PDD 3276

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM Executive Board
page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006 CONTENTS A. B. C. D. E. General description of project activity Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology Duration of the project activity / crediting period Environmental impacts Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information Annex 4: Monitoring plan
page 2
SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1 Title of the project activity:
Ventanilla Conversion from Single-cycle to Combined-cycle Power Generation Project CDM-PDD Version 3 6 October 2009
A.2.
Description of the project activity:
The project activity converts two open-cycle gas turbine of 160 MW each into a combined-cycle facility that adds approximately 180 MW of generating capacity to Perus electric power grid with minimal incremental additions to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In the near future, the project activity will allow for the displacement of existing relatively high GHG emitting generating units of equivalent capacity that are supplying the grid, for scheduled maintenance and/or to conserve costly imported fuel. Over the long term, the facility will continue to displace fossil fuel-generated grid-based electricity and may also delay the need to construct additional generating capacity, depending on the countrys growth in electricity demand. The Project will have a total installed capacity of 500 megawatts (MW), generating on average approximately 3,942 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity annually. The Project is expected to displace 407,296 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year, which will amount to 2,851,070 tCO2e for the first crediting period of 7 years, generating the equivalent amount of emissions reductions (ERs). The Project will convert two Siemens V84.3A combustion gas turbines to combined-cycle. The original gas turbines started commercial operation in 1998. The main new equipment used for this conversion consists of two heat recovery steam generators with additional burners, one steam turbine Siemens KN SST6-5000 of 179MW, one condenser, two cooling towers and one generator of 230 mega volt amp (MVA). The spatial extent of the project boundary is the Peruvian national grid (SEIN). The Project will be connected to the SEIN through the Ventanilla substation located at the project facility. The Project contributes to sustainable development by: creating -- both directly and indirectly -- jobs, businesses and local services;1 generating additional electric energy without increasing fossil fuel consumption, and hereby reducing CO2 emissions; leading to a decrease in energy tariffs by providing high efficiency thermal energy while displacing more expensive generation and reducing GHG emissions; increasing the national power generation capacity while catalyzing new industrial and mining projects, which together will contribute to the overall development of the country; contributing to Perus national revenue through the payment of taxes; helping Peru improve its hydrocarbon trade balance through a reduction of oil imports used for electricity generation while saving natural gas on the Peruvian reserves; and, transferring new technology as this Project will be the first large combined-cycle power facility in Peru, and as such represents the most advanced thermal generation technology in the country.2
During its development stage, the Project is expected to create an average of 330 direct jobs with a peak of 720 jobs. In addition, the development and construction stage is expected to make a strong impact on the area, at both the local and municipal levels.
page 3
A.3.
Project participants: Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants(*) (as applicable) EDEGEL S.A.A. ENDESA Carbono S.L.. Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (Yes/No) No No
Name of Party involved (*) ((host) indicates a host Party):
Peru (host) Kingdom of Spain
(*) In accordance with the CDM modalities and procedures, at the time of making the CDM-PDD public at the stage of validation, a Party involved may or may not have provided its approval. At the time of requesting registration, the approval by the Party(ies) involved is required. Note: When the PDD is filled in support of a proposed new methodology (forms CDM-NBM and CDM-NMM), at least the host Party (ies) and any known project participants (e.g. those proposing a new methodology) shall be identified.
A.4.
Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):
Republic of Peru A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:
Region of Lima/ Province of Callao/ District of Ventanilla A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:
The power plant is located in a sparsely populated, hilly area of the district of Ventanilla, on a land owned by the Project Developer, EDEGEL. The nearest human settlements, which are several hundreds of meter away, are Parque Porcino, Mariano Ignacio Prado, 18 de Octubre, and Cooperativa Huerta Virgen de las Mercedes. The first of these settlements is mainly dedicated to raising pigs, the second and third are very poor villages located close to the river Chillon, and the last one is also a poor village located next to the landfill of the Municipality of Callao. Together, these four settlements amount to a population of around 7,000. A.4.1.4. Detail of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): The power plant of Ventanilla is located on Del Bierzo Avenue, in the district of Ventanilla, province of Callao, region of Lima. It is located on the right bank of the Chillon River, at a site called Pampa de los Perros. The power plant is located at about the 5 km mark on the highway to Ventanilla (a.k.a., Nestor Gambeta Avenue) and is set at 50 m above sea level. The coordinates of the Project are: Latitude 11o 5115 South. Longitude 77o 0727 West.
