Validation Report. Biogas de Juarez S.A de C.V. Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. 2007, August 20

Transcription

1 Validation Report Biogas de Juarez S.A de C.V Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. REPORT NO , August 20 TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Carbon Management Service Westendstr Munich GERMANY

2 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 1 of 13 Report. Date of first issue Revision. Date of this revision Certificate Subject: Validation of a CDM Project Accredited TÜV SÜD Unit: TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Certification Body climate and energy Westendstr Munich Federal Republic of Germany TÜV SÜD Contract Partner: TÜV SÜD America de México. J. Cantu Leal.Col. Buenos Aires Monterrey, Nuevo León, México Tokyo, Japan Client: Project Site(s): Biogas de Juarez, S.A. de C.V Kilometer 27.5 of Federal Highway number 45. Blvd. Independencia Col. Puente Alto Ciudad Juárez Landfill, in the municipality of Ciudad Ciudad Juarez, Chiuhaua Juárez, state of Chihuahua, Mexico Postfix/ZIP: United States of Mexico Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Applied Methodology / Version: First Version: Date of issuance: Version.: 1 Starting Date of March 14, 2007 Estimated Annual Emission Reduction: ACM0001 Version 5 and ACM0002 Version 6 Scope(s): 13 and 1 version: Date of issuance: Version.: tons CO2e Assessment Team Leader: Javier Castro Further Assessment Team Members: Daniel Galvan Ivan Hernandez Summary of the Validation Opinion: The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided TÜV SÜD with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of all stated criteria. In our opinion, the project meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM. Hence TÜV SÜD will recommend the project for registration by the CDM Executive Board in case letters of approval of all Parties involved will be available before the expiring date of the applied methodology(ies) or the applied methodology version respectively. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have not provided TÜV SÜD with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of all stated criteria. Hence TÜV SÜD will not recommend the project for registration by the CDM Executive Board and will inform the project participants and the CDM Executive Board on this decision.

3 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 2 of 13 Abbreviations ACM LFG SWM CAR CDM CER CR D DOE EB EIA / EA ER GHG KP MP PP TÜV SÜD UNFCCC VVM Approved Consolidated Methodology Landfill Gas Solid Waste Management Corrective Action Request Clean Development Mechanism Certified Emission Reduction Clarification Request Designated National Authority Designated Operational Entity Executive Board Environmental Impact Assessment / Environmental Assessment Emission reduction Greenhouse gas(es) Kyoto Protocol Monitoring Plan Project Design Document Project Participant TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Validation and Verification Manual

4 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 3 of 13 Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION Objective Scope 4 2 METHODOLOGY Appointment of the Assessment Team Review of Documents Follow-up Interviews Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests Internal Quality Control 9 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS VALIDATION OPINION...13 Annex 1: Validation Protocol Annex 2: Information Reference List

5 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 4 of 13 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective Biogas de Juarez, S.A. de C.V has commissioned TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH (TÜV SÜD) to validate the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. The validation serves as design verification and is a requirement of all CDM projects. The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party assess of the project design. In particular, the project's baseline, the monitoring plan (MP), and the project s compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host country criteria are validated in order to confirm that the project design as documented is sound and reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. Validation is a requirement for all CDM projects and is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission reductions (CERs). UNFCCC criteria refer to the Kyoto Protocol criteria and the CDM rules and modalities as agreed in the Bonn Agreement and the Marrakech Accords. 1.2 Scope The scope of any assessment is defined by the underlying legislation, regulation and guidance given by relevant entities or authorities. In the case of CDM project activities the scope is set by: The Kyoto Protocol, in particular 12 Decision 2/CMP1 and Decision 3/CMP.1 (Marrakech Accords) Further COP/MOP decisions with reference to the CDM (e.g. decisions 4 8/CMP.1) Decisions by the EB published under Specific guidance by the EB published under Guidelines for Completing the Project Design Document (CDM-), and the Proposed New Baseline and Monitoring Methodlogy (CDM-NM) The applied approved methodology The technical environment of the project (technical scope) Internal and national standards on monitoring and QA/QC Technical guideline and information on best practice The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project design. Once TÜV SÜD receives a first version, it is made publicly available on the internet at TÜV SÜD s webpage as well as on the UNFCCC CDM-webpages for starting a 30 day global stakeholder consultation process (). In case of any request a might be revised (under certain conditions the will be repeated) and the final will form the basis for the final evaluation as presented by this report. Information on the first and on the final version is presented at page 1. The only purpose of a validation is its use during the registration process as part of the CDM project cycle. Hence, TÜV SÜD can not be held liable by any party for decisions made or not made based on the validation opinion, which will go beyond that purpose.

6 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 5 of 13 2 METHODOLOGY The project assessment aims at being a risk based approach and is based on the methodology developed in the Validation and Verification Manual (for further information see an initiative of Designated and Applicant Entities, which aims to harmonize the approach and quality of all such assessments. In order to ensure transparency, a validation protocol was customised for the project. TÜV SÜD developed a cook-book for methodology-specific checklists and protocol based on the templates presented by the Validation and Verification Manual. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria (requirements), the discussion of each criterion by the assessment team and the results from validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes: It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a CDM project is expected to meet; It ensures a transparent validation process where the validator will document how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the validation. The validation protocol consists of three tables. The different columns in these tables are described in the figure below. The completed validation protocol is enclosed in Annex 1 to this report. Validation Protocol Table 1: Conformity of Project Activity and Checklist Topic / Question Reference Comments in The checklist is organised in sections following the arrangement of the applied version. Each section is then further subdivided. The lowest level constitutes a checklist question / criterion. Gives reference to documents where the answer to the checklist question or item is found in case the comment refers to documents other than the. The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached. In some cases sub-checklist are applied indicating /no decisions on the compliance with the stated criterion. Any Request has to be substantiated within this column Conclusions are presented based on the assessment of the first version. This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) due to noncompliance with the checklist question (See below). Clarification Request (CR) is used when the validation team has identified a need for further clarification. Conclusions are presented in the same manner based on the assessment of the final version. As for this specific project the applies three different protocols related to ACM0001, ACM0002 and Flaring tool, the annex 1 includes tables 1a, 1b and 1c respectively.

7 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 6 of 13 Validation Protocol Table 2: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests Ref. to table 1 Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion If the conclusions from table 1 are either a Corrective Action Request or a Clarification Request, these should be listed in this section. Reference to the checklist question number in Table 1 where the Corrective Action Request or Clarification Request is explained. The responses given by the client or other project participants during the communications with the validation team should be summarised in this section. This section should summarise the validation team s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should also be included in Table 1, under. In case of a denial of the project activity more detailed information on this decision will be presented in table 3. Validation Protocol Table 3: Unresolved Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests If the final conclusions from table 2 results in a denial the referenced request should be listed in this section. Id. of CAR/CR 1 Identifier of the Request. Explanation of the Conclusion for Denial This section should present a detail explanation, why the project is finally considered not to be in compliance with a criterion.

8 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 7 of Appointment of the Assessment Team According to the technical scopes and experiences in the sectoral or national business environment TÜV SÜD has composed a project team in accordance with the appointment rules of the TÜV SÜD certification body climate and energy. The composition of an assessment team has to be approved by the Certification Body ensuring that the required skills are covered by the team. The Certification Body TÜV SÜD operates four qualification levels for team members that are assigned by formal appointment rules: Assessment Team Leader (ATL) Greenhouse Gas Auditor (GHG-A) Greenhouse Gas Auditor Trainee (T) Experts (E) It is required that the sectoral scope linked to the methodology has to be covered by the assessment team. The validation team was consisting of the following experts (the responsible Assessment Team Leader in written in bold letters): Name Qualification Coverage of technical scope Coverage of sectoral expertise Javier Castro ATL Host country experience Ivan Hernandez GHG-A Daniel Galva GHG-A Javier Castro is deputy head of the certification body Climate and Energy at TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH. He has an academic background in chemical engineering and energy systems. In his position he participates as project manager the validation, verification and certifications processes for GHG mitigation projects. He has received extensive training in the CDM and JI validation processes, and participated in some validation and verification of CDM projects. Daniel Galvan is a GHG auditor for the scopes 10, 13 and 15. He has an academic background in mechanical administrator engineering. He has received extensive training in the CDM validation processes and participated already in several CDM project assessments as auditor. Ivan Hernandez is a project manager for CDM activities in Mexico. He has an academic background in industrial engineering and industrial maintenance. In his position he is responsible of coordination of all activities of Validation and Verification of the projects developed in Mexico. He has received extensive training in the CDM validation processes and participated already in several CDM project assessments as auditor.

