VERIFICATION REPORT - VOLUNTARY CARBON STANDARD (V.1) -

Transcription

1 VERIFICATION REPORT - VOLUNTARY CARBON STANDARD (V.1) - MINGAS-POWER GMBH UTILIZATION OF COAL-MINE-METHANE RADBOD V Verification Period (Including both days) Report No: /223-V01 Date: 2009-June-23 TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program Langemarckstrasse Essen, Germany Phone: Fax:

2 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Date of recommendation: Report No.: /223-V01 Approved by: Organisational unit: Mr. R. Winter Client: Mingas-Power GmbH Client ref.: Mr. Brandt Summary: Project Title: Utilization of Coal-Mine-Methane Radbod V Project Participant(s): Mingas-Power GmbH, Carbon-TF B.V. Applied Standard: Voluntary Carbon Standard (version 01) Monitroring period: Type of Verification: Combined (no separate validation) Based on validated PDD PDD: version dt Monitoring report: June 2009 Methodological approach: Approved CDM Meth; Combined appr. Meths; Project specific Meth Applied methodologies: Verification Opinion: Baseline emissions: CO 2 [t CO 2] N/A The scope of this verification covers the determination of voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions generated by the above mentioned project. The verification is based on the above mentioned PDD and Monitoring report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participant. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the verification has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the VCS 1 esp. w.r.t. transparency (as per para. 2.7) and meets the requirements of the Voluntary Carbon Standard Verification Protocol. As a result of the verification, the verifier confirms that: The project activity is in line with all applicable criteria of the VCS version 01. all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the project design document. The monitoring system is in place and functional. The installed equipment essential for generating emission reductions runs reliable and is calibrated appropriately. the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. The project has achieved emission reductions in line with the requirements of the VCS 1 in the above mentioned monitoring period as below: CH 4 [t CH 4] N 2O [t N 2O] HFCs [t HFC] PFCs [t PFC] SF 6 [t SF 6] Sum [t CO2e] , ,651 Project emissions: CO 2 [t CO 2] CH 4 [t CH 4] N 2O [t N 2O] HFCs [t HFC] PFCs [t PFC] SF 6 [t SF 6] Sum [t CO2e] , , , ,133 Emission reductions: CO 2 [t CO 2] Work carried out by: Eric Krupp Alexandra Nebel CH 4 [t CH 4] N 2O [t N 2O] HFCs [t HFC] PFCs [t PFC] SF 6 [t SF 6] Sum [t CO2e] TOTAL: 18,183 Technical Review carried out by Rainer Winter Date of this revision Rev. No. Number of pages No distribution without permission from the client or responsible organisational unit Limited distribution Unrestricted distribution Page 2 of 52

3 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Abbreviations CAR Corrective Action Request CDM CH 4 CHP CMM CO 2 CO 2eq CP CR ER ERU EU-ETS FAR GGG GHG GWP JI MW PDD UNFCCC VCS VCU VER Clean Development Mechanism Methane Combined Heat Power Coal Mine Methane Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide equivalent Certification Program Clarification Request Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Unit EU Emissions Trading Scheme Forward Action Request Green Gas Germany GmbH Greenhouse gas(es) Global Warming Potential Joint Implementation Megawatt Project Design Document United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Voluntary Carbon Standard Voluntary Carbon Unit Verified Emission Reductions Page 3 of 52

4 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 5 Page 1.1. Objective Scope GHG Project Description Project Scope Project Entities Project Location Technical Project Description Verification Team Methodology Verification Protocol Review of Documentation On-site assessment Resolution of Forward and Corrective Action Requests Verification Findings Project Category Geographic Location Eligible GHGs Project Start date Emission Reduction Start date Public Funding and Grants Project Boundary / GHG Assessment Boundary Calculation Methodology Secondary Effects Project Additionality Quality of Reductions Monitoring Process Emission reductions Verification Opinion References Annex: Verification Protocol Page 4 of 52

5 P-Nr.: /223-V01 1 INTRODUCTION Mingas-Power GmbH has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (formally UNFCCC accredited DOE) to carry out the verification of the project: Utilization of Coal-Mine-Methane Radbod V with regard to the relevant requirements of the Voluntary Carbon Standard Version 01 (VCS) /VCS/. Within the scope of this engagement the verification team has reviewed the complete project documentation (Monitoring Report /MR/, emission reduction calculation and supporting documents) against the criteria of the VCS. For this voluntary project activity a project specific methodology was applied. GHG data for the monitoring period covering to was verified in detailed manner applying the set of requirements, audit practices and principles as required under the verification standard. This report presents the findings and conclusions of the verification assessment of this voluntary emission reduction project Objective The purpose of this verification, by independent checking of objective evidence, is as follows: - to verify that the project is implemented as described in the project design document; - to confirm that the monitoring system is implemented and fully functional to generate voluntary emission reductions (VERs / VCUs 1 ) without any double counting; and - to establish that the data reported are accurate, complete, consistent, transparent and free of material error or omission by checking the monitoring records and the emissions reduction calculation Scope 1 As per VCS, Verified Emission Reductions (VERs) are considered to be VCUs only after successful registration in an approved VCU Registry. Page 5 of 52

