Monitoring Plan. Puck Wind Generation Project

Transcription

1 page 1 Monitoring Plan Puck Wind Generation Project Netherlands European Carbon Facility October Prepared by: Duane T. Kexel Power System Engineering, Inc. kexeld@powersystem.org

2 page 2 Table of Contents 1. Overview Objective of the Monitoring Plan The Project Concept and assumptions Operating vs. Build Margin Operating Margin Items to be Monitored Monitoring responsibility Monitoring plan templates Auditing and Verification Procedures...8

3 page 3 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 Objective of the Monitoring Plan The objective of the monitoring plan is to ensure that the Puck Wind Farm Generation Project in the Republic of Poland ( the Project or the Puck Project ) meets the requirements for the collection, processing and auditing/verification of data required to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) pertaining to Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol. 1.2 The Project The Puck Project consists of 11 new wind generators of 2.0 MW each to be located in a wind farm northwest of Puck in the Pomerania Province in northwestern Poland. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2006, the Project will begin selling expected wind-generated electricity of 51.5 GWh per year to the Energa electric distribution company. The Project will be executed by Polish Energy Partners SA. (PEP) through a newly formed Project company, Dipol sp. z o.o., which operate the Project as a wholly owned subsidiary of PEP. The planned operating life of the Project is at least twenty years but the monitoring requirements described here will apply only to the period of anticipated sales carbon credits which is The Project contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases because the power sold to Energa would otherwise be produced in the marginal grid plants which are currently fired by hard coal. Modeling of wind turbine operation using site specific data suggests that almost 79% of Project electric production will be in the first and last quarter of each calendar year. Because of the substantial variation in seasonal production, the monitoring plan is constructed to develop quarterly carbon emission factors (CEFs) for marginal grid generation. 2. CONCEPT AND ASSUMPTIONS 2.1 Operating vs. Build Margin Since the Puck Project is an energy only project that does not provide any firm capacity, it will not impact the Polish grid expansion plan. Rather, grid dispatchers will back down marginal thermal generating plants whenever the Project output is delivered to Energa. Using ACM0002 terminology, the operating margin determines the type of grid generation that will be displaced by this Project and the build margin is not relevant. An analysis of 2003 Polish grid data has demonstrated that the most probable and conservative selection of current displaced grid plants are the hard coal fired plants referred to as group EWK. Consideration of added future units that would be the most likely to operate on the margin shows that CCGT units operating up to 2,000 hours per year are the most probable types for this kind of duty. Rather than speculating on future additions, this study proposes ex post monitoring of future grid data to determine the mix of generation that was displaced in each year. 2.2 Operating Margin The calculation of operating margin CEFs differs depending on whether or not there have been any new CCGT plants added that are not CHPs. The two methods are summarized as follows.

4 page 4 1) Operating Margin Without New CCGTs The 2003 analysis demonstrates that the EWK group of 18 hard coal-fired power plants that have negligible amounts of cogeneration can be evaluated on an annual basis using selected data from the ARE reports on the Polish power sector. Those results can be developed on a monthly or quarterly basis using ARE generation and coal consumption data for all Polish hard coal plants as a basis for allocating annual figures to months and quarters. The EWK plants account for more than 75% of the total gross generation by hard coal plants in Poland and are believed to provide the best representation of Polish marginal units since individual plant data are not available. The excluded hard coal plants are CHPs that are treated as must run units that are not marginal or displaceable. Use of average efficiency data for the EWK class is certainly conservative since the least efficient plants in that group would be the true marginal units in all hours of the year. The emission reductions for each quarter equals Project sales in MWh (ES) multiplied by the CEF at the generator (EF) multiplied by gross generation divided by grid delivery at 110 kv as shown in the following equation. ER yq = ES yq * EF yq *(GG ExPlant y /GD 110kV y ) This same equation applies to the cases with or without new CCGTs only the EF factor will vary because the CCGTs would be on the margin during some hours rather than the hard coal units. For a typical future year, the annual emission reductions will be estimated using the equation above to get the following results: 2) Operating Margin With New CCGTs Period ES MWh EF Grid GG/GD Tons CO2 Quarter 1 20, ,085 Quarter 2 7, ,102 Quarter 3 7, ,649 Quarter 4 15, ,320 Total 51,464 51,156 In this case, the operating margin is estimated based on the weighted average of CO2 emissions per MWh of production from existing hard coal plants and from the new gas-fired CCGTs. The weights in each quarter are based on the number of estimated hours that each type of unit is operating in that quarter. Of course, the composite EF will be lower than in the previous all coal case since CCGTs are more efficient and since gas has lower carbon content than coal. The illustrative results for 2007 assuming a 200 MW new CCGT that operates 2,000 hours per year are as follows: Period ES MWh EF Grid GG/GD Tons CO2 Quarter 1 20, ,558 Quarter 2 7, ,136 Quarter 3 7, ,617 Quarter 4 15, ,286 Total 51,464 44, Items to be Monitored All items to be monitored are shown as yellow cells in the templates shown in section 4 of this document. 3. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY

