kuyasa and its scale-up to a national sustainable settlements facility
DESCRIPTION
Kuyasa and its scale-up to a National Sustainable Settlements Facility. Structures under UNFCCC Flexible Mechanisms. 14 th March 2011. Contents. Kuyasa intro Kuyasa implementation National Sustainable Housing Facility Programme Conclusions. General Information - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Kuyasa and its scale-upto a National Sustainable Settlements Facility
Structures under UNFCCC Flexible Mechanisms
14th March 2011
Contents
• Kuyasa intro• Kuyasa implementation • National Sustainable Housing Facility Programme• Conclusions
General Information
South African Export Development Fund (SAEDF) August [email protected]
• 2309 RDP houses
• Solar Water Heaters
• Insulated ceilings
• Energy efficient lighting
The Kuyasa CDM Project: First Gold Standard and African CDM project registered. Currently being implemented in Khayelitsha, Cape Town
The Kuyasa CDM Pilot
7
Overall view of light and SWH interventions
8
Sectional view of ceiling installation
9
Ceiling installation - Public Works
steps in design and preparation for implementation
• Selection retrofit of technologies (lighting, water heating and thermal performance improvements)
• Selection of study sample (10 houses)• Retrofitting and monitoring housing through winter• 15 community based meetings• Project design drafting (using small scale CDM methods)• Minimum monitoring (are the technologies in place?)• Validation – good experience• Project registration• Fund raising for implementation• Business plan and transfer to implementers
Implementation and verification
• Trained teams from the community installed• 50% women in the work force• Local monitoring (are the SWHs providing warm water?
are the roofs on? Are the CFLs in place?)• Initial batch of SWHs had mild steel tanks – problem with
the chlorinated water quality• Verification took long time• Issues related to extension of the structures which did not
include ceilings
Technology (and cost excl. infrastructure)
Tonnes/hh/year
Value Euro/hh/year
Solar water heating (100l)(Euro 250)
1.3 20
Insulated ceilings (30 square metres)(Euro 125)
1.3 20
Efficient lamps (2 lamps)(Euro 30)
0.2 3
Suppressed demand• Energy demand is constrained as a result of poverty or
lack of infrastructure• Suppressed demand can be included if proof of livelihoods
improving can be shown • Paragraph 46 of the Modalities and Procedures: “The
baseline may include a scenario where future anthropogenic emissions by sources are projected to rise above current levels, due to the specific circumstances of the host Party.”
• Restated in the COP 15 outcomes: para 35 of “Further guidance related to the CDM.” Encourages the EB to further explore
• Precedent AMS ID and Kuyasa CDM project #0079
Energy services and energy consumption – business-as-usual
ener
gy s
ervi
ce
GH
G E
mis
sion
s
___ Energy Service
___ Baseline Energy
time
SUPPRESSED DEMAND INTERVENTIONS en
ergy
ser
vice
GH
G e
mis
sion
s
___ Energy Service
___ Baseline Emissions
___ Energy Service Intervention___ Project emissions
time
Energy Services and Consumption that take Suppressed Demand for service into account
ener
gy s
ervi
ce
GH
G E
mis
sion
s
___ Energy Service
___ Baseline Carbon emissions
___ Energy Service intervention
___ GHG emission after clean energy service intervention
time
A
B
A are Existing Emissions
B are Existing Emissions + Future Avoided Emissions
Suppressed Demand: An example of space Suppressed Demand: An example of space heating in low income housingheating in low income housing
Morning Evening
Th
erm
al p
ower
req
uir
ed t
o re
ach
21o
C
Thermal energy required without ceilings and ceiling insulation
Outdoor ambient winter’s day temperature profile
Current level of space heating
Suppressed demand for thermal energy
Thermal energy required in houses with ceilings and ceiling insulation
Key methodological issue
• Taking account of poverty by including suppressed demand for energy service
• What does this mean?• How was it argued?• Difficulty – real and measurable emissions reductions• Difficulty – rigour versus simplicity
Some notes on Kuyasa
• Many small sources of emissions make transaction costs high
• Cost R30m in implementation costs• R200 000 for verification (awaiting completion)• 100% completion awaiting final DEA payment – moving to