6 P-Nr.: /223-V01 The verification of this GHG offset project is based on the monitoring report /MR/, emission reduction calculation spread sheet /XLS/, supporting documents made available to the verifier and information collected through performing interviews and during the on-site assessment. Furthermore publicly available information was considered as far as available and required. The TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP has employed a risk-based approach in the verification, focusing on the identification of significant risks and reliability of project monitoring and generation of emission reductions GHG Project Description Project Scope The considered GHG project can be classified as a VER project in the sector given in Table 1-1 (according to the VCS list of eligible scopes and the list of Sectoral Scopes of the UNFCCC). Table 1-1: Project Scope(s) Scope definition Scope No. Scope description VCS 7 Fugitive Emissions UNFCCC 10 Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid, oil and gas) Project Entities The list of the project entities involved in the project activity is given in table 1-2 below: Table 1-2: Project Participant # 1: Project Entities Role Name / Address Contact person Mingas-PowerGmbH Mr. Brandt Rüttenscheider Str. 1-3 Tel: +49 (0) D Essen Andreas.Brandt@evonik.com Germany Project Participant # 2: Carbon-TF B.V. Horsterweg ND Venlo-Blerrick The Netherlands Dr. Jürgen Meyer Tel: +49 (0)208 / jm@carbon-tf.com Project Location The project is located at: Postal Address An den Fördertürmen Hamm, Germany Land registry entry Gemarkung: Bockum-Hövel Flur 10 Page 6 of 52

7 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Flurstück: Technical Project Description The project consists of two co-generation gas-engines for recovery and combustion of coal mine methane (CMM) from a closed coal mine gallery. The units are running since March The technology used in the project is of combined heat & power (CHP) type. The key data submitted within the Monitoring Report are given in the table 1-2 mentioned below. Table 1-2: Technical and operational data CHP units 1 Manufacturer Deutz Number / formation of cylinders 16 / V Cylinder capacity 70,8 dm 3 Rotational frequency 1,500 1/min No. of units 2 Capacity (electrical power) 2 x MW el Total: MW e The emission reductions are a result of the recovery of CMM out of the coal mine which otherwise would be emitted diffusely to the atmosphere. Page 7 of 52

8 P-Nr.: /223-V01 2 VERIFICATION TEAM The Verification team was led by - Eric Krupp. He is a public appointed expert for the German verification of allocation applications and emission reports in the framework of EU-ETS. He is an appointed senior assessor and deputy head of TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP. For this verification he was assisted by: - Ms. Alexandra Nebel. She is a forest scientist and has received extensive training in the CDM validation & verification process and technical aspects. Ms. Beyer has received Audit competencies by ISO 9001 courses and trainings. She is appointed as Expert for the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP and employed by TÜV NORD CERT GmbH. Technical review and the approval by - Mr. Rainer Winter. Mr. Winter works at TÜV NORD CERT GmbH as ISO 9001 and ISO Auditor, as an environmental verifier for EMAS, and as a DEHSt-appointed emission verifier in the framework of the EU-ETS. Mr. Winter has been appointed as JI/CDM assessor and is in charge of the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP. Page 8 of 52

9 P-Nr.: /223-V01 3 METHODOLOGY The verification consisted of the following steps: A desk review of the Monitoring Report /MR/, the emission reduction calculation spreadsheet /XLS/, and additional supporting documents which were submitted by the client. The relevant sections of the above mentioned customised protocol according to the VCS were used. On-Site assessment, Background investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project developer, Verification reporting (Draft Verification Report and Final Verification Report). The criteria of this verification include the relevant rules and steps as set out in the VCS Verification Protocol In order to ensure transparency and consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a verification protocol was used. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means and results of verification. The verification protocol serves the following purposes: - It organises, details and clarifies the requirements a VCS project is expected to meet; - It ensures a transparent verification process where the verifying entity will document how a particular requirement has been proved and the result of the verification. The completed verification protocol is enclosed in the annex to this report Review of Documentation The following documents and records were considered in the course of this combined verification: the Monitoring Report (draft and version) including the claimed emission reductions for the project, the emission reduction calculation. Page 9 of 52