9 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 8 of Review of Documents The first version submitted by the client and additional background documents related to the project design and baseline were reviewed as initial step of the validation process. A complete list of all documents and proofs reviewed is attached as annex 2 to this report. 2.3 Follow-up Interviews In the period of March 15 and 16, 2007, TÜV SÜD performed interviews on-site with project stakeholders to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the first document review. The table below provides a list of all persons interviewed in the context of this on-site visit. Name Ezequiel Quiroz Hector Rangel Jose Andreu Organisation Managing Director Project Coordinator Project Consultant

10 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 9 of Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests The objective of this phase of the validation is to resolve the requests for corrective actions and clarifications and any other outstanding issues which needed to be clarified for TÜV SÜD`s positive conclusion on the project design. The Corrective Action Requests and Clarification Requests raised by TÜV SÜD were resolved during communication between the client and TÜV SÜD. To guarantee the transparency of the validation process, the concerns raised and responses that have been given are summarised in chapter 3 below and documented in more detail in the validation protocol in annex Internal Quality Control As final step of a validation the validation report and the protocol have to undergo and internal quality control procedure by the Certification Body climate and energy, i.e. each report has to be approved either by the head of the certification body or his deputy. In case one of these two persons is part of the assessment team approval can only be given by the other one. It rests at the decision of TÜV SÜD s Certification Body whether a project will be submitted for requesting registration by the EB or not.

11 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 10 of 13 3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The main issues where focused in the correction of emission reduction figures. There were corrective action requests related to the calculation which was solved through modification in the values applied in the model used to calculate the emission reduction. In the the major change solicited was in the table that describes the emission reduction estimated for the period; after correcting mistakes in the figures shown the revised complies with the requirements. The project participant added information about the justification and corrected values shown, ensuring that all figures are in consistency with the baseline establishment and emission reduction estimation. During the validation process; the validator asked for the inclusion of more details and completes explanation of phase II to ensure a complete description of the project. The validator solicited the inclusion of the criteria mentioned in the methodologies and tools 1 used in the project. Complementary information has been requested concerning technical studies developed to determine the waste composition to ensure the proper establishment of the baseline and emission reduction calculation. The consideration about quality assurance and quality control is described in the revised, the integrity of the data and the equipments functioning are addressed in the revised. The project participant considers the aspect needed to ensure the proper data management and equipment operation. The additionally has been reviewed discussing sources and information used. All the documents underlying in the establishment of additionality had been required and reviewed. The calculation of sensitive investment analysis was reviewed. The emission factor of the electricity was calculated correctly using the most recent data from the official source of the country. The validator reviewed the reports from the national company of electricity and the calculations, the assumption were correctly developed according the methodology. Baseline determination and additionality are correctly discussed by the. There is no concern on this discussion as the continuation of the current situation is obviously the most likely scenario as long as there are no legal constraints. EB request for Review: Issue: A checklist in the validation protocol is not sufficient to indicate that the DOE has adequately validated the additionality of the project activity. More detailed information as to how the DOE has validated the information presented in the is required, as is a definitive statement regarding how the DOE considers the project to be additional. Response by TÜV SÜD All the steps of the additionality tool have been correctly followed in the. During the validation process each of these steps has been assessed taking into account the documentation and information available to demonstrate the correctness of the statements. findings have been found. 1 Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site and Tool to determine project emission form flaring gases containing methane

12 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 11 of 13 The alternatives presented are the most plausible for the activity. All the alternatives comply with mandatory laws and regulations. It is important to mention that there is no regulation specifying minimum requirements of recovering and flaring landfill gas. The project proponents realize an investment analysis using comparison cost and benchmark showing a transparent analysis. The data presented for the first option is correctly referenced and during validation these sources have been checked and confirmed. The calculation of the IRR to be compared with the benchmark has been checked, found appropriate and has been attached as extra documents in the submission for registration. The source of the benchmark is transparently presented and has been checked and confirmed during validation. Additionally several barriers have been presented and the same have been check and mainly confirmed on-site. As the additionality tool does require only one of the two paths, the information here presented has been only checked for plausibility. The common practice has been clearly presented and the information has been confirmed during the validation. Based on the above mentioned assessment it was possible to confirm that the project does comply with the additionality requirement. Response by Project participant: We would like to point out that the issue raised by the reviewing team is merely formal (how the additionality analysis has been addressed in the validation protocol) and does not call into question the project s additionality, which was properly and transparently addressed in the, as it was thoroughly validated by the DOE during the validation process. The of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project (Project registration number 1123) carefully follows the four steps considered in the Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality : (i) Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with mandatory laws and regulations; (ii) Investment analysis; (iii) Barrier analysis (optional); and (iv) Common practice analysis. Realistic and credible alternative scenarios to the project activity in compliance with the mandatory legislation and regulation were identified. In the it is also demonstrated that the proposed project activity is economically or financially less attractive than at least one of the alternatives identified using both option II (investment comparison analysis) and option III (benchmark analysis), concluding that the proposed CDM project activity is not the most financially attractive. To strengthen this conclusion a barrier analysis (optional) was undertaken showing that the proposed project activity faces barriers that do not prevent the baseline scenario from occurring. The also demonstrates that no other similar activities occur in Mexico out of the CDM framework. Therefore as indicated in the Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality the project activity is additional. All the relevant statements made in the with the demonstration of additionality purpose are carefully and meticulously explained and supported by abundant official documents. Alongside with the these documents were examined thoroughly by the DOE during the validation process and considered sufficient to demonstrate the project activity additionality.

13 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 12 of 13 4 COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS TÜV SÜD published the project documents on UNFCCC website by installing a link to TÜV SÜD s own website and invited comments by Parties, stakeholders and non-governmental organisations during a period of 30 days. The following table presents all key information on this process: webpage: 1 Starting date of the global stakeholder consultation process: March 14, Comment submitted by: - Response by TÜV SÜD: - Issues raised: -

14 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 13 of 13 5 VALIDATION OPINION TÜV SÜD has performed a validation of the following proposed CDM project activity: Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided TÜV SÜD with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria. In our opinion, the project meets all relevant UNFCCC requirements for the CDM. Hence TÜV SÜD will recommend the project for registration by the CDM Executive Board. An analysis as provided by the applied methodology demonstrates that the proposed project activity is not a likely baseline scenario. Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity. Given that the project is implemented as designed, the project is likely to achieve the estimated amount of emission reductions as specified within the final version. The validation is based on the information made available to us and the engagement conditions detailed in this report. The validation has been performed using a risk based approach as described above. The only purpose of this report is its use during the registration process as part of the CDM project cycle. Hence, TÜV SÜD can not be held liable by any party for decisions made or not made based on the validation opinion, which will go beyond that purpose. Munich, Munich, Certification Body climate and energy TÜV SÜD Industrie Service GmbH Assessment Team Leader

15 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Annex 1: Validation Protocol

16 Table 1a: Conformity of Methodology Application ACM0001 version 05 A General description of project activity A.1 Title of the project activity A.1.1 Does the used project title clearly enable to identify the unique CDM activity? A.1.2 Are there any indication concerning the revision number and the date of the revision? A.1.3 Is this consistent with the time line of the project s history? A.2 Description of the project activity A.2.1 Is the description delivering a transparent overview of the project activities? A.2.2 What proofs are available demonstrating that the project description is in compliance with the actual situation or planning? A.2.3 Is the information provided by these proofs consistent with the information provided by the? A.2.4 Is all information presented consistent with details provided by further chapters of the? 3, the project is clearly defined in the title and explained in the 2, 3, the document ID, revision number and date of the are posted on section A.1., the date of the revision is consistent with the time line of the project. 3, the project activity is clearly defined in the. Complementary see CAR 1 13, 14, during the onsite visit the audit team corroborate actual status of the landfill (Phase I totally closed; phase II to be closed), the layout of pipelines, generators specifications, flare specifications., the proofs analyzed are in consistency with the project description. Complementary see CARs and CRs. 3 Corrective Action Request.1. The description addressed in the section A.1. about the project indicate that the part of electricity generation will be implemented in two phases. In section A.4.3 there is a description with the number of generation engines (four) and the capacity (13.8 to PPD in Open CAR 1 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-1

17 A.3 Project participants A.3.1 Is the form required for the indication of project participants correctly applied? A.3.2 Is the participation of the listed entities or Parties confirmed by each one of them? A.3.3 Is all information on participants / Parties provided in consistency with details provided by further chapters of the (in particular annex 1)? A.4 Technical description of the project activity A.4.1 Location of the project activity A Does the information provided on the location of the project activity allow for a clear identification of the site(s)? A How is it ensured and/or demonstrated, that the project proponents can implement the project at this site (ownership, licenses, contracts etc.)? A.4.2 Category(ies) of project activity A To which category(ies) does the project activity belonging to? Is the category correctly identi- 115kVA transformer). Please add a description of Phase II. PPD in 3, it is correctly applied. 19, it is confirmed. 3, 19, the information is correctly described in all sections. 2, 3 Corrective Action Request.2. The location is correctly described but the GPS Coordinates are incorrect, please use the correct reference N W N W N W N W 8, 12 Clarification Request. 1. Please submit the contracts and the agreements with the other parties involved (like municipality) to proof that it the implementation of the project activity is possible. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-2 CAR 2 CR 1 2, 3, in section A.4.2. of the the categories of the project is