5 page 5 As a beneficiary of ERU transfer, the project developer Dipol will have the primary responsibility for collection and reporting of all data necessary for monitoring project performance according to this Monitoring Plan. The following table defines the responsibilities of the involved parties in the monitoring of the Project. Monitoring system Data Collection Data computation Data storage systems Performance monitoring reporting and MP Training and Capacity Building Quality assurance, audit and verification Monitoring Responsibilities Dipol (Project Entity) Review the Monitoring Plan (MP) and suggest adjustments if necessary Establish and maintain monitoring system and implement MP Prepare for initial verification and project commissioning Establish and maintain data measurement and collection systems for all MP indicators Check data quality and collection procedures regularly Enter data in MP workbooks Use MP workbooks to calculate emission reductions Store and maintain records Implement approval system for completed worksheets Forward annual worksheet outputs to CFB Analyze data and compare project performance with project targets Analyze system problems and recommend improvements (performance management) Prepare and forward annual reports Ensure that operational staff is trained and enabled to meet the needs of this MP Establish and maintain an internal approval system with a view to allowing for audits and verification Prepare for, facilitate and coordinate audits and verification process World Bank Carbon Finance Business (CFB) Arrange for initial verification Receive copies of key records and reports Maintain CFB records Arrange for periodic verification audits as needed. The monitoring data will be reported annually to support payments for reductions achieved. The date of submission shall be decided according to agreement between Dipol and the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit. To protect the interests of all stakeholders in the carbon purchase agreements, it is essential that a system of report auditing and verification be established.

6 page 6 The first level of review of the Annual GHG Reduction Report will be done by CFB representatives. Second, all emission reductions generated by the project shall be subject to verification by either the host country or by an independent entity. CFB shall instruct the independent entity to undertake verification of the emission reductions generated by the project within a reasonable time after receipt of the Monitoring Report. CFB may choose to waive its right to arrange for verification in any year. However, when CFB requests that the Annual GHG Reduction Report is to be verified in a year following a year where no verification report was produced, then verification should verify all GHG Reductions generated over the years constituting the entire period since the last verification. Dipol shall fully cooperate with CFB and the verifier in accordance with, the requirements of this Monitoring Plan. Dipol will make available, upon request, all data required by this Monitoring Plan and will also provide the verifier with: The names and titles of individuals responsible for preparation of the data in the annual monitoring reports. Meter readings and invoices to support the electricity sold to Energa or a successor purchaser of project outputs. Any other supporting documentation All data shall be kept by Dipol for a minimum of two years following issuance of the annual GHG reduction report. 4. MONITORING PLAN TEMPLATES The monitoring plan will be carried out according to the spreadsheet workbook. A brief explanation of each table is provided here. As shown in Table 1, the keys to worksheet cell colors are very simple. Yellow cells show required inputs while blue cells show the results of calculations that cannot be modified without justification and approval. Input field Calculation field Table 1 Key to cell colors Key to Cell Colors The EWK hard coal generation plants have been shown to be the current and most probable future marginal generation plants. Table 2 summarizes gross and net annual generation for this group of 18 plants; the fuel used by those plants and calculates the average gross efficiency for the group. Annual data for this group of plants is available in the table numbers shown in the 2003 ARE report on the Polish power sector. Monthly data are reported by ARE for all hard coal plants but not for the specific EWK group which contains the marginal plants of interest. The 2003 values shown are purely for illustrative purposes. The total generation and fuel consumption data by month for all hard coal plants are shown in Table 3 and are used to allocate the annual data in Table 2 to each quarter.