10 P-Nr.: /223-V01. supporting documents provided by the client (such as technical drawings, manuals of equipment suppliers, performance records, meter readings, installation and calibration documents, business data etc.) records of the site visit (such as meter readings, interview memos etc.) information made available by any 3 rd party (such as host country legislation, technical reports, published generation data etc.) 3.3. On-site assessment The assessment performed during the verification enabled the verifier to arrive at a conclusion regarding the readiness of the project to generate high quality emission reductions. As such, it was indispensable to carry out an inspection on site in order to verify that the project is implemented in accordance with the applicable criteria. Furthermore the on-site assessment is necessary to check the monitoring data with respect to accuracy to ensure the calculation of emission reductions. The on-site assessment included an investigation of whether all relevant equipment is installed and works as anticipated. The operating staff was interviewed and observed in order to check the risks of inappropriate operation and data collection procedures. Information processes for generating, aggregating and reporting the selected monitored parameters were reviewed. Metering equipment was checked and positions of counters were recorded in order to prepare for the next periodic verification. The on-site assessment included an investigation whether all metering equipment was duly calibrated. The monitoring processes, routines and documentations were audited to check their proper application. The monitoring data were checked via spot sample on the level of the meter recordings. On the verification team of TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP performed interviews with project participants to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. Representatives of the project participant and operational staff of the plant were interviewed. The main topics of the interviews and key interviewees are summarised in Table 3-1. Page 10 of 52

11 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Table 3-1: Interviewed persons and interview topics Interviewed Persons / Entities Representatives of - Mingas-PowerGmbH - Evonik Steag GmbH, Energie Center - G.A.S. Energietechnik GmbH/ HGS - Lambda GmbH - Carbon TF Interview topics - General aspects of the project - Technical equipment and operation - Monitoring and measurement equipment - Project design and implementation - Involved personnel and responsibilities - Monitoring data - Data uncertainty and residual risks - GHG calculation - Training and practice of the operational personnel - Editorial aspects of the monitoring report 3.4. Resolution of Forward and Corrective Action Requests Nonconformities raised during the verification can either be seen as a nonfulfilment of criteria ensuring the proper implementation of a project or where a risk to deliver high quality emission reductions is identified. Corrective Action Requests (CARs) are issued, if: mistakes have been made in assumptions or the project documentation which directly will influence the project results, the eligibility requirements for VCU projects have not been met there is a clear deviation concerning to the applicable verification criteria. requirements set by the monitoring plan have not been met; or mistakes in the emission reduction calculation have been detected. Forward Action Requests (FAR) indicates essential risks for further periodic verifications. Forward Action Requests are issued, where: the actual status requires a special focus on this item for the next consecutive verification, or an adjustment of the monitoring plan is recommended. The verification team may also use the term Clarification Request (CR), which would be issued if: additional information is needed to fully clarify an issue. The identified risks are reported in the form of CAR and CR (if any). Based on the response provided against the CAR and CR the Final Verification Report containing the verification opinion is issued. Page 11 of 52

12 P-Nr.: /223-V01 4 VERIFICATION FINDINGS In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the monitoring report /MR/, the PDD and other supporting documents, as well as from the onsite assessment and the interviews are summarised. The summary of CAR, FAR and CR issued are shown in Table 4-1: Table 4-1: Summary of CAR, FAR and CR # Verification topic No. of CAR No. of CR No. of FAR #1: Project category #2 Geographic location #3 Eligible GHGs #4 Project Start Date #5 Emission Reduction Start Date #6 Public funding and grants #7 Project boundary / GHG assessment boundary #8 Calculation Methodology #9 Secondary Effects #10 Project Additionality #11 Quality of reductions #12 Monitoring Process #13 2 General topics SUM Not included in the official VCS Verification Criteria list Page 12 of 52

13 P-Nr.: /223-V01 For an in depth evaluation and discussion of all combined verification items it should be referred to the protocol (Annex). The annex also includes all CARs, CRs and FARs if any (Table 2) Project Category The project activity is a coal mine methane capture and utilisation project. Thus, it clearly qualifies for the following marked eligible project category: Renewable energy [wind, PV, solar thermal, biomass, liquid biofuels, geothermal, run-of-river hydro] Industrial energy efficiency End-use energy efficiency Fuel switch from fossil to fossil or non-agricultural waste gas Waste gas capture and destruction (recovery) from non-agricultural industrial processes (N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, SF 6 ) Waste gas capture from municipal waste and municipal wastewater treatment (CH 4 &N 2 O) Fugitive emissions capture/recovery Summary regarding the VCS criterion #1: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Geographic Location Details of the project location have been provided in section of this report. The project location was confirmed during the validation of the project. Furthermore the location was visited during on-site visit and is still at the same place. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #2: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion #2. Page 13 of 52

