale of Certified Emission Reductions (CER) generated under the project activity. 2Annex 5 to EB 62

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 27 Description of benchmark The local lending and borrowing rates in Pakistan are based on Karachi Inter-bank Offered Rate (KIBOR) plus the credit spread over the KIBOR charged by the local bank. In February 2004, KIBOR was officially introduced by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) as a reference rate for all corporate in Pakistan3. Thus the KIBOR portion of the commercial lending rate is always determined by SBP. The credit spread calculation is performed by local banks which determine it based on various project specific risks or characteristics of a project type. For the determination of the benchmark (commercial lending rate) for the project activity, DG Cement considered a 6 month tenor average KIBOR of 12.92 % for September 20104 and assumed a credit spread of 200 basis points which was based on a loan offer extended to DG Cement by Bank Alfalah Limited in Pakistan. The benchmark thus evaluated was (12.92 % + 2.0%) 14.92 %. The following general assumptions have been made to calculate the project IRR of the project activity:

Table B.5.2: General assumptions and input data for the project IRR calculation General Information Value Unit Source Exchange rate PKR/EUR 117.5 PKR Feasibility Study Report Depreciation period 20 years Feasibility Study Report Technical lifetime of the plant 20 years Feasibility Study Report

Tax on net income 35 % Income Tax Ordinance 2001

Project investment costs 1.558 billion PKR Feasibility Study Report

Project Maintenance cost 15.5805 million PKR/year Operation and Maintenance Cost Letter by VecoPlan

Benchmark 14.92 % Feasibility Study Report

CER (Certified Emission Reduction) price 10 EUR Feasibility Study Report

Annual clinker production 2,153,628 t/year Feasibility Study Report

Annual coal baseline consumption 273,851 t/year Feasibility Study Report

3 Press release by State Bank of Pakistan: http://www.sbp.org.pk/press/2004/jan-21-04.pdf

Third Quarterly report of State Bank of Pakistan FY04: http://sbp.org.pk/reports/quarterly/fy04/thirdQtr/Money%20Market.pdf 4 KIBOR rate of September 2010 are available at the website of State Bank of Pakistan: http://www.sbp.org.pk/ecodata/kibor/2010/Sep/index.asp

http://www.sbp.org.pk/press/2004/jan-21-04.pdf

http://sbp.org.pk/reports/quarterly/fy04/thirdQtr/Money%20Market.pdf


Table B.5.3: Fuel Prices

Fuel Price PKR/t

Coal 10,158 Rice husk 4,700 Corn cob 4,550 Tyre waste 8,000 Wheat straw 4,550 Agro-waste 4,500 Poultry waste 4,950 RDF 6,000

The resulting project IRR of the project activity is 4.39%. As the benchmark is determined at 14.92 %, the project activity would not be implemented. Considering the CER revenue the project IRR would come up to 17.15 % and so gets an economically attractive investment option for DG Cement. Sensitivity Analysis To show the robustness of the results, a sensitivity analysis is carried out for the variation of the decisive variables of the project activity. These are the initial project investment, coal cost and alternative fuel cost. The results of the sensitivity analysis are shown in Table B.5.4.

Table B.5.4: Sensitivity analysis

IRR, % Project investment costs Coal costs Alternative fuels costs

+10% 3.28% 11.16% -4.62% Base 14.92 % 14.92 % 14.92% -10% 5.68% -7.52% 10.26%

Outcome of step 3: Hence as explained in the investment analysis, the present project would not be economically attractive without the consideration of the CER revenue and would not be realised. Hence Alternative 1 “F1, W6, B6: “The proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity” is not a financially viable option. Therefore, Alterative 2 “F2, W3, B1 and B3: Continuation of current practice (i.e., a scenario in which the company continues cement production using the existing technology, materials and fuel mix, municipal solid waste is disposed at a managed 5or unmanaged landfill and the continuation of dumping of biomass residue under aerobic condition and burning biomass residues in an uncontrolled manner)” is the only plausible baseline scenario.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 29 Step 4: Common practice analysis The common practice analysis is conducted using the latest “Guidelines on the common practice (version 01.0)”. Description of each step is provided below: Geographical area for the assessment of common practice in Pakistan is the cement industry of Pakistan. Step 1: The clinker production capacity of the DG Cement Khofli Sattai Plant has been taken as the base value. Then +50% and -50% values of their clinker production are then set as the applicable output range. Step 2: There are total 28 cement plants in the host country. Out of these, there are 11 cement plants in the geographical area that fall in the applicable output range. Nall = 12 Step 3: Within the plants identified in step 2, select those plants that apply technology different from the project activity. Ndiff = 10 Step 4: F = 1-(Ndiff/ Nall) F = 0.167 Ndiff-Nall = 2 Outcome of step 4:

• F is less than 0.2 • Ndiff -Nall is less than 3

Since both factors F and difference of Ndiff–Nall are less than 0.2 and 3, respectively. Hence, this project activity is not a common practice5. Conclusion In view of the investment, sensitivity and common practice analyses provided above, it can be concluded that project activity is additional i.e. CDM income is necessary for the implementation of the project and without CDM income the project would not have been implemented.

5Detailed common practice analysis sheet will be provided to DOE during the validation

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 30 B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: The emission reductions of the project activity were calculated according to ACM0003 methodology Project emissions Project emissions include project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels (PEk,y), project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result of the project activity (PEEC,yandPEFC,y), project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y), and, if applicable, project emissions from the cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation (PEBC,y):

y,BCy,Ty,ECy,FCy,ky PEPEPEPEPEPE ++++= (1) Where: PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e) PEk,y = Project emissions from combustion of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive

fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2) PEFC,y = Project emissions from additional fossil fuel combustion as a result of the project

activity in year y (tCO2) PEEC,y = Project emissions from additional electricity consumption as a result of the project

activity in year y (tCO2) PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the project plant

(tCO2) PEBC,y = Project emissions from the cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation

in year y (tCO2e) Project emissions are calculated in the following steps: Step 1: Calculate project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil

fuels. Step 2: Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result

of the project activity. Step 3: Calculate project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels

to the project plant. Step 4: Calculate project emissions from the cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation. Step 1: Calculate project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil

fuels For the Project Activity: Project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant are calculated as follows:


∑ ××=k

yk,CO2,yk,yk,PJ,yk, EFNCVFCPE (2)

Where: PEk,y = Project emissions from combustion of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive

fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2) FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the project

plant in year y (tons). EFCO2,k,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for alternative or less carbon intensive fossil fuels type

k in year y (tCO2/GJ) NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k in year y

(GJ/tonne) k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the project

plant in year y Step 2: Calculate project emissions from additional electricity and/or fossil fuel consumption as a result

of the project activity CO2 emissions from on-site combustion of fossil fuels (PEFC,y) should be calculated using the latest approved version of the “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”. For each fossil emission source j, the fuel consumption of each fuel type i (FCi,j,y) should be monitored, consistent with the guidance in the tool. For the Project Activity: No fossil fuel is consumed due to the project activity therefore no emissions can be associated with the combustion of fossil fuels. CO2 emissions from on-site electricity consumption (PEEC,y) is calculated using the latest approved version of the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption”. For the Project Activity: The following equation is used according to the referred tool for the calculation of project emissions due to electricity consumption:

Where: PEEC,y = Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (tCO2/yr) ECPJ,j,y = Quantity of electricity consumed by the project electricity consumption source j in year y

(MWh/yr) EFEL,j,y = Emission factor for electricity generation for source j in year y (tCO2/MWh)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 32 TDLj,y = Average technical transmission and distribution losses for providing electricity to source j in

year y

The Emission Factor for electricity generation source has to be chosen using one of the 3 scenarios mentioned in the tool. According to the tool “Scenario C” is identified as the one that should be considered for calculation as the electricity consumed is supplied from both the grid and the captive power plant. The captive power plant is also connected to the electricity grid. Furthermore, “Case C.III” is identified as the applicable case and hence the emission factors for Scenario A and B are calculated and the more conservative of two is then chosen as the final emission factor.

The following options have been considered in Scenario A:

• Option A1: Using the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system.” The emission factor is calculated.