7 page 7 Total EWK Group Source Units Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gross Generation Calc GWh 66,151 18,534 14,301 14,610 18,705 Net Generation T 3.15 GWh 60,871 17,130 13,122 13,367 17,252 Coal Fuel Input T 3.12 MT ,930 Heat Value T 3.12 GJ/MT Coal Fuel Calc GWh 171,085 45,399 38,474 40,730 46,482 Gas Fuels T 3.14 TCM 336,781 Heat Value T 3.14 GJ/TCM Gas Fuels Calc GWh 1, Liquid Fuels T 3.14 MT Heat Value T 3.14 GJ/MT Liquid Fuels Calc GWh 1, Total Fuel Input Calc GWh 173,876 46,140 39,102 41,394 47,240 Gross Efficiency Calc 38.0% 40.2% 36.6% 35.3% 39.6% Table 2 Gross Efficiency of Marginal Hard Coal Generation Units Gross Thermal Generation Source Units Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Jan Dec Thermal Public & IPPS T 3.2 GWh 140,218 38,298 31,089 32,083 38,748 13,614 13,275 Hard Coal T 3.2 GWh 85,733 24,021 18,535 18,935 24,242 8,683 8,236 Brown Coal T 3.2 GWh 51,617 13,542 11,995 12,425 13,655 4,683 4,748 Other Fuels T 3.2 GWh 2, Auxiliary Consumption T 3.2 GWh 10,551 2,722 2,420 2,581 2, Net Thermal Generation Calc GWh 129,667 35,576 28,669 29,502 35,919 12,652 12,328 Hard Coal Calc GWh 79,292 22,314 17,093 17,412 22,473 8,069 7,649 Brown Coal Calc GWh 47,723 12,580 11,060 11,425 12,658 4,352 4,409 Other Fuels Calc GWh 2, Net/Gross Calc 92.5% 92.9% 92.2% 92.0% 92.7% 92.9% 92.9% Hard Coal Consumption T 3.2 MT ,085 9,001 7,638 8,146 9,300 3,263 3,095 Heat Values T 3.2 GJ/MT Hard Coal Consumption Calc GWh 202,871 53,834 45,622 48,297 55,118 19,509 18,362 By Quarter Calc Percent 100.0% 26.5% 22.5% 23.8% 27.2% Table 3 Total Thermal and Hard Coal Generation By Month and Quarter Table 4 combines annual coal carbon content data from the most recent Polish National Inventory, a stipulated assumption on the percent combustion and the quarterly gross plant efficiency estimates from Table 2 to derive carbon emission factors that are applicable to the MWh of gross generation at the grid generation plant. Table 4 also presents the quarterly Project sales data. Item Source Units Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Coal Carbon Content Polish National Inventory tc/tj Coal Carbon Content Calculated tc/gj Coal Carbon Content Calculated tco2/gj Percent Combustion Generic Ex-Ante Assumption Percent 98.0% Coal Carbon Content Calculated tco2/mwh Gross Efficiency Line 41 Percent 38% 40.2% 36.6% 35.3% 39.6% Grid Generator Calculated Wgted Average tco2/gross MWh Puck Project Sales WindPro Model GWh kv Quarterly Shares Calculated Percent 100.0% 38.9% 14.9% 15.4% 30.8% Table 4 CEFs at Generator and Project Output Table 5 adjusts the CEFS at generation to CEFS applicable to the MWh sold to Energa at 110 kv. The adjustment reflects both parasitic power consumption at the grid generation plants and transformation and transmission losses between the generation plants and the sale point. Item Source Units Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Gross Gen/Net Gen EWK Calc Lines 28 & 29 Multiplier Transformation Losses Stipulated Ex Ante Assumption Percent 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% Transmission Line Loss Stipulated Ex Ante Assumption Percent 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Gross Gen/110 kv Del Calc Multiplier CEF At Sale Point Calc tco2/mwh Table 5 CEFs at Sale Point Finally, Table 6 applies the quarterly Project sales data and the CEFs to obtain the baseline CO2 emissions by quarter and for the year. Item Source Units Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Project Output Sold Line 68 GWh Sale Point Line 76 tco2/mwh Baseline CO2 Emissions Calc MT CO2 51,156 19,085 8,102 8,649 15,320 Table 6 Baseline Emissions With No New CCGTs