14 P-Nr.: /223-V Eligible GHGs The following marked GHG gases are considered for this project activity: GHG GWP Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 1 Methane (CH 4 ) 21 Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) - Hydrofluorocarbons - (HFCs) Perflourcarbons (PFCs) - Sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) - The objective of the project is to cover and utilise coal mine methane. CO 2 is considered as project emissions in this project activity. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #3: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Project Start date During the validation of the project the starting date was confirmed by the validator to be in March of 2006 and thus after January 1 st, Summary regarding the VCS criterion #4: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion #4. Page 14 of 52

15 P-Nr.: /223-V Emission Reduction Start date Emission reductions for this project were considered from the projects starting date (see 4.4) on. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #5: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Public Funding and Grants No public funding, grants or ODA is involved in this project activity. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #6: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Project Boundary / GHG Assessment Boundary The project s spatial and system boundaries were clearly defined in the validated PDD. It encompasses the physical and geographical site of the methane recovery facility and the utilisation units. The project boundary and the GHG assessment boundary incorporate all primary effects and significant secondary effects. As the project boundary does not overlap with any upstream or downstream facilities any danger of double counting is avoided. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #7: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). Page 15 of 52

16 P-Nr.: /223-V01 All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Calculation Methodology The key parameter power output was measured by calibrated meters meeting the requirements of the German Weights and Measures Act. The quality of the installed direct CMM volume flow rate measurement can only be estimated. To ensure the conservativeness the obtained values were only considered for plausibility check. The calculations of the emission reductions are basically simple. The used parameters, such as density or calorific value of the methane are literature values. The estimation of the electrical efficiency of the CHP plant is conservative regarding the danger of over-estimation of emission reductions. The most important monitoring data power output is transmitted by a remote data transmission system. The meter readings were checked for plausibility by the responsible personnel of Mingas-Power GmbH and Lambda GmbH. The natural gas consumption is measured by the supplier Stadtwerke Hamm with calibrated meters for the volume flow and NCV. These data are recorded in the invoices. The natural gas consumption figures were converted into electrical energy, using the assessed efficiency factor of the plant. This value is deducted from the sold electricity. As the sold electricity is the key for calculating the CH 4 amount, the amount of methane which comes from the CMM is thus reduced as well. The approach is validated and is assessed to be. The aggregated data were checked by the verification team by spot samples on the level of the 15 min values and the records of the meter readings from the operational journal and the invoices from Stadtwerke Hamm w.r.t the natural gas consumption. The calculations of the baseline and project emissions as well as the emission reductions were checked by the verification team using own spread sheets. Regarding the calculation 2 Corrective Action Requests and 1 Clarification Request were raised. For details please consider Table 2 in the Annex to this report. All findings are closed out and the calculation and the monitoring report were corrected accordingly. Page 16 of 52

17 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Summary regarding the VCS criterion #8: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Secondary Effects During validation as well as the previous verifications of the project it was confirmed that the project causes no unintended GHG emissions. The intended emissions (baseline and project emissions) are covered in the project boundary. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #9: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Project Additionality The project s additionality was justified during the validation of the project. The project participants have chosen the CDM additionality tool in the version applicable at the time of validation (i.e version 1, Annex 1, EB16). Thus the additionality determination is in compliance with option B of VCS criterion 10. The opinion of the validation team regarding the additionality of the project is: The project is additional to everything that would otherwise occur, because: the project generates a significant amount of emission reductions (ERUs) and creates only minor environmental impacts. without consideration of revenues from carbon credits there would have been considerable investment barriers that very likely would have affected the realisation of the project. This was clearly shown by the additionality test which was assessed as feasible and transparent. evidence was provided to the validation team that benefits from the Kyoto mechanisms were seriously considered when the decision to start the project activity was taken. Page 17 of 52

18 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Summary regarding the VCS criterion #10: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Quality of Reductions The operation of the project is permitted by the German Government. The project holds all necessary licenses (also environmental) for the operation. This was evidenced during validation and also during 1 st verification of the project and found. Summary regarding the VCS criterion #11: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. No FARs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion # Monitoring Process The project proponents have submitted to TÜV NORD a monitoring report addressing all relevant monitoring issues, an emission reduction calculation Excel sheet and supporting documents, such as meter readings and invoices. All documentation was duly assessed by the verification team. This assessment included the monitoring system, the GHG data management, the control and reporting systems, the personnel qualifications and other relevant criteria. It was verified that the employed monitoring procedures support complete, accurate and conservative VCU estimates. The monitoring in general is in accordance with the validated monitoring plan. Only slight deviations were detected and are also displayed in the monitoring report. The deviations are of minor importance and have no impact on the overall monitoring and calculation of the emission reduction of the project. Page 18 of 52

19 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Summary regarding the VCS criterion #12: No CARs were raised. No CRs were raised. No FARs were raised. All raised CARs were closed out (see annex table 2). All raised CRs could be resolved (see annex table 2). The project complies with VCS criterion #12. As all applicable VCS critera 1-12 are assessed to be met, the project is in line with the Voluntary Carbon Standard version 01. Page 19 of 52