• Option A2: A value of 0.4 is chosen as Scenario A applies to both baseline and project electricity sources and the electricity consumption of the baseline sources is greater than the electricity consumption of the project and leakage sources.

A1 turns out to be the more conservative option.

The following options have been considered in Scenario B:

• Option B1: As none of the captive power plants is a cogeneration plant and the heat generation is ignored, so the emission factor of the captive power plant(s) is calculated as follows:

Where: EFEL,j/k/l,y = Emission factor for electricity generation for source j, k or l in year y

(tCO2/MWh) FCn,i,t = Quantity of fossil fuel type i fired in the captive power plant n in the time

period t (mass or volume unit) NCVi,t = Average net calorific value of fossil fuel type i used in the period t (GJ /

mass or volume unit) EFCO2,i,t = Average CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i used in the period t (tCO2 /

GJ) EGn,t = Quantity of electricity generated in captive power plant n in the time period t

(MWh) i = are the fossil fuel types fired in captive power plant n in the time period t j = Sources of electricity consumption in the project k = Sources of electricity consumption in the baseline


l = Leakage sources of electricity consumption n = Fossil fuel fired captive power plants installed at the site of the electricity

consumption source j, k or l t = Time period for which the emission factor for electricity generation is

determined (see further guidance below)

• Option B2: A value of 0.4 is chosen as Scenario B applies to both baseline and project electricity sources and the electricity consumption of the baseline sources is greater than the electricity consumption of the project and leakage sources.

B1 turns out to be the most conservative option. As a final step the conservative of the two emission factors, selected above, is chosen as the final emission factor. For the project activity, B1 is the most conservative option. Step 3: Project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant Project participants shall determine CO2 emissions resulting from transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant. In many cases transportation is undertaken by vehicles. Project participants may choose between two different approaches to determine emissions: an approach based on distance and vehicle type (Option 1) or on fuel consumption (Option 2). For the Project Activity: Option 1 is applied on the basis of the available data. The values of TLy, AVDy and EFkm,CO2,y used in the emission reduction calculation are provided by DG Cement as per their experience and knowledge. These parameters shall be monitored during the crediting period. Option 1:

ykm,CO2,yy

kyk,T,

yT, EFAVDTL

AFPE ⋅⋅=

∑ (4)

Where: PET,y = CO2 emissions during the year y due to transport of alternative fuels to the project plant

(tCO2/yr) Ny = Number of truck trips during the year y AVDy = Average round trip distance (from and to) between the alternative fuel supply sites and

the site of the project plant during the year y (km) EFkm,CO2,y = Average CO2 emission factor for the trucks measured during the year y (tCO2/km).

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 34 AFT,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel type k that has been transported to the project site during the

year y (mass or volume units) TLy = Average truck load of the trucks used (tons or litre) during the year y k = Types of alternative fuels used in the project plant and that have been transported to the

project plant in year y Step 4: Calculate project emissions from the cultivation of renewable biomass at the dedicated plantation For the Project Activity: This step is not applicable as renewable biomass is not used in the project activity. Baseline emissions The project reduces CO2 emissions by using alternative fuels in the pre-calciner and the kiln for the production of clinker in cement manufacture. The project also reduces CH4 emissions by preventing disposal of biomass residues. Baseline emissions are calculated as follows:

ybiomass,CH4,yFF,y BEBEBE += (7) Where: BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2) BEFF,y = Baseline emission from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels or less carbon

intensive fossil fuels in year y (tCO2) BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal or

uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e) Baseline emissions are determined in the following steps: Step 1: Estimate the project specific “fuel penalty”. Step 2: Calculate baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon

intensive fuel(s). Step 3: Calculate baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues. Step 1: Estimate the project specific “fuel penalty” For the Project Activity: This project specific fuel penalty (FPy) should be determined as follows:

)SEC(SECPFP BLclinker,yPJ,clinker,yclinker,y −×= (8) Where: FPy = Fuel penalty in year y (GJ) Pclinker,y = Production of clinker in year y (tons) SECclinker,PJ,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y (GJ/t clinker)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 35 SECclinker,BL = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in the absence of the project

activity (GJ/t clinker)

The specific energy consumption in the project is calculated based on the quantity of all fuels used in the

project plant and the quantity of clinker produced in year y, as

follows:( ) ( )

yclinker,

ky,ky,k,PJ

iyi,yPJ,i,

yPJ,clinker, P

NCVFCNCVFCSEC

∑∑ ×+×= (9)

Where: SECclinker,PJ,y = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in year y (GJ/t clinker) FCPJ,i,y = Quantity of fossil fuel type i fired in the project plant in year y (tons) NCVi,y = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/ton) FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the

project plant in year y (tons) NCVk,y = Net calorific value of the alternative or less carbon intensive fuel type k in year y

(GJ/tonne) Pclinker,y = Production of clinker in year y (tons) k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the project

plant in year y i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon intensive

fossil fuel types As a conservative approach, the specific energy consumption in the absence of the project activity is calculated as the lowest annual ratio of fuel input per clinker production among the most recent three years prior to the start of the project activity, as follows:

=

−

−

2xclinker,

2x

1-xclinker,

1-x

xclinker,

xBLclinker, P

HG;PHG;

PHGMINSEC (10)

With

ii

xi,x NCVFCHG ×=∑ (11)

Where: SECclinker,BL = Specific energy consumption of the project plant in the absence of the project activity

(GJ/t clinker) HGx = Heat generated from fuel combustion in the project plant in the historical year x (GJ) FCi,x = Quantity of fossil fuel type i used in the project plant in year x (tons) NCVi = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i (GJ/ton) Pclinker,x = Production of clinker in year x (tons) x = Year prior to the start of the project activity i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the start of the


project activity Step 2: Calculate baseline emissions from the fossil fuels displaced by the alternative or less carbon

intensive fuel(s) For the Project Activity: Baseline emissions from displacement of fossil fuels are calculated as follows:

( ) yBL,CO2,,,,yFF, EFBE ×

−×= ∑ y

kykykPJ FPNCVFC (12)

Where: BEFF,y = Baseline emission from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels or less carbon

intensive fossil fuels in year y (tCO2) FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the


(GJ/tonne) FPy = Fuel penalty in year y (GJ) EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of alternative

fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2/GJ) k = Alternative fuel types and less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the project

plant in year y The baseline emission factor (EFCO2,BL,y) is estimated as the lowest of the following CO2 emission factors(only the below mentioned two cases are applicable to the project activity because alternative F3 is not a plausible baseline scenario so case C is not applicable for the calculation of Emission Factor): A. The weighted average CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) consumed during the most recent

three years before the start of the project activity, calculated as follows:

( )( )∑

∑×++

××++=

−−

−−

iixi,1xi,2xi,

iiFF,CO2,ixi,1xi,2xi,

yBL,CO2, NCVFCFCFC

EFNCVFCFCFCEF (13)

Where: EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2/GJ)

FCi,x = Quantity of fossil fuel type i used in the project plant in year x (tons) NCVi = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i (GJ/ton) EFCO2,FF,i = CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel type i (tCO2/GJ) x = Year prior to the start of the project activity i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in the last three years prior to the start

of the project activity


B. The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s) that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuels and that are used in the project plant in year y, calculated as follows:

∑∑

×

××=

ii,,,

iyi,FF,CO2,yi,,,

yBL,CO2, NCV

EFNCVEF

yyiPJ

yiPJ

FC

FC (14)

Where: EFCO2,BL,y = Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant in year y (tCO2/GJ)

FCPJ,i,y = Quantity of fossil fuel type i fired in the project plant in year y (tons) NCVi,y = Net calorific value of the fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/ton) EFCO2,FF,i,y = Carbon dioxide emission factor for fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ) i = Fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon

intensive fossil fuel types Option B turns out to be most conservative option for the project activity. Step 3: Calculate baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues Baseline emissions from decay, dumping or burning of biomass residues are calculated as follows:

y,2B,4CHy,3B/1B,4CHy,biomass,4CH BEBEBE += (16) Where: BECH4,biomass,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from preventing disposal

or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e) BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from aerobic decay

and/or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e) BECH4,B2,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from anaerobic

decay of biomass residues at a solid waste disposal site (tCO2e)