2
The technology provider, Siemens Westinghouse, will provide training to highly skilled local workers in the implementation and operation of advanced gas treatment and gas turbine electricity generation technologies in Peru and internationally. 9000 hours will be spent by workers in such training. Equivalent levels of training will be provided for the maintenance and operation of heat recovery steam generators and ancillary facilities, as well as the steam turbine electricity generating unit.
page 4
Figure 1: Map of the Project Site
District of Ventanilla Ventanilla CC Power Plant
PERU
Project sponsor property
Chillon River
6 KM
Scale
Location Map
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity: Energy industries (1) Renewable/non-renewable sources A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity: The Project will add several components to the two natural-gas fired Siemens V84.3A combustion gas turbines3 of 160 MW each to produce additional electricity, taking advantage of the energy content in the heat from the turbine exhaust gas (551 grades Celsius). Use of the otherwise wasted heat in the turbine exhaust gas results in high thermal efficiency compared to other combustion-based generation technologies. This efficiency is expected to reach 53.8% or higher. The main components of the additional equipment are: two Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) with steam boilers, designed to capture heat from the two gas turbine exhausts and produce steam; supplementary burners included in each HRSG in order to increase the heat, produce more steam and consequently increase the power capacity of the steam turbine; one Siemens KN SST6-5000 steam turbine of 180 MW powered by the steam produced in the HRSGs; one condenser to transform the used steam to water by cooling it with a cooling water circuit;
In year 2004, Due to the arrival of natural gas from the Peruvian Camisea field Ventanilla power plant was switched over to natural gas.
page 5
two cooling towers to cool the water from the cooling circuit; one generator of 230 MVA; and, one 16/250 kV step-up transformer that belongs to the existing facility.
Steam turbines - like most other thermal generation technologies - require process or feed water. In the case of the Project, this is for the purpose of producing steam. At Ventanilla the used steam leaving the steam turbine is condensed and pumped back to the HRSGs to be reused as feed water. Water from water wells close to the Chillon River at 150 m from the project site, is used to condense the used steam and is itself cooled in an evaporative cooling tower. The cooling water forms a partially closed system, with a make-up raw water stream being added to replace evaporative losses, and a blow-down stream being used to irrigate surrounding areas to keep the dissolved solids in the cooling water below a concentration where solids would precipitate out in the cooling tower. A diagram of the Ventanilla Combined-Cycle Thermal Plant is shown below.
Figure 2: Ventanilla Combined-Cycle Thermal Plant Diagram
Ventanilla Combined Cycle Power Plant

Steam Cycle Gas Cycle
Cooled exhausted gases Steam Turbine Water circuit Exhaust gas Generator Heat Recovery Steam Generators
Siemens gas turbines

Fuel Air
Water Condenser
Water circuit Cooling Water circuit
Turbine
Compressor Generator
Cooling Towers
Combustor
A.4.4
Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:
page 6
It is estimated that the Project will generate 407,296 tCO2e of ERs annually, with a total of 2,851,070 tCO2e expected during the initial 7-year crediting period. The Projects estimated annual ERs over the 7-year crediting period are as follows:
Table 1: Estimated Annual ERs
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total estimated reductions (tons of CO2e) Total number of crediting years Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tons of CO2e)
Annual estimation of emissions reductions in tons of CO2e 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 2,851,070 7 407,296
A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity: The Project has not received any type of public funding or public financial assistance. SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: Approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0007, Baseline methodology for conversion from singlecycle to combined-cycle power generation (Version 03, Sectoral Scope 01, 2 November 2007). B.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity:
The Project is a conversion from single-cycle to combined-cycle power generation and meets all the conditions stated in the Baseline Methodology. The applicability conditions are: when project developers utilize previously-unused waste heat from a power plant, with a single-cycle capacity, be it a gas turbine or an internal combustion engine and utilize the heat to produce steam for a turbine thus making the system combined-cycle; when waste heat generated on site is not utilizable for any other purpose on-site; where the project activity does not increase the lifetime of the existing gas turbine or engine during the crediting period (i.e. this methodology is applicable up to the end of the lifetime of existing gas turbine or engine, if shorter than crediting period); where project developers have access to appropriate data to estimate the combined margin emission factor, as described in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, of the electricity grid to which the proposed project is connected.
page 7
Justification: The two gas turbines of Ventanilla that have been operating since 1998 have never used the waste heat of the exhaust gas or any other type of waste heat. In the Ventanilla facility, there has not been any other alternative use for the waste heat. The two gas turbines of Ventanilla have not received any modification to increase their lifetime. The project is connected to the national grid. The dispatch in the national grid is managed by the national dispatch center (COES), which has enough good information and appropriate data to estimate the combined emission margin factor as described in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary
B.3.
The project boundary covers the sources and gases contained in the table below:
Table 2: Sources and Gases within the Project Boundary
Source Gas CO2 CH4 N2O On-site fossil fuel consumption to operate project power plant in open-cycle mode On-site fossil fuel consumption to operate the gas turbine or engine of project power plant. On-site fossil fuel consumption to supplement waste heat in operating steam turbine. CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O CO2 CH4 N2O Included Excluded Excluded Included Excluded Excluded Included Excluded Excluded Included Excluded Excluded Justification / Explanation Main emission source. Excluded for simplification. This is conservative. Excluded for simplification. This is conservative. An important emission source Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. An important emission source Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small. May be an important emission source Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small Excluded for simplification. This emission source is assumed to be very small.