20 P-Nr.: /223-V01 5 EMISSION REDUCTIONS The VCS ver. 1 requires an annual GHG related breakdown of emission reductions. The following results have been verified (table 5-1). The below mentioned amount of CH 4 is destroyed within the project activity. The CO 2 equivalents are a result of the mathematical product of the amount of CH 4 with (difference between the GWP of CH 4 (21) and the conversion factor from CH 4 to CO 2 (2.75)). Table 5-1: Emission reductions Baseline emissions: CO 2 [t CO 2 ] CH 4 [t CH 4 ] N 2 O [t N 2 O] HFCs [t HFC] PFCs [t PFC] SF 6 [t SF 6 ] Sum [t CO2e] , ,651 Project emissions: CO 2 [t CO 2 ] CH 4 [t CH 4 ] N 2 O [t N 2 O] HFCs [t HFC] PFCs [t PFC] SF 6 [t SF 6 ] Sum [t CO2e] , , , ,133 Emission reductions: CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O HFCs PFCs SF 6 Sum [t CO 2 ] [t CH 4 ] [t N 2 O] [t HFC] [t PFC] [t SF 6 ] [t CO2e] TOTAL: 18, Total emission reductions are rounded down as a conservative approach. Page 20 of 52

21 P-Nr.: /223-V01 6 VERIFICATION OPINION The scope of this verification covers the determination of voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions generated by the above mentioned project. The verification is based on the submitted Monitoring report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project participant. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP herewith confirms that the verification has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the VCS 1 esp. w.r.t. transparency (as per para. 2.7) and meets the requirements of the Voluntary Carbon Standard Verification Protocol. As a result of the verification, the verifier confirms that: The project activity is in line with all applicable criteria of the VCS version 01. all operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described in the project design document. The monitoring system is in place and functional. The installed equipment essential for generating emission reductions runs reliable and is calibrated appropriately. the GHG emission reductions are calculated without material misstatements in a conservative and appropriate manner. The project has achieved emission reductions in line with the requirements of the VCS 1 in the monitoring period as stated in chapter 5. Essen, Eric Krupp Rainer Winter Verification Team Leader Final approval Page 21 of 52

22 P-Nr.: /223-V01 7 REFERENCES Table 7-1: Reference /MR/ Documents provided by the project proponent Document Final Project Design Document for JI project Utilization of Coal Mine- Methane Radbod V, submitted December 2005 Monitoring Report Utilization of Coal Mine-Methane Radbod V for the period 2006 March 01 to 2007 December 31, submitted June 2009 /TÜV1/ Measurement Report of net efficiency: Bericht über die Wirkungsgradbestimmung an dem Grubengas BHKW-Modulen der Mingas- PowerGmbH; /VAL/ /XLS/ Validation Report issued by RWTÜV / TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP, dated Emission reduction calculation in connection with the Monitoring Report Utilization of Coal Mine-Methane Radbod V for the period 2006 March 01 to 2007 December 31, submitted in June 2009 Table 7-2: Reference /CPM/ /GHG/ Background investigation and assessment documents Document TÜV NORD JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms) Greenhouse Gas Protocol for Project Accounting /GWP/ Applicable global warming potentials derived from /KP/ Kyoto Protocol (1997) /MA/ /III.D/ Decision 16/CP.7 (Marrakech Accords): Guidelines for the implementation of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol Indicative simplified baseline and monitoring methodologies for the smallscale CDM project activity category III.D. Methane Recovery (AMS III.D.) version 8 (March 3 rd 2006) Page 22 of 52

23 P-Nr.: /223-V01 Reference Document /VCS/ Voluntary Carbon Standard ver. 1 /VVM/ IETA, PCF Validation and Verification Manual (V. 4) Table 7-4: List of interview persons Reference MoI 1 Name Organisation / Function /IM01/ V Mr. Ms. /IM02/ V Mr. Ms. /IM03/ T Mr. Ms. /IM04/ V Mr. Ms. /IM04/ V Mr. Ms. Kummer van Egeren Mr. Hadulla Barnekow Brandt Steag Energy Center H.G.S. Operation Engineer Carbon TF Project Consultant Steag GmbH Technician measurement devices Mingas-Power GmbH 1) Means of Interview: (Telephone, , Visit) Page 23 of 52