18 fied and indicated? A.4.3 Technology to be employed by the project activity A Does the technical design of the project activity reflect current good practices? A Does the description of the technology to be applied provide sufficient and transparent input/ information to evaluate its impact on the greenhouse gas balance? A Does the implementation of the project activity require any technology transfer from annex-icountries to the host country(ies)? A Is the technology implemented by the project activity environmentally safe? A Is the information provided in compliance with actual situation or planning? A Does the project use state of the art technology and / or does the technology result in a significantly better performance than any commonly used technologies in the host country? A Is the project technology likely to be substituted by other or more efficient technologies within the project period? 3, 5, 6, 7, 12, 22 correctly described. Clarification Request. 2. Please submit the information about the location of the wells, layouts, pipelines diagram and the complete equipment description. 5, 22, the technology is correctly described to evaluate its impact on the greenhouse gas balance. Complementary see CAR 1 PPD in CR 2 Open, the know-how transfer is duly taken into account in the., the project implementation does not represent negative impact, it is environmentally safe. 13, during the onsite visit the audit team corroborated that the information provided is in compliance with the actual and planning situation. 3, the technology to be implemented by the project activity represents a significant improvement of the common practice used in the host country, it includes the installation of extraction wells, flare station and an electricity generation plant. The project will improve the practice., this technology is not common in the host country and it will not be substituted within the project period. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-3

19 A Does the project require extensive initial training and maintenance efforts in order to be carried out as scheduled during the project period? A Is information available on the demand and requirements for training and maintenance? 2, 3, the project requires an extensive training and maintenance to ensure the proper project implementation and operation. 2, 3 Clarification Request. 3. The complete training plan needs to be submitted to the validator. PPD in CR 3 A Is a schedule available for the implementation of the project and are there any risks for delays? A.4.4 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period A Is the form required for the indication of projected emission reductions correctly applied? A Are the figures provided consistent with other data presented in the? 2, 3 Clarification Request. 4. The project schedule needs to be submitted to the validator, please include: the installation of the extraction wells, flare and LFG station and the generation electricity plan. 3, 5, 22 CR 4, the form is correctly applied. 3 Corrective Action Request.3. In section A.1. appears the amount of 1,168,383 tco2 like emission reduction for the period proposed; in the Table 1 (section a.4.4) the total estimated reduction is 1,164,762 tco2; in the Table 8 (section B.6.4). Please clarify the correct value of the Total Emission Reduction for the project activity. CAR 3 CAR 4 CAR 6 CAR 7 CR 5 Corrective Action Request.4. In table 1 the amounts of Emission Reduction for years 2013 and 2014 are incorrect, please correct it. Corrective Action Request.5. In Table 6 please correct the header of the last column, to avoid Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-4

20 confusions add the word Reductions ( Total Emission Reduction of Landfill ). PPD in Corrective Action Request.6. In Table 6 the sum of the Emission reduction LFG Project Activity is incorrect, the correct amount is tco2e Corrective Action Request.7. In table 6 please use entire numbers and correct the sum in column of Project Emission (round to the heist value). A.4.5 Public funding of the project activity A Is the information provided on public funding provided in compliance with the actual situation or planning as available by the project participants? A Is all information provided consistent with the details given in remaining chapters of the (in particular annex 2)? B Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology Clarification Request. 5. In table 5 appear the percentage of the waste types disposed in the landfill, please sent to the validator the complete information (studies and analyses) to corroborate the waste composition. B.1 Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology 3 The project does not use any public funding 3, see above. B.1.1 Are reference number, version number, and, the baseline and monitoring methodology is clearly indicated Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-5

21 title of the baseline and monitoring methodology clearly indicated? B.1.2 Is the applied version the most recent one and / or is this version still applicable? 3, 15, 16 in the, it is ACM0001 Version 05 in conjunction with ACM0002 Version 6, the methodology in the most recent version (as it is detailed above) is correctly applicable for this project. The criteria of applicability are correctly addressed in the. B.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity B.2.1 Is the applied methodology considered the most appropriate one? B.2.2 Criteria 1: Is applicable to landfill gas capture project activities. 3, 15, 16, the project meets all the criteria of applicability. The methodology is the most appropriate for the project. 3, 15 During the onsite visit the verifier team will corroborate that the project met this criteria. PPD in Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / B.2.3 Criteria 2: applicable where the baseline scenario is the partial total atmospheric release of the gas. 3, 15 During the onsite visit the verifier team will corroborate that the project met this criteria. Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? / Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-6

22 B.2.4 Criteria 3: the gas and the project activities include situations such as: a) The captured gas is flared; or b) The captured gas is used to produce energy (e.g. electricity/thermal energy), but no emission reductions are claimed for displacing or avoiding energy from other sources; or c) The captured gas is used to produce energy (e.g. electricity/thermal energy), and emission reductions are claimed for displacing or avoiding energy generation from other sources. In this case a baseline methodology for electricity and/or thermal energy displaced shall be provided or an approved one used, including the ACM0002 Consolidated Methodology for Grid- Connected Power Generation from Renewable. If capacity of electricity generated is less than 15MW, and/or thermal energy displaced is less than 54 TJ (15GWh), small-scale methodologies can be used. 3, 15 Applicability checklist Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? Is the option correctly presented and confirmed?* B.3 Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary / The option selected is clearly defined in the, it is the option C. the details about the electricity generation are in the Validation protocol ACM002 PPD in Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists for sources and gases as given by the methodology applied and comment on at least every line answered with B.3.1 Source: Possible CO2 emissions resulting from combustion of other fuels than the methane recovered Description of Source Gas(es): CO2 Type: Project Emissions 3, 15 Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-7

23 PPD in B.3.2 Source: Where the project activity does not involve electricity generation, project participants should account for CO2 emissions by multiplying the quantity of electricity required with the CO2 emissions intensity of the electricity displaced (CEFelectricity,y). Description of Source Gas(es): CO2 Type: Project Emissions B.3.3 Do the spatial and technological boundaries as verified on-site comply with the discussion provided by / indication included to the? 3, 14 Boundary checklist Source and gas(es) discussed in the? Inclusion / exclusion justified? Explanation / Justification sufficient? Consistency with monitoring plan? / 3, 14, the project boundary is clearly defined in the. B.4 Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario B.4.1 Is it clearly described that the baseline is the atmospheric release of the gas and the baseline methodology considers that some of the methane generated by the landfill may be captured and destroyed? B.4.2 Does the project identify correctly and excludes those options not in line with regulatory or legal requirements? B.4.3 Is the situation about the requirement from the authority on the capture and destruction/utilization of the gas produced in the landfill correctly described? 3, 12, 15 3, 12, 15 3, 12, 15, the baseline coincides with the state of the site. The baseline has been correctly described., in the project there are not considerations about option not in line with laws and regulations., the complete framework about the regulation has been addressed in the. Clarification Request. 6. In Section B.6.3 it is explained the equation used for amount of Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-8 CR 6

24 methane destroyed in the baseline scenario (MDreg,y= MDproject,y*AF), here there is a explanation why the value adopted for AF is 0%; please give proof to demonstrate that in absence of the project any equipment (even if this is so inefficient would be installed) and please clarify why in the document CERs C Juarez (part of the calculation) in the section ERs Summary to calculate the MDreg the value adopted is 5%. PPD in 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): B.5.1 In case of applying step 2 / investment analysis of the additionality tool: Is the analysis method identified appropriately (step 2a)? B.5.2 In case of Option I (simple cost analysis): Is it demonstrated that the activity produces no economic benefits other than CDM income? B.5.3 In case of Option II (investment comparison analysis): Is the most suitable financial indicator clearly identified (IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or (levelized) unit cost)? B.5.4 In case of Option III (benchmark analysis): Is the most suitable financial indicator clearly identified (IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or (levelized) unit cost)? B.5.5 In case of Option II or Option III: Is the calculation of financial figures for this indicator correctly done for all alternatives and the project activity? 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23, the method used is identified and correctly described., the analysis included the IRR, it is clearly identified., the financial indicators are clearly identified., the calculations were reviewed. B.5.6 In case of Option II or Option III: Is the 3, 6,, all the sources are correctly noted, the references were de- Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-9

25 analysis presented in a transparent manner including publicly available proofs for the utilized data? B.5.7 In case of applying step 3 (barrier analysis) of the additionality tool: Is a complete list of barriers developed that prevent the different alternatives to occur? B.5.8 In case of applying step 3 (barrier analysis): Is transparent and documented evidence provided on the existence and significance of these barriers? B.5.9 In case of applying step 3 (barrier analysis): Is it transparently shown that the execution of at least one of the alternatives is not prevented by the identified barriers? B.5.10 Have other activities in the host country / region similar to the project activity been identified and are these activities appropriately analyzed by the (step 4a)? B.5.11 If similar activities are occurring: Is it demonstrated that in spite of these similarities the project activity would not be implemented without the CDM component (step 4b)? B.5.12 Is it appropriately explained how the approval of the project activity will help to overcome the economic and financial hurdles or other identified barriers (step 5)? B.6 Emissions reductions B.6.1 Explanation of methodological choices 23 scribed in transparent manner. 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 3, 6, 23 PPD in, the alternatives are described in a complete manner., the barrier analysis is transparently documented., the information is complete., the information about others landfill has been identified and described correctly in the., it is correctly explained., the project includes a complete explanation about how the CDM approval will overcome the barriers. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-10