The spatial extent of the project boundary is the Peruvian national grid (SEIN). The Project will be connected to the SEIN through the Ventanilla substation located at the project facility.
Project Activity
Baseline Scenario
Baseline: Grid electricity generation
page 8
B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario: According to the methodology ACM0007 , the baseline scenario is identified by using the latest approved version of the Combined Tool to Identify the Baseline Scenario and Demonstrate Additionality, adopted by the CDM Executive Board and available at the UNFCCC CDM web site. In applying the tool, realistic and credible alternatives should be separately determined regarding how power would be generated in the absence of the CDM project activity. In evaluating the identified alternative baseline scenarios for their compliance with applicable regulations in the framework of the Combined Tool, the following regulations has been taken into account, inter alia: Regulations for utilization of waste heat on the premises where it is generated; Regulation on energy efficiency norms for power projects; and Emission norms for power projects.
When the current practice condition (to continue the operation in open-cycle) is assessed, the future estimated load factor should reflect the changes due to new conditions in the grid, analyzing the last plants that have been incorporated in the grid. In the investment analysis, the revenue generated from the increase in electricity produced from the open-cycle component is included. The Project can apply the ACM0007 methodology because it fulfils the condition that the baseline scenario is the continuation of the current practice. In other words, in the absence of the proposed project activity, in order to meet the demand in the grid system electricity will be generated by: the existing power plant in open-cycle mode; the existing grid-connected power plants; and the addition of new generation sources to the grid.
In the absence of the Project, electricity would have continued to be produced by the existing gas turbines in open-cycle mode and the hot exhaust gases would be vented to the atmosphere. There is no other use for the waste heat at the Ventanilla plant and the nature of this resource is that it cannot be transported over long distances or stored in some way. The warm climate in the host country precludes the use of waste heat for such things as district heating or greenhouses, and in any case, there are no appropriate buildings in the vicinity. There are no other technologies currently available that could use the waste heat; therefore, in the absence of the project activity, the heat would be exhausted to the atmosphere. Electricity requirements that would have been met by the project activity would be met from existing power plants on the grid and by the addition of new generating sources on the grid. Consequently, the only alternative to the project activity is grid generation, including operation of the existing gas turbines in open-cycle mode, which is the baseline. ACM0007 specifies that the Project mainly reduces CO2 emissions through the substitution of power generation supplied by the existing sources connected to the grid and likely future additions. The project emission reductions in any year is the difference between the baseline emissions displaced in the year, the project emissions during the year and any emissions due to leakage during the year. Baseline emissions are emissions from existing generation sources, including emissions from grid electricity generation, plus those from operating the existing gas turbines in open-cycle mode.
page 9
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):
CDM consideration of the project The CDM component of the project was considered in the early stages of the project. Since year 2003, this project was identified by ENDESA (Main shareholder of the project sponsor- EDEGEL) as a CDM project and was mentioned in a report made by Eco-securities in year 2003 that analyzed the CDM potential project portfolio of ENDESA. In the same year, ENDESA also informed to the Spanish Office for Climate Change about this CDM project and decided to provide funding for the CDM application of the project for the next year. In year 2004, as a request of ENDESA, EDEGEL received a proposal for a CDM consultant company to provide services aim to get the CDM registration of the project but the decision to hire a consultant company was left in standby. For the project sponsor company, EDEGEL, the CDM was a main issue in the investment decision and they want to ensure its CDM registration without taking risks. So first, the company decided to wait until a methodology for this type of project appears. This occurred on November 28, 2005 (Methodology for conversion from single cycle to combined cycle power generation --- Version 1). However, by that date, EDEGEL, has a smaller project in Peru, the Rehabilitation of the Callahuanca Hydroelectric Power Station that also was considered a CDM project for the company. So, the company decided to go in parallel with both projects but with the idea that the smaller project go first to registration in order to take advantage of the experience and reduce registration risks for the main project. (Ventanilla) However, the registration process of Callahuanca took a lot of time. After a long process of selecting a CDM consultant company and prepare the PDD, the PDD of Callahuanca was open for comments the 26 of November 2006 as part of its validation process. Some methodological problems appeared and the project finally was registered in January 2008. Immediately after the success of this registration and with the experience gained, EDEGEL decided to start the validation of Ventanilla and after two months, (March 27, 2008),the project was open to comments in the UNFCCC web page as part of the validation process. In Annex 5 of this PDD there is further Information regarding the CDM consideration of the project and it continues effort to secure the CDM registration Project implementation time line 1. June 2004: It was signed the EPC contract with Siemens for the equipments of the combined cycle. 2. January 2005: The first shipment departure from Houston and arrived to Lima in the same month 3. In February 2005: It was started the civil Works for the foundations of the first boiler, the steam turbine, generator and condenser. 4. In April 2005: The assembly of the first boiler (HRSG 1) began. 5. In May 2005: The transformer, the generator and the transformer for the auxiliary services arrived to Lima. 6. In August 2005: It was started the civil Works for the foundations of the second boiler (HRSG 2). 7. In September 2005: The assembly of the generator for the steam turbine and the cooler system structure began. 8. In October 2005: The assembly of the second boiler (HRSG 2) began. 9. On July 4 2006: The first phase of the project was completed. This is that one of the two exiting gas turbines (TG3) started to work in combined cycle. 10. On September 19 2006: After the completion of the construction of the second boiler or HRSG 2, the second exiting gas turbine (TG4) started to work in combined cycle together with TG3.