24 P-Nr.: /223-V01 ANNEX Verification Protocol (acc. to VCS 1.0) Page 24 of 52

25 ANNEX: VERIFICATION PROTOCOL Table 1: Verification Checklist (Customized based on VCS version 01 4 ) #1: Project Category Criterion: Emission reduction project types eligible under the VCU Verification Criteria are listed below, divided into categories for the benefit of project developers and certification entities: 1. Renewable energy [wind, PV, solar thermal, biomass, liquid biofuels, geothermal, run-of-river hydro] 2. Industrial energy efficiency 3. End-use energy efficiency 4. Fuel switch from fossil to fossil or non-agricultural waste gas 5. Waste gas capture and destruction (recovery) from non-agricultural industrial processes (N 20, HFCs, PFCs, SF 6) 6. Waste gas capture from municipal waste and municipal wastewater treatment (CH 4 &N 20) 7. Fugitive emissions capture/recovery 1.1 Is the eligibility of the project category and the discussion and determination of the project category transparent? Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify that the Project directly avoids or displaces greenhouse gas emissions from an Endorsed Project Category and shall clearly state in the Verification Report which project category the reduction belongs to. The project activity is a coal mine methane capture project. Thus it clearly qualifies for the following marked eligible project category: Renewable energy [wind, PV, solar thermal, biomass, liquid biofuels, geothermal, run-of-river hydro] Industrial energy efficiency End-use energy efficiency Fuel switch from fossil to fossil or non-agricultural 4 Page 25 of 52

26 1.2 Does the project consist of several sub project activities which meet the VCS Verification Criteria? /VCS/ waste gas Waste gas capture and destruction (recovery) from non-agricultural industrial processes (N 20, HFCs, PFCs, SF 6) Waste gas capture from municipal waste and municipal wastewater treatment (CH 4 &N 20) Fugitive emissions capture/recovery The project is a single project and does not consist of sub projects. There is no double counting of emission reductions, as ERUs cannot be generated before 2008 and the displacement of power from EU- ETS plants is not considered for emission reduction calculation. #2: Geographic Location Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria recognizes projects from any geographic location. Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify, through site visits that at the stated geographic location there are working physical components, installed facility and emission reduction monitoring equipment corresponding to the actual Project disclosed in the project documents made available to the Verification Entity. 2.1 Are the project location and it s spatial boundaries (geographical) clearly defined. In the Verification Report, the Verification Entity shall include documented evidence of a site visit confirming existence of the stated Project at the stated location. The details of the project location are given in the following table: Parameter Host country: Region Project Germany Value Northrine-Westphalia An den Fördertürmen Page 26 of 52

27 location address Hamm 2.2 Is the existence of the physical components of the project activity verified for the stated location? /IM04/ Site visits were carried out as stated above. The existence of the project as given in the PDD and the monitoring report can be confirmed. 2.3 Has the project been implemented as planned and described in the PDD? /MR/ /IM04/ The project has been fully implemented and has started electricity production in March #3: Eligible GHGs Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria acknowledges emission reduction projects involving any of the six greenhouse gases currently included in the Kyoto Protocol. Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify that the Project Activity contributes to reductions in the emissions of one or more of the following six Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases: 1. Carbon dioxide (CO2); 2. Methane (CH4); 3. Nitrous oxide (N2O); 4. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); 5. Perflourcarbons (PFCs); 6. Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). In the Verification Report, the Verification Entity shall state the volume of emission reductions for each of the six greenhouse gases separately. The Verification Entity shall further verify and state that the current IPCC published GWP factor has been used for non-co2 gases. 3.1 Are all relevant GHG considered for the project activity? /VCS/ The following marked GHG gases are considered for this project activity: Page 27 of 52

28 3.2 Have the current IPCC GWP values been applied? /GHG/ GHG GWP Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 1 Methane (CH 4 ) 21 Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) - Hydrofluorocarbons - (HFCs) Perflourcarbons (PFCs) - Sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) - /GWP/ As the purpose of this project is methane avoidance, the gases CH 4 and CO 2 are considered. The GWP values for CO 2 and CH 4 as stated in the table in 3.1 has been applied. #4: Project Start Date Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria acknowledges emission reduction projects that have started on or after January 1 st, Verifier s Action: Entity shall verify, through examination of company documents and records that the Start Date of the Project which generated the emission reductions was on or after January 1 st Verification Entity shall also verify that completion of installation works does not contradict with the dates of generation of emission reductions in the monitoring report. 4.1 Is the project s starting date clearly evidenced? /VAL/ 4.2 Does the emission reduction starting date contradict with the project s starting date? /VAL/ The project s starting date is in March 2006 which is after This was evidenced during validation of the project No, the emission reduction starting date does not contradict with the project s starting date. In accordance with VCS the project start date is Page 28 of 52