For the Project Activity: The baseline methane emissions are avoided from aerobic decaying of the biomass residues. So, only BECH4,B1/B3,y has to be calculated. There are no methane emission reduction associated with the avoidance of anaerobic decay so BECH4,B2,y = 0. Baseline emissions avoided from aerobic decay and/or uncontrolled burning of biomass residues are calculated as follows:


yk,4,burning,CHyk,k

yk,PJ,CH4yB1/B3,CH4, EFNCVFCGWPBE ⋅⋅⋅= ∑ (17)

Where: BECH4,B1/B3,y = Baseline methane emissions avoided during the year y from aerobic decay and/or

uncontrolled burning of biomass residues (tCO2e) GWPCH4 = Global Warming Potential of methane valid for the commitment period (tCO2e/tCH4) FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of alternative fuel or less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the


(GJ/tonne) EFburning,CH4,k,y = CH4 emission factor for uncontrolled burning of the biomass residue type k during

the year y (tCH4/GJ) k = Types of biomass residues used as alternative fuel in the project plant in year y for

which the identified baseline scenario is B1 or B3 and for which leakage effects could be ruled out with one of the approaches L1, L2 or L3 described in the leakage section

For the Project Activity: As per the methodology ACM0003 the default value of 0.0027 tCH4/ton biomass is used for the product of NCVk and EFburning,CH4,k,y

6, and the uncertainty is deemed to be greater than 100%, thus resulting in a conservativeness factor of 0.73. Thus, in this case, an emission factor of 0.001971 t CH4/t biomass is used. Leakage emissions Leakage emissions are calculated as follows:

y,upstream,FFy,BRy LELELE += (18) Where: LEy = Leakage emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr) LEBR,y = Leakage emissions related to the use of biomass residues during the year y (tCO2) LEFF,upstream,y = Upstream leakage emissions from fossil fuel use in year y (tCO2e) Leakage emissions are calculated in two steps: Step 1. Calculation of leakage emissions related to the use of biomass residues. Step 2. Calculation of upstream leakage emissions from fossil fuel use. Step 1: Calculation of leakage emissions related to the use of biomass residues For the Project Activity:

62006 IPCC Guidelines, Volume 4, Table 2.5, default value for agricultural residues.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 39 As the quantity of available biomass residue is 25% larger than the quantity of biomass residue utilized in the region, approach L2 is used to demonstrate that there are no leakages associated with the project activity. Step 2: Calculation of upstream leakage emissions from fossil fuel use For the Project Activity: Upstream leakage emissions from fossil fuel use are calculated as follows:

yCO2,LNG,yCH4,yupstream,FF, LELELE += (20) Where: LEFF,upstream,y = Upstream leakage emissions from fossil fuel use in year y (tCO2e) LECH4,y = Leakage emissions due to fugitive upstream CH4 emissions in the year y (t CO2e) LELNG,CO2,y = Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel combustion / electricity consumption associated

with the liquefaction, transportation, re-gasification and compression of LNG into a natural gas transmission or distribution system during the year y (t CO2e)

Fugitive methane emissions For the purpose of determining fugitive methane emissions associated with the production, the following equation is used:

( ) CH4CH4upstream,i,yi,i

yi,BL,k

CH4upstream,k,yk,yk,PJ,yCH4, GWPEFNCVFCEFNCVFCLE ⋅

⋅⋅−⋅⋅= ∑∑ (21)

Where: LECH4,y = Leakage emissions due to fugitive upstream CH4 emissions in the year y (t CO2e) FCPJ,k,y = Quantity of less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k used in the project plant in year y

(mass or volume unit) FCBL,i,y = Quantity of fossil fuel type i displaced in the project plant as a result of the project

activity in year y (mass or volume unit) NCVk,y = Net calorific value of less carbon intensive fossil fuel type k in year y (GJ/mass or

volume unit) NCVi,y = Net calorific value of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or volume unit) EFk,upstream,CH4 = Emission factor for upstream fugitive methane emissions from production,

transportation and distribution of less carbon intensive fuel type k (t CH4 / GJ) EFi,upstream,CH4 = Emission factor for upstream fugitive methane emissions from production,

transportation and distribution of fossil fuel type i (t CH4 / GJ) GWPCH4 = Global warming potential of methane valid for the relevant commitment period k = Less carbon intensive fossil fuel types used in the project plant in year y i = Fossil fuel types displaced in the project plant as a result of the use of alternative fuels

or less carbon intensive fossil fuels under the project activity For the Project Activity As reliable and accurate national data on fugitive CH4 emissions associated with the production of the fuels is not available; the default values provided in Table B.6.1.1 below are used.


Table B.6.1.1: Default emission factors for fugitive CH4 upstream emissions

Activity UnitDefault

emissionfactor

Reference for the underlying emission factor range in Volume 3 of the 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines

CoalUnderground mining t CH4 / kt coal 13.4 Equations 1 and 4, p. 1.105 and 1.110Surface mining t CH4 / kt coal 0.8 Equations 2 and 4, p.1.108 and 1.110

OilProduction t CH4 / PJ 2.5 Tables 1-60 to 1-64, p. 1.129 - 1.131Transport, refining and storage t CH4 / PJ 1.6 Tables 1-60 to 1-64, p. 1.129 - 1.131Total t CH4 / PJ 4.1

Natural gasUSA and CanadaProduction t CH4 / PJ 72 Table 1-60, p. 1.129Processing, transport and distribution t CH4 / PJ 88 Table 1-60, p. 1.129Total t CH4 / PJ 160Eastern Europe and former USSRProduction t CH4 / PJ 393 Table 1-61, p. 1.129Processing, transport and distribution t CH4 / PJ 528 Table 1-61, p. 1.129Total t CH4 / PJ 921Western EuropeProduction t CH4 / PJ 21 Table 1-62, p. 1.130Processing, transport and distribution t CH4 / PJ 85 Table 1-62, p. 1.130Total t CH4 / PJ 105Other oil exporting countries / Rest of worldProduction t CH4 / PJ 68 Table 1-63 and 1-64, p. 1.130 and 1.131Processing, transport and distribution t CH4 / PJ 228 Table 1-63 and 1-64, p. 1.130 and 1.131Total t CH4 / PJ 296

Note: The emission factors in this table have been derived from IPCC default Tier 1 emission factors provided in Volume 3 of the 1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines, by calculating the average of the provided default emission factor range.

CO2 emissions from LNG As LNG is not used in the project activity, so this parameter is not applicable to the project activity. Hence, LELNG,CO2,y = 0. Emission Reductions Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

yyyy LEPEBEER −−= (24) Where: ERy = Emission reductions during the year y (tCO2/yr) BEy = Baseline emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr) PEy = Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr) LEy = Leakage emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr)


B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Data / Parameter: FCimpcoal,july2007-june2008 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of imported coal used in the project plant in year July2007-June2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 277,933 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Coal is measured at coal feeding end, using weigh feeder. It is recorded daily.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCimpcoal,july2008-june2009 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of imported coal used in the project plant in year July2008-June2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 286,214 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCimpcoal,july2009-june2010 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of imported coal used in the project plant in year July2009-June2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 302,011 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment: Data / Parameter: FCLocal coal,july2007-june2008 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of local coal used in the project plant in year July2007-June2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 2,356

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 42 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCLocal Coal,july2008-june2009 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of local coal used in the project plant in year July2008-June2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 1,807.92 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCLocal coal,july2009-june2010 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of local coal used in the project plant in year July2009-June2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 6,189.54 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment: Data / Parameter: FCHFO,july2007-june2008 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the project plant in year July2007-June2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 468 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 43 Data / Parameter: FCHFO,july2008-june2009 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the project plant in year July2008-June2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 1,005 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCHFO,july2009-june2010 Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the project plant in year July2009-June2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 1,785.96 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Pclinker,july2007-june2008 Data unit: Tons Description: Production of clinker in year July2007-June2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 2,281,101 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Pclinker,july2008-june2009 Data unit: tons Description: Production of clinker in year July2008-June2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 1,986,638 Justification of the

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 44 choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied : Any comment:

Data / Parameter: Pclinker,july2009-june2010 Data unit: Tons Description: Production of clinker in year July2009-June2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Production Reports Value applied: 2,279,750 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Parameter: NCVimpcoal Data unit: GJ/ton Description: Net calorific value of coal used for clinker production Source of data: Value applied: 24.94 Measurement procedures (if any):