26 B Is it explained how the procedures provided in the methodology are applied by the proposed project activity? B Is every selection of options offered by the methodology correctly justified and is this justification in line with the situation verified on-site? B Are the formulae required for the determination of project emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of baseline emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of leakage emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of emission reductions correctly presented? B.6.2 3, 15, 16 3, 15, 16 3, 15, 16 3, 15, 16 3, 15, 16 3, 15, 16 Data and parameters that are available at validation B Is the list of parameters presented in chapter B.6.2 considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology?, in the it is explained how the methodology is applicable for this project. PPD in, the option selected is correctly justified., the formulas are correctly described, the information provided in the permits identify the project emissions and how it is calculated., the formulas are correctly described, the information provided in the permits identify the baseline emissions and how it is calculated. The monitoring parameters are correctly explained. leakage required. Corrective Action Request.8. Please describe completely the main formula (in section B.6.3) to calculate the emission reduction. CAR 8 3, 16, the parameter meets the requirements. B Parameter Title: 3, 16 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-11

27 ergy. Data Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? PPD in B Parameter Title: CO2 emission intensity of the thermal energy 3, 16 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / B Parameter Title: Regulatory requirements relating to landfill gas project. 3, 16 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? / CR 7 CR 8 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-12

28 Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? PPD in Clarification Request. 7. Please provide information if complementary requirements need to be met by the project participants at the moment of the implementation of phase II, specifically if an EIA will be required for this part of the project. In case that it is required, please add a brief description in the. Clarification Request. 8. Please submit the compliance confirmation from the authority of the EIA elaborated for the project. B Parameter Title: φ Model correction factor to account for model uncertainties 3, 16 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / CR 9 Clarification Request. 9. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-13

29 B Parameter Title: OX Oxidation factor 3, 16 Please add a brief description for the justification of the choice of the model correction factor Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / PPD in B Parameter Title: MCF Methane correction factor 3, 16 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / B Parameter Title: Kj, Decay rate for the waste type j 3, 5, 16 Data Checklist / CAR 9 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-14

30 Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? PPD in Corrective Action Request.9. In the calculation submitted there are two mistakes in the application of this value. In the document FOD - TCiudad Juarez - v 06 - Phase I and FOD - TCiudad Juarez - Feb 07 - Phase II in the section Table for decay rate "k" the operation for Pulp, paper and cardboard have incorrect values (=0.004*Sheet1!C *Sheet1!C *Sheet1!C *S heet1!c19) the correct value is Even in the section Sheet 1 there is an indication that the value is taken from the table for decay rate, the value used for the calculations is Please correct the value and the calculations. B Parameter Title: F, Fraction of methane in the SWDS gas 3, 5, 16 Data Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-15

31 Measurement method correctly described? PPD in B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions B Is the projection based on the same procedures as used for future monitoring? B Are the GHG calculations documented in a complete and transparent manner? B Is the data provided in this section consistent with data as presented in other chapters of the? B.6.4 3, 5, 22 3, 5, 22 3, 5, 22 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions B Will the project result in fewer GHG emissions than the baseline scenario? B Is the form/table required for the indication of projected emission reductions correctly applied? B Is the projection in line with the envisioned time schedule for the project s implementation and the indicated crediting period? B Is the data provided in this section in consistency with data as presented in other chapters of the? 3, 5, 22 3, 5, 22 3, 5, 22 3, 5, 22, the ex-ante projections are used to illustrate the project propose, for future monitoring the project participant developed a monitoring plan according the requirements of applicable methodology., the calculations have been submitted to the validator, the formulas and values are presented in transparent manner. See CAR 3 Open, the project represents a significant emission reduction in comparison with the baseline scenario., the table is correctly applied. Complementary see CR 5 See CR 4 Open See CAR 3 Open B.7 Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-16

32 B Is the list of parameters presented in chapter B.7.1 considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology? B Parameter Title: Project Emission from flaring of the residual gas stream in year 3, 15, the parameters comply with the requirement of the criteria established in the methodology. 3, 15 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / PPD in CR 10 CAR 10 Clarification Request. 10. In the document Flare technical data there is no information about the test to determine the emission from flaring of the residual gas stream. The value presented in the corresponds to the 3% of the gas burned in the flare. Please give proof of the utilization of Tool to determine project emission from flaring gases containing methane of solid evidences from the flare manufacturer. Corrective Action Request.10. The amount of project emissions described is 1669 tco 2eq, it corresponds just to the first year, for the next months this quantity decreases because at the start of the generators operation most of the biogas will flow to these equipments. Please correct this Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-17

33 B Parameter Title: Total amount of landfill gas captured 3, 15 value (average for all period) or if this value will be used for all period please correct the calculations. Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / PPD in Open Please submit to the validator the complete monitoring plan including the equipment description (to know how the value is normalized) and the procedure established to take the data (like frequency) as required in CR10 The correct value will be corrected when the issues described in CAR 10 have been solved. B Parameter Title: Amount of landfill gas flared 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? / CAR 11 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-18

34 Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in Corrective Action Request.11. The value described (745,051Nm3) corresponds to 5% of the gas produced. In the assumptions and calculations the amount of gas flared is 10%, please describe in the the correct value (10%). B Parameter Title: Amount of landfill gas combusted in power plant. 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / CAR 12 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-19

35 B Parameter Title: Methane fraction en the landfill gas 3, 15 Corrective Action Request.12. The value described (14,155,963 Nm3) corresponds to 5% of the gas produced. In the assumptions and calculations the amount of gas flared is 10%, please describe in the the correct value (10%). Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / PPD in B Parameter Title: Temperature of the landfill gas 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? / CR 11 Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-20

36 Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in Clarification Request. 11. The methodology requires the measurement of this parameter, no separate monitoring is necessary when using flow meters that automatically measure temperature and pressure, expressing LFG volumes in normalized cubic meters. Please clarify if it is the case. B Parameter Title: Pressure of the landfill gas 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / CR 12 Clarification Request. 12. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-21

37 B Parameter Title: Total amount of electricity submitted to the grid out of the project boundary 3, 15 The methodology requires the measurement of this parameter, no separate monitoring of pressure is necessary when using flow meters that automatically measure temperature and pressure, expressing LFG volumes in normalized cubic meters. Please clarify if this is the case. Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / PPD in B Parameter Title: Total amount of electricity received from the grid to meet the project requirement. Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? / Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-22

38 Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in B Parameter Title: Thermal energy used in landfill during project. 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / B Parameter Title: Operation of the energy plant 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? / Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-23

39 Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in B Parameter Title: Operation of the boiler 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / B Parameter Title: Flare Efficiency Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Open Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-24

40 Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in See CR 10 B Parameter Title: Methane destroyed due to regulatory or other requirements 3, 15 Monitoring Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? / B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan B Is the operational and management structure clearly described and in compliance with the envisioned situation? 2, 3, the monitoring structure is clearly defined. B Are responsibilities and institutional ar- 2, 3, the project participant will work with a committee, each part Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-25

41 rangements for data collection and archiving clearly provided? B Does the monitoring plan provide current good monitoring practice? B If applicable: Does annex 4 provide useful information enabling a better understanding of the envisoned monitoring provisions? of the committee have a particular responsibility to ensure the proper data collection and archiving. PPD in 2, 3, the monitoring plant reflects good practices. 2, 3, the information provided in the Annex 4 is clear. B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology an the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) B.8.1 Is there any indication of a date when the baseline was determined? B.8.2 Is this consistent with the time line of the history? B.8.3 Is the information on the person(s) / entity(ies) responsible for the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology provided consistent with the actual situation? B.8.4 Is information provided whether this person / entity is also considered a project participant? C Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity C.1.1 Are the project s starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and reasonable?, the application of the methodology, discussion and determination of the baseline are transparent., the history is consistent with the time line., the information about the establishment of the baseline is correct., most of the information is provided directly from the project participant. 2, 3, the date when the project activity starts, possible date of registration and the lifetime of the project are correct and reasonable. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-26

42 C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information C.2.1 Is the assumed crediting time clearly defined and reasonable (renewable crediting period of max 7 years with potential for 2 renewals or fixed crediting period of max. 10 years)? D Environmental impacts PPD in 2, 3, the project is proposed for a renewable period of 7 years. D.1 Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts D.1.1 Has the analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity been sufficiently described? D.1.2 Are there any Host Party requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if, has an EIA been approved? D.1.3 Will the project create any adverse environmental effects? D.1.4 Were transboundary environmental impacts identified in the analysis? Clarification Request. 13. The EIA is just roughly mentioned in the. Please add a brief description of the requirements from the authority and the topics of this document. Clarification Request. 14. According the project participant the EIA is expected to be approved by SEMART shortly. Please send the documents from the authority about the acceptance of the EIA. Clarification Request. 15. According to the project participant the EIA is expected to be approved by SEMART shortly. Please send the documents from the authority about the acceptance of the EIA. trasboundary environmental impact will be produced by the project. Complementary see CR 13 CR 13 CR 14 CR15 Open Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-27