page 10
The Combined Tool to Identify the Baseline Scenario and Demonstrate Additionality, Version 02.2, is applied to the Project through the following steps to identify the baseline scenario and simultaneously demonstrate additionality: Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios Step 2: Barrier analysis Step 3: Investment analysis Step 4: Common practice analysis Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios Sub-step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity The alternative scenarios available to the Project Developer were: 1) the continuation of the current situation (no expansion of the existing open-cycle plant); 2) the addition of a new open-cycle plant to the grid; and, 3) the proposed project activity, i.e. conversion to combined-cycle, not undertaken as a CDM project activity. No other alternatives provide outputs comparable to, or compatible with, the proposed CDM project activity4. The existing two open-cycle plants of Ventanilla have been profitable generation plants. Continuation of the current situation is, therefore, very likely as an alternative scenario to the Project. The addition of a new opencycle power plant to the grid is also a possibility. The conversion to combined-cycle, on the other hand, while it has been an available option, faces a number of barriers as a first-of-its-kind project and also is not the most economically attractive option, as demonstrated in the next steps of this tool. Sub-step 1b: Establish consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations The identified alternatives are in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements, including the Electric Concession Law5 (ECL) with its modifications and regulations. Several articles in the ECL, including the following, imply that the alternatives described above are valid and realistic options: (a) Article 1: Electricity generating activities can be developed by any person or legal entity, i.e. private companies, whether they are Peruvian nationals or foreigners, as long as the legal entities are incorporated under Peruvian laws; (b) Article 3: A concession is required for the development of hydropower or geothermal power plants6 if their installed capacity is greater than 20 MW. In this case, the Project requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study in accordance with the Legislative Decree No. 757; (c) Article 4: An authorization is required to develop fossil fuel-fired power plants with an installed capacity greater than 500 kW, and for hydropower and geothermal power plants if their installed capacity is less than or equal to 20 MW; (d) Article 6: The concessions and authorizations can be granted by Perus Ministry of Energy and Mines (MINEM);
Renewable energy, as hydroelectric power plants, is not an alternative for the proposed project activity since it is not comparable in terms of the availability of facilities and the scope of decision. The Conversion to combined cycle will be developed in the existing facilities of the project sponsor as well as the alternative of a new open cycle power plant of similar capacity. Furthermore, the decision is also related to take more advantage of the availability of natural gas. This is not possible for a renewable project.
5 6
Ley de Concesiones Elctricas (Ley No. 25844) As of today, geothermal generation is non-existent in Peru. The Geothermal Law (Law 26848) was approved in July 1997.
page 11
(e) Article 7: Electricity generating activities that do not require a concession or authorization can be developed freely, provided they comply with technical standards and adhere to conservation of environmental quality and cultural heritage. The developer of such activities should inform the MINEM of their project and its technical characteristics; and, (f) Article 9: The Peruvian Government seeks to preserve the environmental quality and cultural heritage of the country, as well as the rational use of natural resources in the development of activities related to generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. (g) Article 38: It is an obligation to present an Environmental Impact Assessment study in the cases of thermo electric projects with a power capacity of more than 10 MW. The overarching environmental legislation for the alternatives and the Project itself is the Supreme Decree 02994 on Environmental Protection in Electrical Activities. Regarding the utilization of waste heat on the premises where it is generated, or regarding energy efficiency, Peru has no relevant regulations. Regarding emissions, the relevant regulation is the Regulation on National Standards for Air Quality, which was approved by a Supreme Decree of the Presidency of the Ministerial Council (D.S. 074-2001-PCM). None of the identified alternatives contradicts any legal or regulatory requirements, or poses a risk to do so in the future. Moreover, none of them breaches technical standards or governmental objectives supporting environmental and cultural conservation. Therefore, they are all deemed to be realistic and credible alternatives available to the Project Developer. Step 2: Barrier Analysis Sub-step 2a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternative scenarios Investment barriers: The recent discovery and availability of substantial natural gas reserves in Peru, accompanied by a regulatory and policy framework actively favoring its use, has led to a situation where existing thermal plants are increasingly switching to natural gas and any new additions to the grid are built as natural gas-fired open-cycle thermal plants. Many existing thermal plants that had not been operating for a while due to high fuel oil prices started operating again and dispatching power with high load factor, thanks to the switch to low cost natural gas, making these plants very profitable while delaying decisions to invest in new plants. However, as energy demand grew, new additions had to be built, but all were open-cycle plants, given the higher cost of installing combined-cycle technology or converting to combined-cycle. With natural gas prices in Peru being so low, building the new plants as open-cycle or switching to natural gas are the most profitable options. Conversion to combined-cycle is only economically attractive if fuel prices are expensive enough to compensate for the higher investment cost and risk associated with combined-cycle plants through increased efficiency. This will be demonstrated in Step 3: Investment Analysis. In addition, as explained under the next barrier, conversion to combined-cycle is a first-of-its-kind in Peru, facing a number of technological barriers and risks. The table below shows the composition of the most recent additions since the widespread availability of natural gas. It is evident that there are no combined-cycle plants, and there are only two hydroelectric power plants, one of them is a registered CDM project (Callahuanca) and the other is applying for CDM registration.