2nd phase• Suppressed demand needs to be included in
methodological approach for replication• NAMAs may be more appropriate (perhaps in
combination with CDM)
VISION: A clearing house which enables and incentivises access to financing for clean energy services in all low income housing in South
Africa
MISSION: To establish a Facility which 1) administers a CDM programme, and 2) leverages and manages access to the additional
upfront financing required for the incremental capital costs of sustainable energy interventions in low income housing
The National Sustainable Housing Facility
NSHF progress to date (led by consortium Genesis Analytics and SouthSouthNorth Africa
1. SSN together with the CTCC developed Kuyasa as a pilot
2. REEEP funding to explore viable models for replication at scale, with a focus on financing
3. Programmatic CDM approved, providing avenue for carbon finance
4. Drafting Group established to provide guidance and legitimacy
5. Kuyasa being implement with DEAT grant finance, by SAEDF
6. Danida funded development of a Business Plan for the NSHF
7. South African Export Development Fund (SAEDF) and Energy Development Corp. funding the development of a SWH programmatic methodology
8. DBSA funding the development of thermal efficiency methodology and programme/s
9. Danida funding a work plan to achieve government endorsement and appointment of an incubator
National Sustainable Housing Facility
• Institutional and Financial architecture• Methodological and Programmatic issues• Interface with housing developers
Institutional and financial issues
• Currently leadership through a drafting Group established to provide guidance and legitimacy.
• Includes: DBSA, SANERI, DHS, DoE, Eskom, NHFC, DNA, SSN, municipalities
• Where should the Facility be situated institutionally?• The income from carbon, demand side management,
Renewable energy certificates, other externality interests..
A Low Income Housing Programme for South Africa
Assumptions
Carbon price €15
Ongoing 50% equity investment
R1000 beneficiary contribution
Only Greenfield housing included
No financing
How to bring intervention costs down?
How to bring carbon finance forward?
25
National Sustainable Housing Facility
International Carbon Markets
SWH Methodology
Thermal Efficiency
Methodology
Energy Efficient Lighting
Methodology
CDM Programme of Activities
Housing Project
Housing Project
Housing Project
Housing Project
Equity Loan
Facility
Carbon Collatoral?
The National Sustainable Housing Facility
Methodological approach
• Two new large scale methods • Solar Water Heating• Thermal Performance improvements (retrofit and “green
field”) for publicly funded structures
Solar Water Heater Method
• Small Scale <45MW equivalent
• Problems with monitoring
• Current submitted method includes:
• Monitoring water temperatures, water flow rates, back-up heating, or
• Establishing SWH efficiency and solar radiation
• Second option simple monitoring only whether system is in use
• Emissions from fuel to provide same amount of warm water
The logic of the thermal performance approach
29
High level Benefits
Social• Respiratory health burden reduced• Provision of hot water – health / comfort• Household cost savings due to energy efficiency • Employment opportunities (EPWP)
Economic• Peak demand reduced – defers new installed
capacity • Leadership for low cost housing / energy industry• Entrepreneurial opportunities
Environmental• Largest project of its kind in Africa - Leadership• City SWH target – 10% by 2010 (ie 80 000
houses) Project assists this target• Implementing global commitments
Governance• Local participation and decision-making
National Sustainable Housing Facility (NSHF) Key Conclusions
• Carbon finance for low income housing requires a long term investment view
• But the returns to a programme are highly significant, both carbon revenues and co-benefits
• Risks are manageable• The issue is around availability of upfront financing for
capital interventions and identifying an entity to drive the programme
• There is strong interest from CC community internationally, especially in Gold Standard programme
Conclusions into the future
• NSHF Model is replicable for other sub-sectoral mitigation approaches using projects to head to programmes to sub-sectors to future developing country commitments
http://www.southsouthnorth.org