43 PPD in 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 D.2.1 Have the identified environmental impacts been addressed in the project design sufficiently? D.2.2 Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country? E Stakeholders comments 10 10, 19, in section D.2 there is a description about the impacts. See CR 7 and CR 8 Open E.1 Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled Have relevant stakeholders been con- E.1.1 sulted? E.1.2 Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders? E.1.3 If a stakeholder consultation process is required by regulations/laws in the host country, has the stakeholder consultation process been carried out in accordance with such regulations/laws? E.1.4 Is the undertaken stakeholder process that was carried out described in a complete and transparent manner? , the local stakeholder meeting has been realized. According the description done in the the consultation was properly announced in the main local newspaper Diario de Juarez. In addition, invitations were sent directly to government officials, NGOs, academia and local private companies. All the information and proof were reviewed during the onsite visit., the stakeholder consultation process has been carried out in accordance with host country regulations/laws., it is clearly described in the. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-28

44 E.2 Summary of the comments received E.2.1 Is a summary of the received stakeholder comments provided? 11 E.3 Report on how due account was taken of any comments received E.3.1 Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received? F Annexes 1 4 F.1 Annex 1: Contact Information F.1.1 Is the information provided consistent with the one given under section A.3? F.1.2 Is the information on all private participants and directly involved Parties presented? 11 F.2 Annex 2: Information regarding public funding F.2.1 Is the information provided on the inclusion of public funding (if any) in consistency with the actual situation presented by the project participants? F.2.2 If necessary: Is an affirmation available that any such funding from Annex-I-countries does not result in a diversion of ODA? F.3 Annex 3: Baseline information F.3.1 If additional background information on baseline data is provided: Is this information consistent with data presented by other sections of the?, A summary of the stakeholder meeting has been addressed in the. PPD in relevant comments were received form the stakeholders. 2, 3, the project participants are correctly described in both sections. 2, 3, the information is presented. 2, 3 The project has not received, and will not receive, any public funding. 2, 3 The project has not received, and will not receive, any public funding. 2, 3, the information about the sources and data used are defined. Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-29

45 F.3.2 Is the data provided verifiable? Has sufficient evidence been provided to the validation team? F.3.3 Does the additional information substantiate / support statements given in other sections of the? F.4 Annex 4: Monitoring information F.4.1 If additional background information on monitoring is provided: Is this information consistent with data presented in other sections of the? F.4.2 Is the information provided verifiable? Has sufficient evidence been provided to the validation team? F.4.3 Do the additional information and / or documented procedures substantiate / support statements given in other sections of the? PPD in 2, 3, the sources used are from the ministry of energy. 2, 3, the references, sources and notes are correctly described. The information is correctly referenced in all. 2, 3, the details of the monitoring plan are in line with the data presented in other section of the. 2, 3, all the information has been reviewed to ensure the accomplishment of requirements. 2, 3, the information presented in the is supported by evidences and complementary documents which have been reviewed by the audit team Table 1a is applicable to ACM001, vers 05 Page A-30

46 Table 1b Conformity of Methodology application ACM0002 version 06 (ex-ante) B. Emissions reductions B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices B Is it explained how the procedures provided in the methodology are applied by the proposed project activity? B Is every selection of options offered by the methodology correctly justified and is this justification in line with the situation verified on-site? B Are the formulae required for the determination of project emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are the formulae required for the determination of baseline emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Is the choice of options to determine the emissions factor (OM, BM) justified in a suitable and transparent manner? B In case of alternative weighing factors for the Combined Margin: Is the quantification of the alternative weighing factor justified in a suitable and transparent manner? B In case of alternative weighing factors for the Combined Margin: Is the guidance for the 16, 22 16, 22 16, 22 16, 22 16, 22, the presents an explanation about the methodology used to determine the Emission factor of the electricity displaced. in, the option selected is correctly justified. Corrective Action Request.13., just the general procedure of determination of emission factor is described, please add the complete information about the formulas and equation used to calculate the Emission Factor. The calculation submitted the formulas are correctly applied. But see CAR 1., the information used to determine the OM and BM is justified, the sources and the calculations were revised, they are according with requirements. CAR 13 Open Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-31

47 concerning the acceptability of alternative weights considered in the discussion? B Are the formulae required for the determination of leakage emissions correctly presented, enabling a complete identification of parameter to be used and / or monitored? B Are formulae required for the determination of emission reductions correctly presented? 16, 22 B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation B Is the list of parameters presented in chapter B.6.2 considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology? B Is the choice of ex-ante or ex-post vintage of OM and BM factors clearly specified in the? 16, 22 16, 22 in leakage required For most renewable energy project activities, PEy = 0., the parameters presented comply with the requirements., all the information about the ex-ante OM and BM factor is presented in Annex 3. Complementary see CAR 1 Fill in the required amount of sub checklists for monitoring parameter and comment any line answered with B Parameter Title: Annual electricity supplied to the grid prior to retrofit (applicable only for retrofit and modification activities) 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-32 Open

48 in B Parameter Title: Emission factor of the grid (CM) 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / B Parameter Title: Operating margin (OM) emission factor of the grid 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / CAR 14 Corrective Action Request.14. This value does not appear in section B.6.2, it is described in the section B.6.3 Ex-ante calculations of emission reductions. The Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-33

49 B Parameter Title: Build margin (BM) emission factor of the grid 16, 22 parameter as part of the monitoring methodology needs to be described in the section B.6.2 with all the related details like unit, description, source, value, justification and comments. Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / in CAR 15 Corrective Action Request.15. This value does not appear in section B.6.2, it is described in the section B.6.3 Ex-ante calculations of emission reductions. The parameter as part of the monitoring methodology needs to be described in the section B.6.2 with all the related details like unit, description, source, value, justification and comments. B Parameter Title: fuel consumption of each power source 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? / CAR 16 Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-34

50 Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? in Corrective Action Request.16. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. B Parameter Title: emission coefficient of each fuel 16, 22 Data Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? Corrective Action Request.17. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. CAR 17 B Parameter Title: electricity generation of each power source 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? / CAR 18 Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-35

51 Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? in Corrective Action Request.18. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. B Parameter Title: surface area of full reservoir level (for new hydroelectric activities only) 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? / B Parameter Title: fraction of time with low costs /must run plant at the margin (for simple adjusted OM only) 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? / Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-36

52 Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? in B Parameter Title: electricity received from the grid Data Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? CAR 19 Corrective Action Request.19. Please add the parameter Electricity received from the grid in the monitoring plan B Parameter Title: CO2 emission coefficient of fuels used in connected grids 16, 22 Data Checklist Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided? / CAR 20 Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-37

53 Choice of data correctly justified? Measurement method correctly described? in Corrective Action Request.20. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions B Is the projection based on the same procedures as used for future monitoring? B Are the GHG calculations documented in a complete and transparent manner? B Is the data provided in this section consistent with data as presented in other chapters of the? B.6.4. Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions B Will the project result in fewer GHG emissions than the baseline scenario? B Is the form/table required for the indication of projected emission reductions correctly applied? B Is the projection in line with the envisioned time schedule for the project s implementation and the indicated crediting period? 20, 22 20, 22 20, 22, the projects used the adequate procedures., the calculations and assumptions are documented in transparent manner., all the data are consistent in all section of the, the emissions will be lower than the baseline scenario, the form is correctly applied. Please see CR 4 from ACM0001 Protocol Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-38

54 B Is the data provided in this section in consistency with data as presented in other chapters of the? 20, 22, the data provided in this section is in line with the rest of the data presented in the and Annexes B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan B.7.1. Data and parameters monitored B Is the list of parameters presented by chapter B.7.1 considered to be complete with regard to the requirements of the applied methodology? 16 in, the parameters meet the requirements of the methodology Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists for monitoring parameter and comment on any line answered with B Parameter Title: Electricity supplied to the grid 16 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? CAR 21 Corrective Action Request.21. Title in : ELEX,LFG, Total amount of electricity exported out of the project. Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-39

55 B Parameter Title: Quantity of steam produced (for geothermal projects only) Title in methodology: EGy Electricity supplied to the grid by the project In general the parameter is understood, if there is no specific reason to change, please use the name provided by the methodology. The value estimated describes the average of two phases and the exact value is Mwh In the section of QA is just described that Electricity meter will be maintained and calibrated regularly to assure high levels of accuracy please give more details like if the meter will meet a calibration from the energy company or under a specific norm. 16 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? in B Parameter Title: Fraction of CO2 in steam produced (for geothermal projects only) 16 Monitoring Checklist / Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-40