-

Any comment:

Parameter: EFCO2,FF,imported coal Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: CO2emission factor for imported coal used in the project plant Source of data: IPCC default values Value applied: 0.0895 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment: Parameter: EFCO2,FF,local coal Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: CO2emission factor for local coal used in the project plant Source of data: IPCC default values Value applied: 0.0928 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 45 Parameter: EFCO2,FF,HFO Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: CO2emission factor for HFO used in the project plant Source of data: IPCC default values Value applied: 0.0788 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment: Parameter: EFCO2,RDF Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: Weighted average CO2emission factor for RDF to be used in the project activity Source of data: Value applied: 0.050 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment:

Parameter: EFCO2,Tyre waste Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: Weighted average CO2emission factor for Tyre Waste to be used in the project

activity Source of data: Value applied: 0.062 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EFcoal,upstream,CH4 Data unit: tCH4/GJ Description: Emission factor for upstream fugitive methane emissions from production,

transportation and distribution of coal Source of data: ACM0003 Methodology; Table 3: Default emission factors for fugitive CH4

upstream emissions Value applied: 0.00054 Measurement procedures (if any):

Calculated as: 13.4 (tCH4 / kt coal) / 24.94 (GJ / ton)

Any comment: -

Parameter: EG captive power plant, july2007-june2008 Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of electricity generation from the captive power plant in July 2007-

June 2008 Source of data: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 164,124.114 Measurement

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 46 procedures (if any): Any comment:

Parameter: EG captive power plant, july2008-june2009 Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of electricity generation from the captive power plant in July 2008 –

June 2009 Source of data: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 159,891.010 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment:

Parameter: EG captive power plant, july2009-june2010 Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of electricity generation from the captive power plant in July 2009 –

June 2010 Source of data: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 164,143.140 Measurement procedures (if any):

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCHFO, july2007-june2008 Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the captive power plant in July 2007-June 2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 4,897.780 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCHFO, july2008-june2009 Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the captive power plant in July 2008 – June 2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 6,155 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 47 Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCHFO, july2009-june2010 Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the captive power plant in July 2009 – June 2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 9,765.420 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCNG, july2007-june2008 Data unit: Nm3 Description: Quantity of NG used in the captive power plant in July 2007-June 2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 34,543,433 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCNG, july2008-june2009 Data unit: Nm3 Description: Quantity of NG used in the captive power plant in July 2008 – June 2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 32,090,235 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCNG, july2009-june2010 Data unit: Nm3 Description: Quantity of NG used in the captive power plant in July 2009 – June 2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 28,873,565 Justification of the

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 48 choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied : Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCDI, july2007-june2008 Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of Diesel used in the captive power plant in July 2007-June 2008 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 146,965 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCDI, july2008-june2009 Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of Diesel used in the captive power plant in July 2008 – June 2009 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 217,617 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCDI, july2009-june2010 Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of Diesel used in the captive power plant in July 2009 – June 2010 Source of data used: Data from Daily Power Generation Report Value applied: 267,538 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: COEFHFO

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 49 Data unit: tCO2/TJ Description: Emission Coefficient of HFO Source of data used: Table 2.3 “Default Emission Factors for Stationary Combustion in

Manufacturing Industries and Construction”, Chapter 2: Stationary Combustion, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Value applied: 77.4 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Given that local value is not available, IPCC default value is used

Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid

Data / Parameter: COEFdiesel Data unit: tCO2/TJ Description: Emission Coefficient of diesel Source of data used: Table 2.3 “Default Emission Factors for Stationary Combustion in





Data / Parameter: COEFcoal Data unit: tCO2/TJ Description: Emission Coefficient of coal Source of data used: Table 2.3 “Default Emission Factors for Stationary Combustion in





Data / Parameter: COEFNG Data unit: tCO2/TJ Description: Emission Coefficient of Natural Gas

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 50 Source of data used: Table 2.3 “Default Emission Factors for Stationary Combustion in





Data / Parameter: NCVHFO Data unit: TJ/t Description: Net Calorific Value of HFO Source of data used: Table in appendix 7.4 of Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 0.04077 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Public available source for the grid emission factor calculation

Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: NCVDiesel Data unit: TJ/t Description: Net Calorific Value of diesel Source of data used: Table in appendix 7.4 of Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 0.04402 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: NCVCoal Data unit: TJ/t Description: Net Calorific Value of coal Source of data used: Table M-1 in appendix of WAPDA statistics Value applied: 0.01172 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods


PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 51 and procedures actually applied : Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: NCVNatural Gas Data unit: TJ/MMCFT (tera joule per million cubic feet)

Description: Net Calorific Value of natural gas Source of data used: Table in appendix 7.4 of Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 0.97971 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: FCHFO Data unit: ton Description: Annual consumption of HFO Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied:

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 6,923,707 7,405,059 8,564,578

Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: FCDiesel Data unit: ton Description: Annual consumption of diesel Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

160,226 165,359 249,248



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: FCCoal

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 52 Data unit: ton Description: Annual consumption of coal Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

162,200 112,520 125,482



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: FCNatural Gas Data unit: MMCFT (million cubic feet) Description: Annual consumption of NG Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

429,892 404,140 366,906



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EGHFO Data unit: GWh Description: Annual gross electricity generated on HFO Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

30,169 31,749 35,170



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EGdiesel Data unit: GWh Description: Annual gross electricity generated on diesel Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

649 674 1005

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 53 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :


Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EGcoal Data unit: GWh Description: Annual gross electricity generated on coal Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

136 113 116



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EGNatural Gas Data unit: GWh Description: Annual gross electricity generated on NG Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

32,923 29,678 28,079



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EGnuc Data unit: GWh Description: Annual gross electricity generated by nuclear plants Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

3,077 1,618 2,894

Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually


PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 54 applied : Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EGhydro Data unit: GWh Description: Annual gross electricity generated by hydro plants Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

28,707 27,784 28,093



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: ECnuc Data unit: GWh Description: Annual auxiliary electricity consumption by nuclear plants Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

258 143 231



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EChydro Data unit: GWh Description: Annual auxiliary electricity consumption by hydro plants Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

86 84 87



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: ECthermal Data unit: GWh

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 55 Description: Annual auxiliary electricity consumption by thermal power plants Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

3,343 1,840 1,942



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EI Data unit: GWh Description: Annual net imports from other grids outside the host country Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

199 227 249



Any comment: Used to calculate the grid emission factor EFgrid Data / Parameter: EFGrid Data unit: tCO2/MWh Description: Emission factor of the grid Source of data used: Pakistan Energy Year Book 2010 Value applied: 0.4656 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Calculated as per “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.2.1)”

Any comment: The steps undertaken to calculate the grid emission factor are provided in Annex 3. Detailed calculations are provided in separate excel sheet.

B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

The methodological approach applied justifications of the choices and the methodological equations applicable to the project activity are explained in detail in the Section B.6.1. A brief step-wise calculation of emission reductions is provided below: Baseline emissions

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 56 Baseline emissions are calculated as follows: BEy= BEFF,y+ BECH4,biomass,y Specific Fuel Penalty: FPy= 240,357 GJ Baseline Emissions from fossil fuels displaced by alternative fuels BEFF,y= 198,590 tCO2/year Baseline Emissions from decay, dumping of biomass residues BECH4,biomass,y= 5,115 tCO2/year BEy= 198,590 + 5,115 tCO2/year BEy = 203,705 tCO2/year Project emissions Project emissions include project emissions from the use of alternative fuels and/or less carbon intensive fossil fuels (PEk,y), project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels to the project plant (PET,y): PEy= PEk,y+ PEFC,y+ PEEC,y+ PET,y+ PEBC,y Project Emissions due to use of alternate fuel, PEk,y= 44,512 tCO2/year As no fossil fuel are used in the project activity hence PEFC,y is zero. As no additional electricity is consumed in the project activity, hence PEEC,y is zero. Project emissions from combustion of fossil fuels for transportation of alternative fuels, PET,y= 412 tCO2/year As the project activity does not use any biomass from dedicated plantation so PEBC,yis not applicable. PEy = 44,512 + 0 + 0 + 412+ 0 tCO2/year PEy = 44,924 tCO2/year Leakage LEy= LEBR,y+ LEFF,upstream,y Leakage emissions related to the use of biomass residues LEBR,y= 0 tCO2/yr Upstream leakage emissions from fossil fuel LEFF,upstream,y= 0 tCO2/yr LEy = 0 tCO2/yr