Table 3: Recent Additions to the SEIN Effective Installed Capacity (MW) 121.3 Date of Commissionin g 01/06/2005
Power Plant Santa Rosa Westinghouse
Unit TG7
Type Open-cycle Turbo Gas
Comments Switch to natural gas from Camisea
page 12
Callahuanca Yuncan Santa Rosa UTI 5 & 6 Chilca TG1 Chilca TG2
G1, G2,G3
Hydro Hydro
7.5 130 109 176 176
04/07/2005 01/12/2005 01/09/2005 01/06/2006 01/08/2006 01/12/2006 01/06/2007 01/06/2007
Upgrade. Registered CDM project. CDM candidate. Switch to natural gas from Camisea New plant using natural gas from Camisea New plant using natural gas from Camisea New plant using natural gas from Camisea
UTI 5, UTI 6 TG1 TG2 TG1
Kallpa TG1
Open-cycle Turbo Gas Open-cycle Turbo Gas Open-cycle Turbo Gas Open-cycle Turbo Gas
168
Source: COES /OSINERG
Technological barriers: As the first combined-cycle power plant in Peru, this Project faces a series of barriers associated with the lack of technical skills in building, operating and maintaining such a plant and associated equipment. As a result, extensive training of personnel was seen as necessary; therefore, the Project Developer signed a contract with SIEMENS for the supervision and training of workers in building and operating the new plant. In addition, local workers will have to travel to other countries to learn more about this new technology. Experts and advisors from Germany, USA, Chile and Argentina will also visit Peru to transfer their know-how to the local workers. In total, 9000 hours will be spent in training. In sum, the Project is expected to take nearly two years to complete due to the challenges brought on by the new technology. Lack of prevailing practice: The project activity is the first-of-its-kind in Peru. There are no similar facilities in Peru, hence, there is no body of experience in the construction or implementation of such a project. Moreover, the Project Developer does not have prior experience in constructing and operating a combinedcycle power plant. Given this lack of experience with the technology, potential problems are to be expected in the construction and operation of the plant, such as possible delays, cost over-runs, and reduced production. Sub-step 2b: Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers The identified barriers faced by the Project will not prevent the non-project alternatives: the continuation of the current situation (no expansion of the existing open-cycle plant), which is Alternative 1, and the addition of a new open-cycle power plant to the grid, which is Alternative 2. Open-cycle thermal power plants have been operating in Peru for decades. After natural gas became widely available, the most prominent thermal plants switched to natural gas and started dispatching large amounts of electricity, not only because of the low price of gas but also to meet the rapidly growing energy demand. Policies favouring investment in natural gas-fired generation have promoted the commissioning of new thermal plants, and none of these were conversions to combined-cycle because of the barriers explained above. Step 3: Investment Analysis This step determines, through an investment analysis comparison, which of the alternatives remaining after Step 2 is the most economically or financially attractive. To be more conclusive, this analysis also includes Alternative 3 (the conversion to combined-cycle not undertaken as a CDM project activity, which is the proposed project activity) although it was a not remaining alternative of step 2. If the investment analysis is conclusive, the economically or financially most attractive alternative scenario is considered to be the baseline scenario. If the sensitivity analysis is not conclusive, then the alternative to the project activity with the least emissions among all the alternatives is considered to be the baseline scenario. Perception of high risk given Perus political instability7 and economic dependence on international commodities prices8 prompts the Project Developer to use indicators that measure project returns in order to
7 The recent history of Peru in the last 40 years is rife with examples of political instability. From 1968 to 1975, Peru was governed by a military regime that expropriated large chunks of land, mining operations, and basic services such as energy distribution and
page 13
assess the economic feasibility of alternative scenarios. The selected financial indicator is internal rate of return (IRR): The IRR is the annualized effective compounded return rate, which can be earned on the invested capital, i.e. it is the yield on the investment. When used as a measure for ranking, IRR has the advantage that it does not depend on the size or scale of the project, hence, it provides a clearer picture of "bang-for-the buck". Alternative 1, the ccontinuation of the current situation, without an expansion of the existing open-cycle plant, would likely have been the baseline scenario. The existing open-cycle plant dispatched electricity with a high load factor. Therefore, continuation of the current situation was economically attractive for the Project Developer without any risk and without any investments, all the while meeting the growing demand for electricity. Consequently, it was highly likely that the Project Developer would choose the continuation of the current situation alternative. This scenario does not have any associated financial indicators, such as an IRR or a project investment cost, since it does not involve any investment. Therefore, this alternative is not considered in the investment analysis. For Alternatives 2, the addition of a new open-cycle power plant to the grid, and 3 the conversion to combinedcycle not undertaken as a CDM project activity, i.e. the proposed project activity, calculations of the project investment costs and IRRs are undertaken below to demonstrate which is not the most attractive option to generate electricity, and therefore, not the baseline scenario.