29 #5: Emission Reduction Start Date Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria acknowledges emission reductions which have been generated after January 1, The Standard acknowledges only existing emission reductions, i.e. reductions that have already happened given as the date on which the emission reduction began. Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify, through examination of company documents, records, and monitoring reports that the emission reductions occurred on or after January 1, In the Verification Report, the Verification Entity shall clearly state the volume of emission reductions generated in each calendar year separately. 5.1 Has evidence been provided, that the emission reductions occurred on or after January 1 st 2000? The emissions reductions have occurred during the monitoring period (i.e. 1 st March st December 2007) 5.2 Have the verified emission reductions already happened? /MR/ The emission reductions have taken place in the monitoring period as mentioned in the monitoring report and in this verification report. Future emission reductions have not been certified. 5.3 Are the volumes of the emission reductions certified separately for each calendar year? Yes, the amount for the calendar year 2006 (March-December) and 2007 (January to December) is certified. Page 29 of 52

30 #6: Public Funding and grants Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria only accept projects where no public funding or official development assistance has been employed in the project activity or those elements of the project activity that lead to emissions reductions. Where public funding has been used in conjunction with commercial financing, only emissions reductions associated with that portion of the project that has been financed on purely commercial terms shall be eligible to be certified as VCUs. 6.1 Does the project use any public funding, grants or official development assistance ( ODA ) for construction or running operations in any of the geographic locations of the project activity? #7: Project Boundary/ GHG Assessment Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria require that the project boundary shall encompass all anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the control of the project participants that are significant and reasonably attributable to the project activity. /IM03/ Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report that the Project has not employed any Public Funding, grants or Official Development Assistance ( ODA ) for construction or running operations in any of the geographic locations of the Project Activity. Where a combination of public and private funding has been employed the Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification report that VCUs have only been generated form that portion of the project that has been financed on purely commercial terms. Verification should be performed through examination of financial records, management interviews, and where necessary, interviews with representatives of the relevant entities or organizations providing development assistance in the respective project locations. No public funding has been employed in the project activity. The only element of the project activity that could be defined as official development assistance is the benefit from the Act on Granting Priority to Renewable Energy Sources (EEG). Within this law, the price for the supply of energy to the grid is fixed for a certain time period. Therefore, and to avoid double counting with credits from the EU-ETS (EUA), the displacement of electrical power was not considered for emission reduction. Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report that the project boundary and GHG Assessment Boundary incorporates all primary effects and significant Secondary Effects, and that the requirements for defining the GHG assessment boundary (as defined in the GHG-PP) have been met. Page 30 of 52

31 Boundary 7.1 Are the project s system (components and facilities used to mitigate GHG s) boundaries clearly defined? Verification Entity shall also make sure that the Project Boundary does not indirectly overlap with up- or downstream facilities. In particular, Verification Entity shall disallow any downstream energy efficiency projects in jurisdictions which have mandatory GHG emission caps on the electricity sector. Yes, the projects system boundaries are explained in the PDD. This has also been verified during onsite interview. 7.2 Does the project boundary and GHG Assessment Boundary incorporate all primary effects and significant secondary effects, as per the requirements for defining the GHG assessment boundary (as defined in the GHG- PP)? 7.3 Has it been verified, that the project activity does not overlap with up- or downstream facilities in order to avoid double counting. 7.4 Is only one project boundary defined for all Project Activities in order to avoid double counting? (As per GHG Assessment Boundary is defined in Sec 2.5 and Chapter 5 of the GHG-PP? #8: Calculation Methodology Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria requires that: A. Where possible, the project proponents shall use calculation methodologies that have been approved by the CDM Executive Board for determining emission reductions for the specific The project boundary and GHG assessment boundary incorporate all direct and indirect GHG baseline and project emissions. The nonconsideration of leakage is well justified in the PDD In order to avoid any double counting of emission reductions, the displaced electricity produced is not considered in the emission reduction calculation. Thus there is no influence on the EU- ETS The project is a single project activity. No other projects are part of this project activity. Thus double counting of emission reductions is very unlikely regarding this issue. Verifier s Action: A. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report, if applicable, that the project proponent has used calculation methodologies that have been approved by the CDM Executive Board for estimating the volume of emissions Page 31 of 52