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 57 Emission Reductions Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

2yyyy 781,1580924,44 203,705LEPEBEER tCO=−−=−−= B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

The annual & total estimation of emission reductions for the fixed crediting period of 10 years starting from September 01, 2012 is provided below:

Table B.6.4.1: Ex-ante Estimation of Emission Reductions

Year

Estimation of project activity

emissions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of baseline

emissions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of leakage

(tonnes of CO2 e)

Estimation of overall emission

reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

Year 1 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 2 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 3 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 4 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 5 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 6 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 7 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 8 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 9 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Year 10 44,924 203,705 0 158,781 Total

(tonnes of CO2 e) 449,240 2,037,050 0 1,587,810

B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: Data / Parameter: FCPJ,k,y Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of alternate fuel used in the project plant in year y Source of data to be used:

Internal records of DGKCC

Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

Rice husk 28,982 Corn cob 7,884 Wheat straw 24,611 Poultry waste 11,472 RDF 41,856 Tyre waste 4,351 Agro waste 50,636

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 58 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Data type: Measured Monitoring Instrument: Schenck Multiflex Model: A10-9.5 Range: 15t Accuracy of the Instrument/Procedure: 99% (Error ±1%) Internal Calibration Frequency: Quarterly Internal Calibration Standard: Manufacturer instruction Recording Frequency: Daily

QA/QC procedures to be applied:

QMS procedures will be followed in measuring, recording, and reporting of the parameter.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCPJ,coal,y Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of coal used in the project plant in year y Source of data to be used:



Coal 175,265

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Data type: Measured Monitoring Instrument: Pfister Rotor Weigh Feeder Model: DRW Range: 17-20t Accuracy of the Instrument/Procedure: 99.5% (Error ±0.5%) Calibration Frequency: Bi-annually Calibration Standard: Manufacturer instruction Recording Frequency: Daily



Any comment:

Data / Parameter: FCPJ,HFO,y Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of HFO used in the project plant in year y Source of data to be used:



0

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be

Data type: Measured Monitoring Instrument: Turbine Flow Meters Model: FDC 1100

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 59 applied: Range: 8-10 m3/hr

Accuracy of the Instrument/Procedure: 99.5% (Error ±0.5%) Calibration Frequency: 10 years Calibration Standard: Manufacturer instruction Recording Frequency: Daily



Any comment: HFO is used only for pre-heating purposes in both the project and baseline scenario

Data / Parameter: EFCO2,FF,imported coal,y Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: Weighted average CO2emission factor for imported coal in year y Source of data to be used:

IPCC default values at the lower limit7 of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories


0.0895


Local value is not available as Pakistan doesn’t have any GHG inventory data. Therefore, IPCC default value is used which is permissible by the applied methodology.


Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EFCO2,FF,local coal,y Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: Weighted average CO2emission factor for local coal in year y Source of data to be used:

IPCC default values at the lower limit8 of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories


0.0928

Description of measurement methods

Local value is not available as Pakistan doesn’t have any GHG inventory data. Therefore, IPCC default value is used which is permissible by the applied

7 To be conservative, choose the upper limit where project emissions are calculated and the lower limit where

baseline emissions are calculated. 8 To be conservative, choose the upper limit where project emissions are calculated and the lower limit where

baseline emissions are calculated.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 60 and procedures to be applied:

methodology.


Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EFCO2,k,y Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: Weighted average CO2emission factor for alternate fuels in year y Source of data to be used:

EFCO2,k,y is zero for the following alternative fuels: - Biomass residues; For following alternate fuels, supplier values shall be used. - Tyre waste - RDF


Fuel Type Emission Factor RDF 0.05 Tyre Waste 0.062


Emission factors for RDF and Tyre Waste will be provided by the supplier. Data type: measured Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Recording Frequency: Each Delivery


.QMS procedures will be followed in recording and reporting of the parameter.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: NCVk,y Data unit: GJ/ton Description: Weighted average net calorific value of alternate fuels in year y Source of data to be used:

Supplier Value


Fuel Type NCV Rice husk 12.73 Corn cob 15.60 Wheat straw 14.99 Poultry waste 10.72 RDF 17.63 Tyre waste 28.26 Agro waste 12.14


Net Calorific Value for alternate fuels will be provided by the supplier. Data type: measured Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Recording Frequency: Each Delivery

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 61 QA/QC procedures to be applied:

QMS procedures will be followed in recording and reporting of the parameter.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: NCVi,y Data unit: GJ/ton Description: Weighted average net calorific value of imported coal in year y Source of data to be used:

Supplier value


24.94


Net Calorific Value (NCV) of the imported coal will be provided by the coal supplier. Data type: measured Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Recording Frequency: Each Delivery


QMS procedures will be followed in recording, and reporting of the parameter.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EG captive power plant,year Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of electricity generated in the captive power plant

Source of data to be used:

Internal records of DG Cement


For ex ante calculation, the value for this parameter has been taken as the sum of the following years:

Year Electricity Generation 2007 – 2008 164,124.114 2008 – 2009 159,891.010 2009 – 2010 164,143.140


Data type: Measured Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Recording Frequency: Monthly



Any comment:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 62 Data / Parameter: FC captive power plant,NG,year Data unit: Nm3 Description: Natural Gas consumption in the captive power plant for the electricity used in

the project activity Source of data to be used:



Year NG Consumption 2007 – 2008 34,543,433 2008 – 2009 32,090,235 2009 – 2010 28,873,565


Data type: measured Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Recording Frequency: Monthly



Any comment: Data / Parameter: FC captive power plant,DI,year Data unit: tons Description: Diesel consumption in the captive power plant for the electricity used in the

project activity Source of data to be used:



Year Diesel Consumption

(Litres) Diesel Consumption (kg)

2007 – 2008 146,965 127,860 2008 – 2009 217,617 189,327 2009 – 2010 267,538 232,758





Any comment: A density of 0.87 kg/litre has been used to determine the diesel consumption in tons

Data / Parameter: FC captive power plant,HFO,year Data unit: tons Description: HFO consumption in the captive power plant for the electricity used in the

project activity

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 63 Source of data to be used:



Year HFO Consumption 2007 – 2008 4,897.780 2008 – 2009 6,155 2009 – 2010 9,765.420





Any comment: Data / Parameter: NCVHFO,year Data unit: GJ/ton Description: Weighted average net calorific value of HFO used in the captive power plant in

year y Source of data to be used:

Supplier Value


43.43




QMS procedures will be followed in recording, and reporting of the parameter.

Any comment: Data / Parameter: NCVNG,year Data unit: MJ/Nm3 Description: Weighted average net calorific value of NG used in the captive power plant in

year y Source of data to be used:

Supplier Value


31.67


Data type: measured Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic


Recording Frequency: Monthly



Any comment: Data / Parameter: NCVDI,year Data unit: MJ/l Description: Weighted average net calorific value of Diesel used in the captive power plant

in year y Source of data to be used:

Supplier Value


36.95





Any comment:

Data / Parameter: AVDy Data unit: km Description: Average round trip distance (from and to) between the alternative fuel supply

sites and the site of the project plant during the year y Source of data to be used:



100


Data type: Recorded Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Recording Frequency: Daily


QMS procedures will be followed in recording & reporting of the parameter.

Any comment:

Data / Parameter: EFkm,CO2,y Data unit: tCO2/km Description: Average CO2 emission factor for the trucks measured during the year y

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 65 Source of data to be used:



0.0004607


Data type: Recorded Archiving procedure: Paper and Electronic Monitoring Frequency: Annually


The value of parameter shall be cross-checked with the information in the literature. QMS procedures will be followed in recording & reporting of the parameter.