56 Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? in B Parameter Title: Fraction of CH4 in steam produced (for geothermal projects only) 16 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter Title: Quantity of steam generated during well testing 16 Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-41

57 (for geothermal projects only) Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? in B Parameter Title: Fraction of CO2 in steam during well testing (for geothermal projects only) 16 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter Title: Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-42

58 Fraction of CH4 in steam during well testing (for geothermal projects only) 16 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? in B Parameter Title: CO2 emission coefficient of fuel used by the geothermal plant (for geothermal projects only) 16 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-43

59 B Is the operational and management structure clearly described and in compliance with the envisoned situation? B Are responsibilities and institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving clearly provided? B Does the monitoring plan provide current good monitoring practice? B If applicable: Does annex 4 provide useful information enabling a better understanding of the envisoned monitoring provisions? in, the monitoring structure is clearly defined., the project participant will work with a committee, each part of the committee has a particular responsibility to ensure the proper data collection and archiving., the monitoring plant reflects good practices., the information provided in Annex 4 is clear. Table 1b is applicable to ACM002, vers 06 (ex-ante) Page A-44

60 Table 1c: Conformity of Flaring Tool PPD in B.7 Justification of the choice of the tool and why it is applicable to the project activity and Description of the parameters included in the tool B Is the applied tool considered the most appropriate one? 5, 18, the tool is the most appropriate to determine the emission from gas flaring process. Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists on the applicability criteria as given by the applied methodology and comment on at least every line answered with ; B Criterion 1: Is the residual gas stream (RG) containing methane? 5, 18 Applicability checklist / Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? CAR 22 Corrective Action Request.22. In section B.6.1 the use of the tool to determine part of the project emission it is only mention. The criteria is not mentioned or discussed. Please include in the something about this criterion. B Criterion 2: Is the residual gas stream (RG) to be flared containing no other combustible gases than methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen? 5, 18 Applicability checklist / Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? CAR 23 Corrective Action Request.23. Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-45

61 B Criterion 3: Is the residual gas stream (RG) to be flared obtained from decomposition of organic material (through landfills, bio-digesters or anaerobic lagoons, among others) or from gases vented in coal mines (coal mine methane and coal bed methane)? In section B.6.1 the use of the tool to determine part of the project emission it is only mention. The criterion is not mentioned or discussed. Please include in the something about this criterion. 5, 18 Applicability checklist / Criterion discussed in the? Compliance provable? Compliance verified? Corrective Action Request.24. In section B.6.1 the use of the tool to determine part of the project emission it is only mention. The criterion is not mentioned or discussed. Please include in the something about this criterion. PPD in CAR 24 Integrate the required amount of sub-checklists for parameters as given by the tool applied and comment on at least every line answered with B Parameter: PEflare,y Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y Unit: tco2e Type: result 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? no Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? CAR 25 Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-46

62 PPD in Corrective Action Request.25. The value shown in the (1669 tco 2eq ) is the only for the first year, the value of this parameter changes in the second year of the period when the generators will be installed, and will change again with the implementation of phase II. Please show an average to have better idea of the amount of emission from flaring of the residual gas stream in year. B Parameter: η flare, h Flare efficiency in hour h based on measurements or default values Unit: - Type: result 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter: fv i, h Volumetric flow rate of the residual gas in dry basis at normal (NTP) conditions 2 in the hour h Unit: - 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-47

63 Type: required Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in B Parameter: FVRG, h Volumetric fraction of component i in the residual gas in the hour h where i = CH4, CO, CO2, O2, H2, N2 Unit: m³/h Type: required 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter: t O2, h Volumetric fraction of O2 in the exhaust gas of the flare in the hour h (only in case the flare efficiency is continuously monitored) 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-48

64 Unit: - Type: required Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in B Parameter: fv CH4,FG,h Concentration of methane in the exhaust gas of the flare in dry basis at normal conditions in the hour h (only in the case the flare efficiency is continuously monitored) Unit: mg/m³ Type: required 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? B Parameter: Tflare Temperature in the exhaust gas of the enclosed flare 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-49

65 Unit: C Type: required Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? PPD in B Parameter: - Any other parameters required to monitor proper operation of the flare according to the manufacturer s specification (only in the case of use of a default value for the flare efficiency of enclosed and open flares) Unit: - Type: required 5, 18 Monitoring Checklist / Appropriate description of parameter? Correct value provided for estimation? Measurement method correctly described? Correct reference to standards? Indication of accuracy provided? QA/QC procedures described? QA/QC procedures appropriate? additional parameters are included in the monitoring plan. B Do the spatial and technological boundaries, the considerations made in the were verified and com- Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-50

66 as verified on-site comply with the discussion provided by / indication included to the? 5, 18 pare with plans and design. PPD in Table 1c is applicable to Flaring tool Page A-51

67 Table 2 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests Clarifications and corrective action requests by validation team Ref. Summary of project owner response Validation team conclusion CARs Corrective Action Request.1. The description addressed in the section A.1. about the project indicate that the part of electricity generation will be implemented in two phases. In section A.4.3 there is a description of number generation engines (four) and the capacity (13.8 to 115kVA transformer). Please add a description of Phase II. Table 1a A.2.4 A CAR 1 Electricity Generation Phases: The following has been added as a footnote on page 2: Phase II of the project activity will be an expansion of Phase I with similar characteristics. The development of Phase II will depend on Phase I performance. As detailed in the Phase I description, the activity will collect and use the LFG of a sector of the Ciudad Juarez landfill s cell 1, closed in vember Phase II will collect and use the LFG of the remaining cell 1 that is expected to be closed by the end of The details about phase II have been included in the latest version of the, complementary information (number of generators and wells to be installed) can be found in section A.4.3. The estimation for the phase II has been reviewed and it corresponds to the situation of the site. Corrective Action Request.2. The location is correctly describe but the GPS Coordinates are incorrect, please use the correct reference N W N W N W N W Table 1a A GPS Coordinate: The project site coordinates have been modified in the according to the validator s request on page 4. The correct description about the site location has been addressed in the. Corrective Action Request.3. In section A.1. appears the amount of 1,168,383 tco2 like emission reduction for Table 1a A B Consistency in CO2 emission reductions: Modifications have been made in several areas to assure consistency across these figures, including: The last version of the shows the correct estimated emission reduction. This is- Page A-52

68 the period proposed; in the Table 1 (section a.4.4) the total estimated reduction is 1,164,762 tco2; in the Table 8 (section B.6.4). Please clarify the correct value of the Total emission reduction for the project activity. Table 1 B Section A.2 (page 2) has been changed to include values for: (i) First 7 years: 1,193,492 tco2e; (ii) First 14 years: 2,639,496 tco2e; and (iii) First 21 years: 3,908,248 tco2e sue is closed. Corrective Action Request.4. In table 1 the amounts of Emission Reduction for years 2013 and 2014 are incorrect, please correct it. Table 1a A Table 1 amounts for years 2013 and 2014: Table 1 has been amended; see page 7 of the All the values of Table 1 are correct and in consistency with the rest of information presented in the. Corrective Action Request.5. In Table 6 please correct the header of the last column, to avoid confusions add the word Reductions ( Total Emission Reduction of Landfill ). Table 1a A CAR 5 Table Header: Table 8 has already been amended and on Page 30 of the. In the last version of the, the Table 6 shows the correct header in each column. Corrective Action Request.6. In Table 6 the sum of the Emission reduction LFG Project Activity is incorrect, the correct amount is tco2e Table 1a A CAR 6 Emission Reduction Activity sum: Table 8 has already been amended. In the last version of the, the information shown corresponds of the latest and correct amount of Emission reduction. Corrective Action Request.7. In table 6 please use entire numbers and correct the sum in column of Project Emission (round to the heist value). Table 1a A Correction and Rounding of figures: Table 8 has already been amended (see immediately above and on Page 30 of. In the last version of the, the information shown corresponds of the latest and correct amount of Emission reduction. Corrective Action Request.8. Table 1a Describe complete formula: this has been amended in The last version of the Page A-53

69 Please describe completely the main formula (in section B.6.3) to calculate the Emission Reduction. Corrective Action Request.9. In the calculation submitted there are two mistakes in the application of this value. In the document FOD - TCiudad Juarez - v 06 - Phase I and FOD - TCiudad Juarez - Feb 07 - Phase II in the section Table for decay rate "k" the operation for Pulp, paper and cardboard have incorrect values (=0.004*Sheet1!C *Sheet1!C * Sheet1!C *Sheet1!C19) the correct value is Even in the section Sheet 1 there is an indication that the value is taken from the table for decay rate, the value used for the calculations is Please correct the value and the calculations. Corrective Action Request.10. The amount of project emissions described is 1669, it corresponds just to the first year, for the next months this quantity decreases because at the start of the generators operation most of the biogas will flow to these equipments. Please correct this value (average for all period) or if this value will be used for all period please correct the calculations. Corrective Action Request.11. The value described (745,051Nm3) correspond to 5% of the gas produced. In the assumptions and calculations the amount of B (see Page 27 of ). contains all the formulas correctly described. Table 1a B Table 1a B Table 1a B Application of values: Amended in calculation spread sheets. See attached Excel files: FOD - TCiudad Juarez - v 06 - Phase I Val FOD - TCiudad Juarez - Feb 07 - Phase II Val CERs C Juarez Val CAR 10 Data value: The value applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 is the average Project emissions from flaring of the residual gas stream in year y for the first crediting period. The value applied is 529 tco2e; this has been amended in the (Page 38). Value amended in The correct values of the k has been adopted, the calculations and the descriptions of the amount of emission reduction are correctly addressed in the last version of the. The correct values has been adopted, it was corroborated in the last version of the. The correct values has been adopted, it was corroborated in the last version of the. Page A-54