32 Project type. Where an existing approve ethodologyion methodology is not applicable in its entirety, project proponents may use combinations of approved methodologies. B. In situations where an existing CDM Executive Board methodology is not available in its entirety or as a combination of existing approved methodologies, the project proponent shall clearly illustrate how the Project baseline was identified and emission reductions calculated. The proponent may use a performance standard or best practice approaches to determine the baseline emissions and calculating the emissions reductions, as described in the GHG PP. reductions generated from the Project, and that those methodologies have been correctly and accurately applied in calculating the total emissions reductions generated by the respective Project. This includes, but is not limited to, stating in the Verification Report the following: Identification of Baseline Candidates; Determination of a Baseline Scenario; Definition and calculation of Baseline Emissions; Definition and calculation of project emissions; and Calculation of project emission reductions. In case the project has earlier been verified for delivery of VCUs, the Verification Entity shall point out differences in the baseline between the current and any earlier verifications. The baseline shall not remain fixed between two verification periods In such cases where the Calculation Methodology consists of a combination of approved methodologies, the Verification Entity shall clearly verify: which approved methodologies have been used ;and, methodologies have been used accurately and transparently in combination. B. If a CDM Executive Board approved methodology has not been used the Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report that the Project Activity has applied a methodology equivalent to the approved CDM methodology Verification Entity shall then verify and state in the Verification Report that the requirements, as defined by the GHG PP for the following criteria have been met: It uses the Performance Standard approach to calculate the baseline emissions in the absence of the project activity; All the appropriate Baseline Candidates have been identified and their GHG emissions rates drawn from public references; An appropriate Stringency Level has been selected for the performance standard; All Primary and Significant Secondary Effects have been incorporated into the project s GHG Assessment Boundary (see Page 32 of 52

33 Is an approved CDM methodology or a combination of approved methodologies applied in the project activity? In case it is please provide name(s) and version(s). In case no approved methodology has been applied: Is the methodology applicable and been correctly applied? Are the GHG calculations documented in a complete and transparent manner? Have conservative assumptions been used to calculate project GHG emissions? /VCS/ /VAL/ /XLS/ /TÜV1/ secondary effects criterion below); The calculation of emission reductions is accurate and fairly stated. As the project is a CMM project activity on an abandoned mine, no approved CDM methodology is applicable for this kind of project. Nevertheless, the calculation methods (as well as baseline setting and demonstration of additionality) were carried out transparently and are clearly given in the PDD. The methodology given in the PDD is applicable and applied correctly as stated in the valildation report of the project All calculations are documented in the emission reduction spreadsheet handed over to the verification team. Furthermore the underlying rationale is clearly described in the PDD. The output approach was taken for calculation of the emission reduction, as it is the more conservative approach. Assumptions regarding the electrical efficiency were necessary. All assumptions can be assessed as conservative. The electrical efficiency was measured by an accredited independent organisation and the results show that the real efficiency is significantly lower than the assumption. The calculations of the emission reductions are basically simple. The used parameters, such as Page 33 of 52

34 #9: Secondary Effects 9.1 Have the most relevant and likely operational characteristics and baseline indicators been chosen as reference for baseline emissions? Are the baseline boundaries clearly defined and do they sufficiently cover sources and sinks for baseline emissions? Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria require that secondary effects be incorporated into the calculation methodology in accordance with the WBCSD GHG PP. Have secondary effects been identified? In case yes, which? density or calorific value of the methane are literature values. The natural gas consumption figures were converted into electrical energy, using the assessed efficiency factor of the plant. This value is deducted from the sold electricity. As the sold electricity is the key for calculating the CH 4 amount, the amount of methane which comes from the CMM is thus reduced as well. The approach is validated and is assessed to be. PDD gives the most relevant and likely operational characteristics, methodological choices and equations used for calculating baseline emissions. The baseline boundary is clearly defined. All GHG sources are sufficiently covered. GHG sinks are not applicable. Verifier s Action: Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report that the project s GHG Assessment Boundary is in compliance with the ones indicated in the project documents. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report that the GHG Assessment Boundary incorporates all primary effects and significant Secondary Effects. In March 2007 an additional natural gas supply pipe has been installed to overcome lacks of methane. Due to the testing period in 2007 the NG consumption was comparatively high. The natural gas consumtion has been considered in Page 34 of 52

35 the emission redcution calculation accordingly. While calculating the emissions from natural gas an efficiency of 35 % has been applied. As per PDD the value of 37 % need to be considered. CAR #10: Project Additionality Have the secondary effects been duly accounted for in a conservative and transparent manner? Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for determining secondary effects? Are the secondary effects covered as defined by the WBCSD GHG Project Protocol (Sec 2.4) as unintended changes caused by the project activity in GHG emissions associated with a GHG Source? Criterion: The VCU Verification Criteria requires that the projects from which emission reductions are created pass an additionality test. Through the Additionality Test the project proponent shall show that mitigation measures result in a real reduction in greenhouse gases against a transparent emissions baseline. Project additionality shall be determined based on one of the four (A-D) additionality tests described herein. Based on today s knowledge, no other secondary effects were identified. The non-consideration of leakage was well justified in the PDD. Please refer comments made under 9.1 Please refer comments made under 9.1 Please refer comments made under 9.1 Verifier s Action: A. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification Report that there is clear evidence that each of the following three requirements of the Additionality Test have been met by the project. 1. The project is not common practice. Provision of underlying service or product with the project technology does not exceed 51% in the defined market area. Business-as-usual technology options are clearly defined and their position on the market proven by official Statistics. 2. The project is not required by regulation Page 35 of 52