Any comment: Data / Parameter: AFT,k,y Data unit: tons Description: Quantity of alternative fuel type k that has been transported to the project site

during the year y. Source of data to be used:



169,793


Data type: Measured Recording Frequency: Upon each delivery



Any comment: Data / Parameter: TLy Data unit: Tons Description: Average truck load of the trucks used during the year y Source of data to be used:



19


Data type: Measured Recording Frequency: Upon each delivery

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 66 and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied:


Any comment: Data / Parameter: Pclinker,y Data unit: tons Description: Production of clinker in year y Source of data to be used:



Year Production 2007 – 2008 2,281,101 2008 – 2009 1,986,638 2009 – 2010 2,279,750


Data type: Measured Monitoring Instrument: LOW feeding system Recording Frequency: Daily



Any comment: Data / Parameter: EFCO2,BL,y Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: Carbon dioxide emissions factor for the fossil fuels displaced by the use of

alternative fuels or less carbon intensive fossil fuels in the project plant Source of data to be used:

Calculated as follows as the lowest of the following CO2 emission factors: - The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s)

consumed and monitored ex ante during the most recent three years before the start of the project activity;

- The weighted average annual CO2 emission factor of the fossil fuel(s) consumed in the project plant in year y that are not less carbon intensive fossil fuels,

- As F2 has been determined as the most likely baseline scenario: the weighted average annual CO2 emission factor for the fossil fuel(s) that would have been consumed according to fuel mix determined in “Procedure for the selection of the most plausible baseline scenario” above


0.0895


Data type: Calculated (As per step 2 of Baseline emissions calculation in the Methodology ACM0003)


Monitoring Frequency: Annually


Any comment: Data / Parameter: FCBL,i,y Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of coal displaced in the project plant as a result of the project activity

in year y Source of data to be used:



98,586


Data type: Calculated (Quantity of displaced coal shall be calculated based on heat input from the alternate fuels and NCV of coal) Monitoring Frequency: Annually



Any comment: - Data / Parameter: EFburning,CH4,k,y

Data unit: tCH4/ton Description: CH4 emission per ton of biomass of residue Source of data to be used:

IPCC default value as recommended in Methodology ACM0003


0.0027


Due to the absence of more accurate information, as per the recommendation of Methodology ACM0003 0.0027 t CH4 per ton of biomass is used as default value for the product of NCVk and EFburning,CH4,k,y Review of default values: Annually


Cross-check the results of any measurements with IPCC default values. If there is a significant difference, check the measurement method and increase the number of measurements in order to verify the results

Any comment: Monitoring of this parameter for project emissions is only required if CH4 emissions from biomass combustion are included in the project boundary. Note that a conservative factor shall be applied, as specified in the baseline methodology

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 68 Data / Parameter: Biomass residue type k Data unit: Tons Description: Quantity of biomass residues of type k that are utilized (e.g. for energy

generation or as feedstock) in the defined geographical region Source of data to be used:

Surveys or statistics


0



Any comment: Monitoring of this parameter is applicable as approach L2 is used to rule out leakage

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:

At the production section, Plant Operators collect data for clinker production and fuel consumption at kiln. Alternate fuel consumption data shall also be collected by the plant operators. Daily log sheet for production (Daily production report) is prepared by Shift Engineers based on the data collected by the Plant Operators. The Production Report is finally verified by Managers and Senior Managers of production sections. Data for electricity consumption by plant is collected by electrical supervisor, and ECS plant guide software. Electrical Managers verify the data for electricity consumption. Power house data is collected by Power House Operators; who record the data for electricity generation and fuel consumption at the power plant. Daily power generation report is prepared by Power House Shift Engineers which are later verified by Incharge Power House/Power House Manager. Alternate fuels purchase and transportation data shall be recorded and collected by Purchase Officer. The Store Incharge shall keep record of the quantities of fuels. Following Table B.7.2.1.shows designation of personnel involved in monitoring plan.

Table B.7.2.1: Designation of personnel involved in monitoring plan Parameter Data Collection Daily Log Sheet

Preparation Initial Data Verification

Final Data Verification

Clinker production Plant Operator Shift Engineer Manager Production

SM Production

Fuel consumption for clinker production

Plant Operator Shift Engineer Manager Production

SM Production

Electricity generation

Power House Operator

Power House Shift Engineer

Incharge Power House

Power House Manager

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 69 Fuel consumption for electricity generation

Power House Operator

Power House Shift Engineer



Fuel characteristics

Shift Chemist Shift Chemist SDM manager QC Manager (QC)

Alternate fuels transportation

Purchase Officer Store Incharge Store Incharge Store Incharge

B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies): Date of Completion (DD/MM/YYYY): 01/03/2012 Table 11 - Name of Responsible Entities First Climate (Switzerland) AG Stauffacherstrasse 45 CH-8004 Zurich Switzerland URL: www.firstclimate.com Contact person: Mr.NikolausWohlgemuth Email: [email protected]

Carbon Services (Private) Limited 19 Davis Road,2nd Floor, Al Maalik, Lahore Pakistan URL: www.carbon.com.pk Contact person: Mr. Omar M. Malik Email: [email protected]

Both, First Climate (Switzerland) AG and Carbon Services (Private) Limited, are project participants. SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1. Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: October 23, 2010 C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 20 years C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period: C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: N/A C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: N/A

http://www.firstclimate.com/

http://www.carbon.com.pk/

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 70 C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C.2.2.1. Starting date: September 01, 2012 or date of submission to UNFCCC whichever occurs later. C.2.2.2. Length: 10 years SECTION D. Environmental impacts >> D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: According to the host country regulations, the project activity had to receive an Environmental Approval from the Environment Protection Department of the local government, upon submission of an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) Report by the project proponent. The IEE points out that the project will be beneficial to the environment as incineration of renewable fuels as substitutes of coal is made possible by the new technology. No negative environmental impacts are to be considered, as the technology to be adopted is mature and safe, once appropriate operation and maintenance procedure are in place. The environmental analyses conducted by DGKCC for the project are consistent in demonstrating that the project activity is expected to remain fully compliant with NEQS (National Environmental Quality Standards). In fact, it is expected that pollutant emissions (both of local concern and global concern, such as CO2) will reduce from the current levels. D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: Neither the project participants nor the host Party have any concern about negative environmental impacts associated with the project activity, given that project activity aims at reducing the local and global environmental impacts of the industrial site where the project activity is to be implemented. IEE Report (Initial Environmental Examination Report) and the accompanying approval request letter were submitted. The approval letter does not raise any particular issue with regard to the environmental impact of the project. SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: The local stakeholders’ consultation meeting is a requirement by Designated National Authority (DNA) of CDM Pakistan, as well as it is required for the CDM PDD. The DNA issues Host Country Approval to

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 71 the project participants after the stakeholders’ consultation meeting is conducted and all the evidences are provided to it. Stakeholders were informed about the project activity through specific advertising published by the project owner in the local media (newspaper, public notice boards within and surrounding DGKCC D.G Khan Plant). Both English and Urdu advertisement were posted in the newspaper “Salahiyat” on June 22, 2011 (English) and June 23, 2011 (Urdu). The Stakeholder consultation meeting was held on June 28, 2011 at DGKCC D.G Khan Plant and was open to anybody willing to participate (private citizens, representatives of associations, interest groups, unions, public authorities, NGOsetc.). The meeting was introduced by the representative of the project owner who explained in details the project activity and stimulated the debate and the expression of comments. E.2. Summary of the comments received: Comments from the stakeholders were collected in written form during and after the meeting. These are summarized below in Table 12: Summary of the Comments

Table E.2.1: Summary of the comments Sr. No.