IRR Calculation IRR Calculation for Alternative 2: the addition of a new open-cycle power plant to the grid
Table 4: Assumptions Used in the IRR Calculation for Alternative 2 Variable (Unit) Turbine generation capacity (KW) Load factor for the first year (Maturity period) Load Factor Operation and Maintenance Costs (US$/MWh) Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas BTUs/MWh 10 yr. Annual Depreciation Value 180,000 70% 90% 4.0 8,638,332.86 Source Size equivalent to combined-cycle steam turbine of Alternative 3 Project Developer Load factor of a new open cycle power plant. Cross checked with COES COES Calculated with the power plant fuel requirement formula. Source: World Bank World Bank. Greenhouse Gas Assessment Handbook. September 1998. Page 24. Annual Depreciation 10 year for Machinery and Equipment. In Chapter IV article 22 of the Guidelines for the Law of the Income tax it is established that Machinery and equipment are depreciated at the rate of 10%
7,708,403
production. From 1985 to 1990, the government of the APRA party, which is currently in power, expropriated the Peruvian banks. Between the 1980s and early 90s, Peru was in a civil war with the terrorist group, Shining Path, which among other acts of terrorism, destroyed the energy infrastructure. Finally, during the last presidential elections of 2006, the preferred candidate of the nationalist party declared himself as a sympathizer of the Peruvian military regime, as well as of the current Venezuelan government of Hugo Chaves, both of which have supported the expropriation of private investments. This candidate also expressed his willingness to expropriate some basic assets he considered as necessary.
8
Natural resources account for more than 70% of total exports in Peru, and this dependence typically creates boom and bust cycles, in line with the swings in the international commodity prices.
page 14
Investment Cost per MW (US$) Construction Time Project Lifetime General Assumptions Electric tariff Energy (US$/KWh) Firm Power (US$/KW-month)
428,245 1 year 30 years
per year. (This means 10 years) (http://www.sunat.gob.pe/legislacion/renta/re gla/index.html) Cross checked with quotation from Siemens Project Sponsor Project Sponsor
0.024 9.215
Cost of Natural Gas (US$/1000,000 BTU) Income Tax
1.746
30%
The project analyzed the regulated tariff published by OSINERG in its web page (http://www2.osinerg.gob.pe/gart.htm). To get this tariff the regulator develop a tariff study that consider a forecast analysis in the electric sector for the next 4 years, from November 2003 to October 2007. Therefore, the project sponsor considers this tariff as a reliable source of information. COES Estudio Tcnico de Determinacin de Precios de Potencia y Energa en Barras para la fijacin tarifaria de Noviembre del 2003. July 14,2003. Page 17. The 30% income tax is established in Chapter VII Article 55 of the Unique Ordered text of the Law of the Income tax. (http://www.sunat.gob.pe/legislacion/renta/le y/capvii.htm)
Based on the above assumptions, total investment required for adding a new open-cycle power plant is US$ 77,084,028 with an IRR of 19.091%. IRR Calculation for Alternative 3: the conversion to combined-cycle not undertaken as a CDM project activity (i.e. proposed project activity)
Table 5: Assumptions Used in the IRR Calculation for Alternative 3 Variable (Unit) Steam Turbine Generation Capacity (KW) Load factor for the first 2 years (Maturity period) Load Factor Operation and Maintenance Costs (US$/MWh) Fuel Consumption of Natural Gas BTUs/MWh 10 yr. Annual Depreciation Amount 180,000 70% 90% 2.1 907,061 15,658,040 Project Developer Project Developer Project developer and COES9 Project Developer Annual Depreciation 10 year for Machinery and Equipment. In Chapter IV article 22 of the Guidelines for the Law of the Income tax it is established that Machinery and equipment are depreciated at the rate of 10% per year. (This means 10 years) (http://www.sunat.gob.pe/legislacion/renta/r egla/index.html) Project developer Based on quotations Source
Investment Cost per MW (US$)
869,891
Calculation is in the IRR spreadsheet of the combined cycle alternative and is based in COES information.