70 gas flared is 10%, please describe in the the correct value (10%). Corrective Action Request.12. The value described (14,155,963 Nm3) corresponds to 5% of the gas produced. In the assumptions and calculations the amount of gas flared is 10%, please describe in the the correct value (10%). Table 1a B Value amended in The correct values has been adopted, it was corroborated in the last version of the. Corrective Action Request.13., just the general procedure of determination of Emission Factor is described, please add the complete information about the formulas and equation used to calculate the Emission Factor. Table 1b B The complete procedure (step by step) has been added in the, please see page 23. Corrective Action Request.14. This value does not appear in section B.6.2, it is described in the section B.6.3 Ex-ante calculations of emission reductions. The parameter as part of the monitoring methodology needs to be described in the section B.6.2 with all the related details like unit, description, source, value, justification and comments. Table 1b B The Operating Margin Emission Factor (EFOM,y) has been added. In section B.6.2 is described in complete way including information like source, justification, and description. The latest version includes this value correctly described. Corrective Action Request.15. This value does not appear in section B.6.2, it is described in the section B.6.3 Ex-ante calculations of emission reductions. The parameter as part of the monitoring methodology needs to be described in the section B.6.2 with all the related details like unit, description, source, value, justification and Table 1b B The Build Margin Emission Factor (EFBM,y)has been added. In section B.6.2 is describe in complete way including information like source, justification, and description. The latest version includes this value correctly described. Page A-55

71 comments. Corrective Action Request.16. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. Table 1b B Included in page 27 as third parameter in section B.6.2 The latest version has been reviewed. The description of this data is complete. Corrective Action Request.17. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. Table 1b B Included in page 27 as fourth parameter in section B.6.2 The latest version has been reviewed. The description of this data is complete. The clear reference about these values is addressed in Annex 3 Corrective Action Request.18. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. Table 1b B Included in page 27 as fifth parameter in section B.6.2 The latest version has been reviewed. The description of this data is complete. The clear source of this value is addressed in Annex 3 Corrective Action Request.19. Please add the parameter electricity received from the grid in the monitoring plan Table 1b B Since we are monitoring the quantity of electricity submitted to the grid out of the project (net electricity generation) and the project electricity consumption is already considered in the formula, in cases when the project is not generating electricity, the ELy term would be negative and therefore the corresponding project emissions would be deducted from the project s overall emission reductions. Corrective Action Request.20. This data was considered in the calculations of the emission factor and it is detailed in the Table 1b B Included in page 27 as fourth parameter in section B.6.2 The latest version has been reviewed. The description of this data is complete. Page A-56

72 assumptions submitted. Please add information about this parameter in the. The clear reference about these values is addressed in Annex 3 Corrective Action Request.21. Title in : ELEX,LFG, Total amount of electricity submitted to the grid out of the project Title in methodology: EGy Electricity supplied to the grid by the project In general the parameter is understood, if there is not a specific reason to change, please use the name provide by the methodology. The value estimated describe is the average of two phases, and the exact values is Mwh In the section of QA is just describe that Electricity meter will be maintained and calibrated regularly to assure high levels of accuracy please give more details like if the meter will meet an calibration from the energy company or under specific norm. Table1b B Modified in page 40 instead of parameter ELEX,LFG has been updated, the change has been done. Corrective Action Request.22. In section B.6.1 the use of the tool to determine part of the project emission it is only mention. The criterion is not mentioned or discussed. Please include in the something about this criterion Table 1c B The criteria of application for the tool have been included in the. Please see B.6.1 page 23. The latest version of the has been reviewed and it describes in a complete way the criteria of application of the tool mentioned. Corrective Action Request.23. Table 1c The criteria of application for the tool have been in- The latest version of the Page A-57

73 In section B.6.1 the use of the tool to determine part of the project emission it is only mention. The criterion is not mentioned or discussed. Please include in the something about this criterion Corrective Action Request.24. In section B.6.1 is only mention the use of the tool to determine part of the project emission. The criteria is not mentioned or discussed. Please include in the something about this criterion. Corrective Action Request.25. The value shown in the (1669) is the only for the fist year, the value of this parameter change in the second year of the period when the generators will be installed, and change again at the implementation of the phase II. Please show and average to have better idea of the amount of emission form flaring of the residual gas stream in year. B cluded in the. Please see B.6.1 page 23. has been reviewed and it describes in a complete way the criteria of application of the tool mentioned. Table 1c B Table 1c B The criteria of application for the tool have been included in the. Please see B.6.1 page 23. The value of this parameter has been corrected. The value shown in the latest version of the is 731 (Yearly average first crediting period). The latest version of the has been reviewed and it describes in a complete way the criteria of application of the tool mentioned. The latest version of the has been reviewed and it describes in a correctly the value of this parameter. CRs Clarification Request. 1. Please submit the contracts and the agreements with the other parts involved (like municipality) to proof that is possible the implementation of the project activity. Table 1a A Contracts/Agreements with other parties: We are including a PDF copy of the Power Purchase Agreeement (PPA) with the municipality of Ciudad Juarez, entitled: Contrato Mpio. Juarez-Biogas The documents related to project implementation have been submitted to the validator and were reviewed. All the parts involved are under contract and the relations and responsibilities are completely established in the Page A-58

74 documents submitted. Clarification Request. 2. Please submit the information about the location of the wells, layouts, pipelines diagram and the complete equipment description. Table 1a A Schematic information on plant layout: This information has already been provide to TÜV SÜD Mexico during the site visit, and is included again here. Documents include: Well lay out - document: Wells Layout.pdf Landfill layout document: LAYOUT LANDFILL 3 CELL.pdf Pipes diagram document: Pipes Diagram.zip - equipment documents: (i) Flare: Flare Specs.xls and FLARE TECHNICAL DATA.xls (ii) Gen set: G Kw 1200 rpm.pdf (iii) Flow meter: JUAREZ - Thermomassmeter TI069DEN.pdf (iv) Temperature and pressure meters: JUAREZ- RTD temperature sensor.pdf and JUAREZ-Pression DP Foxboro_Pm_pression_2a_1c14c.pdf (v) Gas analyzer: Brochure_u23_eng.pdf All the documents about the equipment, physical location of the wheels and details about the project implementation have been submitted to the validator, all requirements are complied. Clarification Request. 3. The complete training plan needs to be submitted to the validator. Table 1a A CL 3 - Training of monitoring personnel: The following language has been added and clarified in the, pages 52-53: The team established in the Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure (ERCP) Organizational structure, and composed of the monitoring plan steering committee and the ERCP management, will be trained by ahlcarbono in a one day workshop on a comprehensive set of tools and knowledge required to Page A-59

75 implement the monitoring plan. The monitoring plan and associated training will build the capability of the monitoring plan steering committee and ERCP management to replicate - on an ex-post basis an equivalent process that has been demonstrated in the for an ex-ante emissions avoidance calculation as if the plant were in operation in Training structure and topics shall include: a) accurate monitoring of the performance and output characteristics of the power plant to record and keep accurate data; b) accurate monitoring of the landfill gas collection and utilization and keep accurate data c) collection and integration of utility data for the current year; d) incorporation of these data sets into spread sheets pre-prepared by ahlcarbono, and e) consistently calculating verifiable CERs as a function of landfill gas collection and measured power plant output against a current-year emission factor that serves as a recognized proxy for emissions displaced from the grid. Clarification Request. 4. The project schedule needs to be submitted to the validator, please include, the installation of the extraction wells, flare and LFG station, and the generation electricity plan. Table 1a A Project Schedule documents: SSE Schedule.pdf and JUAREZ LANDFILL POWER SCHEDULE.pdf The document has been submitted, the activities and the dates are reasonable. It complies the requirements. Clarification Request. 5. In Table 5 appear the percentage of the waste types disposed in the landfill, please sent to the validator the complete information (studies and analyses) to corroborate the waste composition. Table 1a A Technical Studies; waste types documents: SSE Technical Study.pdf and SSE Technical Study Appendices.pdf The document has been reviewed. As part of this study the waste composition is described in complete manner. Clarification Request. 6. In Section B.6.3 its explained the equation Table 1a Methane Destruction Baseline Scenario: This was originally detailed in the, and the same language The calculation has been changed and corrected. It Page A-60