Stakeholder’s Name Designation Qualification Address Comments/Views about

the Project

1. Jivan Khan Primary

Mouza Belab Shomali (D.G. Khan)

• Occupation will emerge near homes

• Business will increase

• Prosperity will prevail

2. Riaz Ahmad Khan Primary

Patti Raheem Balani Bahadar Gharh

• Prosperity will prevail among the people of the region

• Occupation will increase

• Business will also increase

3. Khuda Baksh Primary Mouza Belab, D.G. Khan

• Children will find it near homes in terms of occupation

• People will not have to go out of town for jobs

• A change will occur in the lives of people


4. Hafiz Masood Ahmad Middle

Housing Colony, Khofli Sattai (D.G. Khan)

• It will save valuable resources

• Standard of living of people will improve


• Poor people will find occupation

• It will help clean the environment in small and big cities

5. Sajjad Hayder Assistant (Quarry) Matric

Shah Sadar Din, D.G. Khan

• Valuable resources will be saved

• Opportunities for small business will increase

• In the process of generating energy, the emission of environment threatening gases will increase

• The use of RDF on District and Tehsil level will clean the environment to great extent

6. Abu Bakar Saddiq Primary

MouzaGarooKhosa, (D.G. Khan)

• Standard of life will be elevated

• Our children will find jobs near their homes


7. Niaz Ahmad Primary ThalangTindani, D.G. Khan

• Poor people will find jobs

• People will find jobs near their homes

• Prosperity in life will increase

8. Allah Wasaya Primary Khofli Sattai, D.G. Khan

• Our children will find jobs

• Environment will improve



9. Fareed Primary

Mouza Belab Shomali, D.G. Khan

• Prosperity will prevail in the lives of people



10. Wahid Primary Mouza Sattai, D.G. Khan

• People will find occupation


• The standard of living of people will increase

11. Abdul Aziz Khosa Assistant Store Matric

MouzaPirAddil, D.G. Khan

• Valuable revenue will be saved

• Opportunities for small business will increase

• Poor people will find occupation

• People will not have to go out of town

• In the process of generating energy, the emission of environment threatening gases will increase

• Pakistan is preserving its valuable energy resources for the use of the future generation

• It will reduce the resources spent on imported energy

• It will help clean the environment in small and big cities

• The use of RDF on District and Tehsil level will clean the environment to great extent


12. KhadimHussain Primary

Sattai Khofli (Mouza), D.G. Khan


• People will not have to go out of town in terms of occupation

• Prosperity will prevail in the region

13. Abdul Qayyum Middle

Mouza Ghazi (D.G. Khan)


• Valuable revenue will be saved

• Environment will be improved small and big cities

• Occupation will increase

14. Abdul SattarSajid AFM (Auto) Diploma in

Auto

MT Shop, D.G. Khan Cement Factory

• By the use of municipal solid waste the standard of cleanliness in the cities will improve

• Due to the selling of the solid waste by the municipal its income will increase

• People will find opportunities of occupation

• Pollution will be eliminated

15. GhulamFareed SDM (Electrical) B.A.

Mouza Sattai Khofli D.G. Khan

• Pakistan is preserving its valuable energy resources for the use of the future generation

• It will preserve the resources spent on the imported fuel

• Occupation opportunities will grow in the country

• Waste will be eliminated from the city


16. Azhar Primary

BastiMirwani Near Air Strip Mouza Sattai Khofli

• We the poor will find occupation


• Our children will find jobs in the proximity

• Business will also increase

17. Azeem Primary Mouza Patti AkhshJindani D.G. Khan

• Occupation will emerge



E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: All the comments received at the stakeholders meeting were expressing a positive opinion of the project. The personnel at DGKCC explained in detail the technical, environmental, and social consequences of substitution of alternate fuels for clinker production process. The stakeholders were informed that the project is fully in compliance with National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS). The stakeholders were satisfied, and were supportive to the project. In conclusion, no negative concerns were expressed by the stakeholders, which eventually expressed appreciation for initiative of DGKCC.


Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited Street/P.O.Box: 53 – A, Lawrence Road Building: Nishat House City: Lahore State/Region: Punjab Postfix/ZIP: Country: Pakistan Telephone: +92 42 111 11 33 33 FAX: +92 42 6367414 E-Mail: URL: www.dgcement.com Represented by: Title: Chief Executive Officer Salutation: Mr Last Name: Mansha Middle Name: First Name: Raza Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: +92 42 6367414 Direct tel: +92 42 111 11 33 33 Personal E-Mail: [email protected] Organization: First Climate (Switzerland) AG Street/P.O.Box: Stauffacherstr.45 Building: City: Zurich State/Region: Zurich Postcode/ZIP: 8004 Country: Switzerland Telephone: +41-44-298 2800 FAX: +41 44-298 2899 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.firstclimate.com Represented by: Title: Board Member Salutation: Mr Last name: Lüchinger Middle name: First name: Alexander Department:

http://www.dgcement.com/

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.firstclimate.com/

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 77 Mobile: Direct FAX: +41 44 298 28 99 Direct tel: +44 44 298 28 07 Personal e-mail: [email protected]

Organization: Carbon Services Private Limited Street/P.O.Box: 19 Davis Road Building: 2nd Floor, Al Maalik, City: Lahore State/Region: Punjab Postfix/ZIP: Country: Pakistan Telephone: +92-42-36313235 / 36313236 FAX: +92-42-36312959 E-Mail: URL: www.carbon.com.pk Represented by: Mr. Omar M. Malik Title: Director Salutation: Mr Last Name: Malik Middle Name: M First Name: Omar Department: Mobile: +92-300-8463743 Direct FAX: +92-42-36312959 Direct tel: +92-42-36313235 / 36313236 Personal E-Mail: [email protected]

http://www.carbon.com.pk/



Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING There is no public funding involved in this project activity.


Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Table Annex 3.1: GCVs of different type of fuels

Fuel

Gross Calorific

Value k Cal/kg

Imported coal 6620 Local coal 5400 Rice husk 3378 Corn cob 4139 Wheat straw 3978 Poultry Waste 2844 RDF 4678 Tyre waste 7500 Agro-Waste 3222

Type of coal: Imported Coal: According to Table 1.1 of Volume 2, Chapter 1 of IPCC 2006, these characteristics respond to “Other Bituminous Coal” which states that: Other bituminous coal is used for steam raising purposes and includes all bituminous coal that is not included under coking coal. It is characterized by higher volatile matter than anthracite (more than 10 percent) and lower carbon content (less than 90 percent fixed carbon). Its gross calorific value is greater than 23,865 kJ/kg (5 700 kcal/kg) on an ash-free but moist basis. From the Table Annex 3.1, we conclude the imported coal used at DGKCC Khofli Sattai Plant is of the type “Other Bituminous Coal”. Local Coal: According to Table 1.1 of Volume 2, Chapter 1 of IPCC 2006, these characteristics respond to “Sub-Bituminous Coal” which states that: Non-agglomerating coals with a gross calorific value between 17 435 kJ/kg (4 165 kcal/kg) and 23 865 kJ/kg (5 700 kcal/kg) containing more than 31 percent volatile matter on a dry mineral matter free basis. From the Table Annex 3.1, we conclude the local coal used at DGKCC Khofli Sattai Plant is of the type “Sub-Bituminous Coal”.


Grid Emission Factor Determination The grid emission factor has been determined according to “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” version 02.2.1 (hereafter referred to as “the Tool”) Electricity baseline emission factor (EFGrid, CM, BL) is calculated ex-ante as a combined margin consisting of a combination of operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM) factors according to the following steps: STEP 1: Identify the relevant electricity systems; STEP 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional); STEP 3: Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM); STEP 4: Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method; STEP 5: Calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor, STEP 7: Calculate the combined margin (CM) emission factor. Step 1 – Identify the relevant electricity systems Pakistani DNA has not published any delineation of the project electricity system and a connected electricity system. Moreover, the criteria provided in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” under Step 1 do not result in a clear grid boundary as

1) a spot market for electricity does not exist in Pakistan 2) there is no official data available with regard to the operation of the transmission line between

different electricity systems. In such cases, the Tool suggests “to use a regional grid definition in the case of large countries with layered dispatch systems (e.g. provincial/regional/national)” to distinguish a connected electricity system. In Pakistan, the electricity supply business is a sort of monopoly of two companies. For Karachi city and adjoining areas of Sindh and Balochistan, it is under Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC). For rest of the Pakistan it falls under Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). In 1998, as part of the government’s privatization policy, the National Transmission & Despatch Company (NTDC)9 “was organized to take over all the properties, rights and assets obligations and liabilities of 220 KV and 500 KV Grid Stations and Transmission Lines/Network Transmission Lines/Network owned by Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). Both NTDC and KESC operate their own transmission networks but they are also physically interconnected to each other at two points10 and trade electricity in significant amounts11 in a sort that they both together constitute the national grid system, which becomes the project electricity system also. Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional)