page 15
Construction Time Project Lifetime
2 years 20 years
Project developer According to the manufacturer, gas turbines have a lifetime of 30 years. However, as the existing turbines of Ventanilla are already 10 years old, the remaining lifetime is 20 The project analyzed the regulated tariff published by OSINERGMIN in its web page (http://www2.osinerg.gob.pe/gart.htm). To get this tariff the regulators develop a tariff study that considers a forecast analysis in the electric sector for the next 4 years, from November 2003 to October 2007. Therefore, the project sponsor considers this tariff as a reliable source of information. COES Estudio Tcnico de Determinacin de Precios de Potencia y Energa en Barras para la fijacin tarifaria de Noviembre del 2003. July 14,2003. Page 17. The 30% income tax is established in Chapter VII Article 55 of the Unique Ordered text of the Law of the Income tax. (http://www.sunat.gob.pe/legislacion/renta/le y/capvii.htm)
General Assumptions Electric tariff Energy (US$/KWh) Firm Power (US$/KW-month)
0.024 9.215
Cost of Natural Gas (US$/1000,000 BTU) Income Tax
1.746
30%
Based on the above assumptions, total investment required for converting to a combined-cycle steam turbine is US$ 156,580,403 with an IRR of 15.44% The resulting financial indicators of the two alternatives are juxtaposed below:
Table 7: IRR and Project Investment Cost Comparisons of Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternative IRR Project Investment Cost
new open-cycle gas turbine conversion to combined-cycle steam turbine
19.1 15.4 %
428,245 US$/MW 869,891 US$/MW
As evident from the above comparison of the financial indicators, Alternative 2 is more attractive economically and financially than Alternative 3 because: 1. The investment cost of the conversion to combined-cycle is much higher than that of a new open-cycle gas turbine; 2. Conversion to combined-cycle takes two years of construction while adding a new open-cycle gas turbine takes only one year; and,
page 16
3. The availability of low cost natural gas, dont allow relative expensive investment cost of high efficiency plants, as combined cycle power plants, being attractive. Conversion to combined-cycle is only economically attractive in places where fuel prices are expensive enough to compensate for the higher investment cost and risk associated with combined-cycle plants through increased efficiency10. The results of the investment analysis, plus the barriers explained above under Step 2, makes Alternative 3, the conversion to combined-cycle, unattractive to the Project Developer without the assistance from the CDM. The prospect of CDM revenues was crucial for the decision to invest in the Project since this would improve the financial indicators while fulfilling the corporate policy of the Project Developer to support the CDM. Sensitivity Analysis for the IRR A sensitivity analysis has been conducted in order to assess whether the conclusions regarding financial attractiveness are robust to reasonable variations in the critical assumptions. The variables selected for the sensitivity analysis are the price of natural gas, the investment cost, the electricity tariff , the load factor and the O&M cost. These are the most important variables for the Project Developer, on which to base its investment decision. The IRR has been tested for sensitivity to changes in the values of the variables mentioned above. The idea is to find the values that the Combined Cycle alternative start to be as same attractive to the Open Cycle alternative Table 8 shows changes in the investment and load factor to reach similar IRR for both alternatives. Analysis 1 is referred to the level of change need in the variables of the Open cycle alternative to reach the IRR of 15.4 of the Combined Cycle Alternative; while analysis 2 is referred to the level of change need in the variables of the Combined Cycle alternative to reach the IRR of 19.1% of the Open Cycle Alternative:
Table 8: Sensitivity Analysis Results for the IRR. Changes in investment and load factor
Analysis 1:Changes in the variables of the Open Cycle alternative to reach the IRR of 15.4%of the Combined Cycle Alternative Open Cycle Alternative changes Investment Load factor O&M Cost +14.3% -24.0 % +100% Investment Load factor O&M Cost Analysis 2:Changes in the variables of the Combined Cycle alternative to reach the IRR of 19.1% of the Open Cycle Alternative Combined Cycle Alternative changes -24.5% +32.0% There is no change in the value of O&M Cost that would help CC alternative to reach the IRR of the open cycle alternative
Contrary to table 8, that each variable change only for one alternative at the time (because are independent of each other), in Table 9, the change in each variable affects at the same time the two alternatives. The purpose of
10
There are several newspaper articles that mention that the low price of natural gas in Peru has not allowed the investment in high efficiency power plants and hydroelectrics. Two articles about this were provided to the DOE. One is an interview in the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio to the ex-director of Inter-American Development Bank . This interview is important because this bank was involved in the financing or the exploitation of the natural gas of Camisea. The other article of the same newspaper is an interview to a Peruvian energy expert.
page 17
this analysis is to see at what level of change in the variables the combined cycle alternative becomes more attractive than the open cycle.