8 page 8 The first six tables are all that will be required to determine the operating margin CEF and baseline emissions if there are no new non-chp gas-fired CCGTs added to the Polish grid from 2004 through the reporting year. Data that documents the additions of any non-chp CCGTs, the gross generation and fuel consumption of those units will be recorded in Table 7. It is anticipated that the necessary data will be available from ARE reports or their equivalents. In case the operation and full consumption data are not available, default assumptions of 2,000 full load equivalent hours and 50% gross efficiency will be used. A screening curve analysis for 2008 shows that 2,000 hours is the maximum number of hours that a new CCGT plant will be competitive with a refurbished hard coal plant. Item Source Units CCGTs Ex CHPs Added ARE Catalog MW CCGTs Ex CHPs Added Calculation Cum MW EOY CCGTs Ex CHPs Added ARE Reports MWh , , ,000 CCGTs Ex CHPs Added Calculation FLEH 2,000 2,000 2,000 Gas Use ARE Reports MWh 800, , ,000 Gross Efficiency Calculation Percent 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Table 7 Annual and Cumulative Data For New CCGT Power Plants Excluding CHPS Using the hours of marginal operation as the weights, composite CEFs for this case are developed both at the generator and at the 110 kv sale point in Table 8. The only additional data required is the Polish National Inventory estimate of the carbon content of gaseous fuels used in the energy sector. Item Source Units Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual "Pull Out Power" Table 2.6 MW 23,577 19,881 19,579 23,858 23,858 Allocation Index Calculated Index Quarterly Operation Hours Hours ,000 Hours by Quarter Input Hours 2, ,760 Percent of Hours CCGT Calculated Percent 25.1% 21.0% 20.4% 24.9% Percent of Hours Hard Coal Calculated Percent 74.9% 79.0% 79.6% 75.1% Illustrative CEF at Grid Generator Hard Coal OM No New CCGT L67 tco2/mwh Gas Carbon Content Polish National Inventory 03 tco2/tj New CCGT Calculated tco2/mwh Composite at Grid Generator Calculated tco2/mwh Own Use & Loss Multiplier OM No New CCGT L75 Factor CEF at Sale Point Calculated tco2/mwh Table 8 Derivation of Composite CEF at Sale Point Table 9 derives baseline emissions for a year that was impacted by new CCGT marginal generation. The illustrative numbers shown for 2007 are based on hypothetical inputs. Item Source Units Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Project Output Sold Line 31 GWh Sale Point Line 28 tco2/mwh Baseline CO2 Emissions Calc MT CO2 46,358 18,595 7,416 6,632 13,715 Table 9 Illustrative Baseline Emissions For 2007 With New CCGT Power Plant Table 10 collects the inputs from the previous and current annual reports. Year No New CCGT PPS With New CCGT PPS ERUs Source 2006 x 15,320 From Monitoring Reports Dated 2007 x 46,358 From This Monitoring Report TOTAL 61,678 Table 10 Cumulative Summary of ERUs by Year 5. AUDITING AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURES The validation, auditing and verification process for the project shall follow the procedures and requirements laid down in the latest version of the Validation and Verification Manual (VVM) available at the time of the validation or verification activity. The DOE for the project shall follow the VVM in

9 page 9 conducting all validation and verification activities for the project, and the project operator shall consult the VVM in order to properly prepare for validation, audits and verification activities. The VVM is available online at or It can also be obtained from the CFB or from the DOE validating or verifying the project.