9 cf. www.ntdc.com.pk 10 One is the Jamshoro – Bin Qasim link in East of Karachi and other is HUBCO-KESC link in West of Karachi. 11 Actually 32% of total electricity supply in KESC in the year 2006/7 was purchased from NTDC. Cf. PEPCO/National Transmission & Despatch Co. (NTDC)/Planning Power Department (NTDC) 2008: Electricity Marketing Data (Power Systems Statistics), 32nd issue, Updated up to 30th June 2007. p. 90

http://www.ntdc.com.pk/

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 81 The Tool allows the project participant to choose between the following two options to calculate the operating margin and build margin emission factor: Option I: Only grid power plants are included in the calculation Option II: Both grid power plants and off-grid power plants are included in the calculation. Option I is chosen as data is publicly available only for grid power plants. Step 3 – Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM) The Tool offers four options for the calculation of the Operating Margin emission factor(s) (EFgrid,OM,y): (a) Simple OM, or (b) Simple adjusted OM, or (c) Dispatch Data Analysis OM, or (d) Average OM. Information to carry out a detailed dispatch data analysis is not publicly available; therefore the dispatch data analysis OM is not selected for the proposed project and the Simple OM option is chosen. The Simple OM requires that the share of low-cost/must-run resources constitutes less than 50% of the total net electricity generation of the national grid. In Pakistan, the share of low-cost/must-run resources usually constitutes less than 50% of the total net electricity generation of the national grid. According to the Tool, for simple OM, the emission factor can be calculated using either of the two following data vintages:

• Ex ante option: For grid power plants, a 3-year generation weighted average, based on the most recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD for validation, without requirement to monitor and recalculate the emissions factor during the crediting period. For off-grid power plants, use a single calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission of CDM-PDD or

• Ex post option: The year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emission factor to be updated annually during monitoring. The data required to calculate the emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of year y.

Project proponents employ the “ex-ante option” for its operating margin calculation. Step 4 - Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit of net electricity generated (tCO2/MWh) by all generating power plants serving the system, not including low-cost/must-run power/units. The Tool offers two options for the calculation of the Simple OM. Option A: Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit; or

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 82 Option B: Based on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system (Option B); Option B can only be used if: (a) The necessary data for Option A is not available; and (b) Only nuclear and renewable power generation are considered as low-cost/must-run sources and the

quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known; and (c) Off-grid power plants are not included in the calculation (i.e., if Option I has been chosen in Step 2)

In the Pakistani public available data, CO2 emission factor for each power generation unit is not available. Only nuclear and renewable generation are considered as low-cost/must-run sources; furthermore, the quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known. Finally, off-grid plants are not considered in the calculation; therefore, Option B is chosen. For Option B, the Simple OM emission factor is calculated based on the net electricity supplied to the grid by all power plants serving the system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, and based on the fuel type(s) and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system:

y Grid , OM simple,EF = , , 2, ,* *i y i y CO i y

i

y

FC NCV EF

EG

∑ [Eq.7]

Where: EFGrid, OM simple, y is the simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) FCi,y is the amount of fossil fuel type i consumed in the project electricity system in

year y (mass or volume unit) NCVi,y is the net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ / mass

or volume unit) EFCO2,i,y is the CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ) EGy is the net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by all power sources

serving the system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, in year y (MWh)

i are all fossil fuel types combusted in power sources in the project electricity

system in the baseline period y is the relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in step 3. Step 5. Calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 83 In terms of vintage of data, project participants can choose between one of the following two options: Option 1. For the first crediting period, calculate the build margin emission factor ex-ante based on the most recent information available on units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD submission to the DOE for validation. For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor should be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period. Option 2. For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor shall be updated annually, ex-post, including those units built up to the year of registration of the project activity or, if information up to the year of registration is not yet available, including those units built up to the latest year for which information is available. For the second crediting period, the build margin emissions factor shall be calculated ex-ante, as described in option 1 above. For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. In accordance with the ex-ante calculation of the operating margin (see Step 3), Option 1 is chosen. The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin consists should be determined as per the following procedure, consistent with the data vintage selected above: (a) Identify the set of five power units, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities,

that started to supply electricity to the grid most recently (SET5-units) and determine their annual electricity generation (AEGSET-5-units, in MWh);

(b) Determine the annual electricity generation of the project electricity system, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities (AEGtotal, in MWh). Identify the set of power units, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities, that started to supply electricity to the grid most recently and that comprise 20% of AEGtotal (if 20% falls on part of the generation of a unit, the generation of that unit is fully included in the calculation) (SET≥20%) and determine their annual electricity generation (AEGSET-≥20%, in MWh);

(c) From SET5-units and SET≥20% select the set of power units that comprises the larger annual

electricity generation (SETsample); Identify the date when the power units in SETsample started to supply electricity to the grid. If none of the power units in SETsample started to supply electricity to the grid more than 10 years ago, then use SETsample to calculate the build margin. Ignore steps (d), (e) and (f).

Otherwise: (d) Exclude from SETsample the power units which started to supply electricity to the grid more than

10 years ago. Include in that set the power units registered as CDM project activity, starting with power units that started to supply electricity to the grid most recently, until the electricity generation of the new set comprises 20% of the annual electricity generation of the project electricity system (if 20% falls on part of the generation of a unit, the generation of that unit is fully included in the calculation) to the extent is possible. Determine for the resulting set (SETsample-CDM) the annual electricity generation (AEGSET-sample-CDM, in MWh); If the annual electricity generation of that set is comprises at least 20% of the annual electricity


generation of the project electricity system (i.e. AEGSET-sample-CDM ≥ 0.2 × AEGtotal), then use the sample group SETsample-CDM to calculate the build margin. Ignore steps (e) and (f).

Otherwise: (e) Include in the sample group SETsample-CDM the power units that started to supply electricity to the

grid more than 10 years ago until the electricity generation of the new set comprises 20% of the annual electricity generation of the project electricity system (if 20% falls on part of the generation of a unit, the generation of that unit is fully included in the calculation);

(f) The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin is the resulting set (SETsample-CDM->10yrs).

As shown in the attached EXCEL file, AEGSET-5-units is largely below AEGSET-≥20%, so SET≥20% is selected as SETsample. Also, given that there are not CDM power plants that can be included and the SETsample includes plants that are operating since more than 10 years, SETsample is equivalent to SETsample-CDM->10yrs. Then, the build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all power units m during the most recent year for which power generation data is available, calculated as follows:

Grid , BM , yEF = ∑

∑

mym

mymELym

EG

EFEG

,

,,, * Eq.13]

Where: EFGrid, BM, y is the Build Margin CO2emission factor in the year y (tCO2/MWh) EGm,y is the net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in the

year y (MWh) EFEL,m,y is the CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) m are the power units included in the build margin y is the most recent historical year for which the power generation data is available The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y ) should be determined as per the guidance in step 4 (a) for the simple OM, using options A1, A2 or A3, using for y the most recent historical year for which power generation data is available, and using for m the power units included in the build margin. If the power units included in the build margin m correspond to the sample group SETsample-CDM->10yrs, then, as a conservative approach, only option A2 from guidance in Step 4 (a) can be used and the default values provided in Annex 1 of the Tool shall be used to determine the parameter ηm,y. On the basis of the data available, option A2 is used: Step 6 - Calculate the combined margin emission factor

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 85 The calculation of the combined margin (CM) emission factor (EFgrid,CM,y) is based on one of the following methods:

(a) Weighted average CM; or (b) Simplified CM.

The weighted average CM method (option A) should be used as the preferred option. The simplified CM method (option b) can only be used if:

• The project activity is located in a Least Developed Country (LDC) or in a country with less than 10 registered projects at the starting date of validation; and

• The data requirements for the application of step 5 above cannot be met. Method (a), weighted average CM, is selected. Therefore, the combined margin emission factor is calculated as follows: EFgrid,CM,y = wOM * EFgrid,OM,y + wBM * EFgrid,BM,y [Eq.14] Where: EFGrid, BM, y is the build margin CO2 emission factor in the year y (tCO2/MWh) EFGrid, OM, y is the operating margin CO2 emission factor in the baseline period (tCO2/MWh) wOM is the weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%) wBM is the weighting of build margin emissions factor (%). The default weights are as follows: wOM = wBM = 0.5. The attached EXCEL sheet reflects the methodological selections indicated above, and provides the final result.


Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

clean development mechanism project design document … khan af project_gsp_pdd_010320… · clean...

Documents