76 used for amoun of methane destroyed in the baseline scenario (MDreg,y= MDproject,y*AF), here there is a explanation why the value adopted for AF is 0%; please give proof to demonstrate that in absence of the project any equipment (even if this is so inefficient) would be installed) and please clarify why in the document CERs C Juarez (part of the calculation) in the section ERs Summary to calculate the MDreg the value adopted is 5%. B.4.3 remains (now at the top of page 31), as the following: The AF was considered as zero. This value is justified based on the fact that the regulatory requirements do not indicate any specific amount of gas collection and destruction or utilization and that in practice, no amounts of LFG are actually collected and flared in the Ciudad Juarez landfill. Therefore, MDreg,y will be equal to zero for the ex-ante ER calculation. Nevertheless, laws and regulations will be periodically, and at least once a year, reviewed and the AF will be modified accordingly in case any law or regulation requires a minimal amount of methane to be captured and/or destroyed. The previous spread sheet CERs C Juarez was an older version prepared prior to the field visit. During the field visit it was noted that no landfill gas collection or destruction was being carried out and therefore we modified the calculation parameters. To review the calculations spread sheet with definitive parameters, please see CERs C Juarez Val.xls was corroborated in the assumptions and in the. Clarification Request. 7. Please inform to the validator if complementary requirements needs to be met by the project participants at the moment of the implementation of phase II, specifically if a EIA will be required for this part of the project. In case that It is requires, please add a brief description in the. Table 1a B EIA Requirements: At the time of implementation of Phase II, a new EIA will be required. This EIA for Phase II is not yet being prepared, but as Phase II will only be an expansion of Phase I, it is expected to have very similar characteristics. Thus, no difficulties for its approval are anticipated. The accomplishment of the EIA for the Phase II needs to be corroborated in the verification. Clarification Request. 8. Please submit the validator to the compliance confirmation from the authority of the EIA Table 1a B EIA Compliance Confirmation: a conditional authorization issued by SEMART is included in this report as: Documento Resolutivo MIA SEMART.pdf. A de- Page A-61

77 elaborated for the project. finitive approval from SEMART is expected by May 3rd, 2007 and will be submitted to the validator as soon as it is received. Clarification Request. 9. Please add a brief description for the Justification Table 1a B Justification for φ (correction factor to account for model uncertainties): The has been amended to include the following self-explanatory language: The value of this parameter (0.9)is the one recommended in the Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site, approved in the EB 26 meeting as Annex 14, and found in the Data and Parameters t Monitored Section (p.3) In the latest version of the the justification has been added, it covers the requirement. Clarification Request. 10. In the document Flare technical data there is no information about the test to determine the emission from flaring of the residual gas stream. The value presented in the corresponds to the 3% of the gas burned in the flare. Please give proof of the utilization of Tool to determine project emission from flaring gases containing methane of solid evidences from the flare manufacturer. Table 1a B Studies on emissions from flaring: The Tool to determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane was only recently provided at EB 28 in December 2006, and manufacturers typically have not yet fully adapted to this guidance. The manufacturer specifications are the best proxy currently available for exante calculations, and these values will be confirmed once actual flare operation begins. We have included a copy of a response from the manufacturer relative to this inquiry, which indicates that they would welcome further discussion regarding the standards and tests that they typically carry out to determine the flare efficiency. The complete information about the instrument that will be used to measure this parameter has been reviewed. A thermal mass flow meter will be used to measure the flow (in Nm3), complementary a separately instrument will be install to measure the temperature. Clarification Request. 11. The methodology requires the measurement of this parameter, no separate monitoring is necessary when using flow meters that automatically measure temperature and pressure, expressing LFG volumes in normalized cubic meters. Please clarify if it is the Table 1a B Pressure of landfill gas: This will be measured both in the flow meter and separately. See the documents provided with this memo: Brochure_u23_eng.pdf JUAREZ-Pression DP Foxboro_Pm_pression_2a_1c14c.pdf attached in this report. The complete information about the instrument that will be used to measure this parameter has been reviewed. A thermal mass flow meter will be used to measure the flow (in Nm3), complemen- Page A-62

78 case. tary a separately instrument will be install to measure the temperature. Clarification Request. 12. The methodology require the measurement of this parameter, no separate monitoring of pressure is necessary when using flow meters that automatically measure temperature and pressure, expressing LFG volumes in normalized cubic meters. Please clarify if it is the case. Clarification Request. 13. The EIA is just roughly mention in the. Please add a brief description of the requirements from the authority and the topics this document. Table 1a B Table 1a D.1.1 Temperature of landfill gas: This will be measured both in the flow meter and separately. See the documents provided with this memo: Brochure_u23_eng.pdf JUAREZ-Pression DP Foxboro_Pm_pression_2a_1c14c.pdf attached in this report. EIA requirements: This section has been included in the on page 41 The project sponsor should meet the requirements of the Official Mexican rms referring to: maximum level of emissions from vehicles using gasoline or diesel fuel; maximum opacity of exhaust gases from vehicles that use diesel; maximum noise levels from motor vehicles; and other associated environmental norms and regulations. Potable water cannot be used for uses other than human consumption. Liquids such as oil, grease or toxic substances cannot be spilled on the ground or in water bodies. kind of residues may be deposited on the project site or in neighboring zones. The complete information about the instrument that will be used to measure this parameter has been reviewed. A thermal mass flow meter will be used to measure the flow (in Nm3), complementary a separately instrument will be install to measure the temperature. The requirement has been complied through the inclusion of a brief description about the requirements from the authority related the EIA. Page A-63

79 chemical products may be used to strip vegetation from the site prior to construction water requirements must be performed according to the National Water Comission (Comision Nacional del Agua) standards or municipal authority resolutions. materials and equipment transportation related to the project must be performed during non-peak traffic times. The project should avoid traffic disruption/road closures, and deploy appropriate signs to prevent accidents. Clarification Request. 14. According to the project participant the EIA is expected to be approved by SEMART shortly. Please send the documents from the authority about the acceptance of the EIA. Table 1a D.1.2 EIA Compliance Confirmation: a conditional authorization issued by SEMART is included in this report as: Documento Resolutivo MIA SEMART.pdf. A definitive approval from SEMART is expected by May 3rd, 2007 and will be submitted to the validator as soon as it is received. The document Documento Resolutivo MIA SEMAR- T.pdf is the evidence that the paperwork is in process. Clarification Request. 15. According to the project participant the EIA is expected to be approved by SEMART shortly. Please send the documents from the authority about the acceptance of the EIA. Table 1a D.1.3 EIA Compliance Confirmation: a conditional authorization issued by SEMART is included in this report as: Documento Resolutivo MIA SEMART.pdf. A definitive approval from SEMART is expected by May 3rd, 2007 and will be submitted to the validator as soon as it is received. The document Documento Resolutivo MIA SEMAR- T.pdf is the evidence that the paperwork is in process. Page A-64

80 Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Annex 2: Information Reference List

81 Report Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 1 of 2 Information Reference List Reference Document or Type of Information. 1 On-site interview at the offices and on site with the project developer and the representatives of the site conducted on March 15 and 16, 2007 by auditing team of TÜV SÜD: Validation team on site: Ivan Hernandez GHG Auditor Daniel Galvan GHG Auditor Interviewed persons: Ezequiel Quiroz Managing Director, Biogas de Juarez Hector Rancel Project Coordinator, Biogas de Juarez Jose Andreu Project Consultant, AHL Carbono 2 Draft Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project, dated March 6 th, Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project, dated April 9 th, Validation and Verification Manual, IETA/World Bank (PCF), 5 Project Calculation FOD - TCiudad Juarez - v 06 - Phase I and Phase II- Val 6 Information of Addtionality: Investment analysis. 7 FLARE TECHNICAL DATA 8 Flare Specs 8 Municipality contracts Contrato Mpio Juarez Biogas 10 EIA Documento Resolutivo MIA SEMART 11 Summary and List of participant of Local stakeholder meeting 12 Technical Report of GAS POTENTIAL EVALUATION FOR THE MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILL 13 Project schedule SSE Schedule 14 Wells Layout 15 Consolidated baseline methodology for landfill gas project activities, ACM0001 Version Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, ACM0002 Version Tool to determine methane emissions avoided from dumping waste at a solid waste disposal site TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH

82 Report Validation of the Ciudad Juarez Landfill Gas to Energy Project. Page 2 of 2 Information Reference List Reference Document or Type of Information. 18 Tool to determine project emission form flaring gases containing methane 19 Letter of approval from D of Mexico dated March 8, Prospectiva del Sector Electrico, p.126, Prospectiva del Sector Electrico, p.126, Prospectiva del Sector Electrico, p IPCC: 2006, Good Practice Guidance 22 Baseline Calculations Mexico Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality TÜV SÜD INDUSTRIE SERVICE GMBH