Table 9: Sensitivity Analysis Results for the IRR. Changes in price of natural gas and Energy tariff
Analysis 3:Changes in the variables of both alternative to reach a same IRR Change in the variable for both alternatives Price NG Energy Tariff +27.5% -18.4% IRR level for both alternative after the change in the variable 15.28% 12.76%
Sensitivity to the Investment Cost Variable: The investment cost of the open cycle alternative should be incremented in 14.3% in order to start to be less competitive than the Combined Cycle alternative. This scenario is very remote because, there is not only a quotation that demonstrates the price level established in the analysis, but also is not expected a bigger price since in the project location exits all the facilities for an open cycle thermal plant operation. (Transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, trained workers in the technology etc). In the other hand, Analysis 2, the Combined Cycle alternative should decrease its investment in 24.5% to be as profitable as the open cycle alternative. This is impossible because all costs have been based in quotations and as the time pass by, real deals confirmed the quotations. Sensitivity to the Load Factor: The Load factor of the open cycle alternative should be reduced by 24.0% in order to start to be less competitive than the Combined Cycle alternative. This scenario is very remote because, in Peru, a new natural gas-fired turbine can reach a high load factor due to a high efficiency relative to existing thermal plants in the grid. This high load factor is around 90%. As a prove of this , there is a new open cycle thermal plant that entered in operation in year 2007, Chilca I, and the dispatch center reported a load factor of more of 85%. It is expected that this load factor will increase until 90% in year 2008. This new thermal gas is comparable to the open cycle alternative since is a gas turbine thermal plant fed with natural gas of Camisea of similar size and technology. In the other hand, Analysis 2, the Combined Cycle alternative should increase its load factor in 32.0% to be as profitable as the open cycle alternative. This is impossible because with this increment the load factor of the project will overpass by far the load factor of 100%. Sensitivity to the O&M Cost: : The O&M cost of the open cycle alternative should be incremented by 100% in order to start to be less competitive than the Combined Cycle alternative. This scenario is very remote because this cost was based to an official published O&M cost11. In the other hand there is not reduction in the value of O&M of the combined cycle alternative that would help it to reach the IRR level of the open cycle alternative. Sensitivity to the Price of Natural Gas: . This variable is critical because the conversion to more efficient combined-cycle makes economic sense when fuel prices are high. It is necessary a 27.5% increase in natural gas prices to become the Combined Cycle alternative as same as attractive as the open cycle alternative. However, this possibility is remote because natural gases prices are regulated by law12 and not only impede important increments in the price but also give a cheaper tariff for electricity generation. Besides, the price of
11 12
Annual statistics of COES year 2003 .O&M cost of Ventanilla in open cycle. Ley de Promocin del Desarrollo de la Industria del Gas Natural. Ley N27133.
page 18
natural gas never reach an increment of 27.5 % and is not expected to increase more since the cost of gas transportation is getting lower as more consumers use natural gas13 Sensitivity to the Electricity Tariff: The sensitivity analysis indicates that if the tariff is reduced by 18.4%, the conversion to combined-cycle would become more attractive than the open-cycle alternative. This is because the marginal cost of producing electricity is lower in the combined-cycle alternative due to its superior efficiency. The open cycle alternative marginal cost is higher due to its direct dependence in fuel consumption while the combined cycle alternative almost not uses fuel. However, the possibility of the tariff going down by 18.4% is not probable since governmental projections expect a stable price at current levels. If the tariff goes up, the open cycle alternative always remain more attractive that the combined cycle power plant. Conclusion of the Sensitivity Analysis: In summary, the sensitivity analysis confirm the results of the IRR analysis: Alternative 2, the addition of a new open-cycle power plant to the grid, is a more attractive investment option that Alternative 3, the conversion to combined-cycle not undertaken as a CDM project activity, which is the proposed project activity. Therefore, two alternatives are candidates for the most likely scenario: Alternative 1, the continuation of the current situation, or Alternative 2, the addition of a new open-cycle power plant to the grid. While Alternative 2 seems to be more attractive than Alternative 1, it still involves a new investment and, therefore, faces certain associated risks which Alternative 1 does not. In addition, there are no financial indicators with which to compare Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 since the former does not involve any investment, making it difficult to ascertain which of the two would have been the baseline. In order to resolve this problem, a conservative approach is adopted whereby the baseline scenario corresponds to the alternative that would emit less GHGs than the other. The emission factor for Alternative 1, the continuation of the current situation, is the emission factor of the grid since the electricity demand that would have been met by the project activity would be met from existing power plants on the grid, plus the neew capacity additions. The emission factor for the grid is calculated in section B.6.3. to be 0.45381 tCO2/MWh. The emission factor for Alternative 2, the addition of a new open-cycle generation power plant to the grid, is calculated as follows, based on the simple operating margin (OM) method, using option B2 of the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, Version 1, page 7, equation 4:
EF =( EFCO2*0.0036)/( *1000) = (56,100*0.0036)/ (39.5%*1000) = 0.511 tCO2/MWh. EF

EFCO2 = = = CO2 emission factor of the new open-cycle gas turbine (tCO2/MWh) Average CO2 emission factor of natural gas per unit of energy (kgCO2/TJ) = 56,10014 Average net energy conversion efficiency of new open cycle gas turbine of natural gas = 39.5% 15
13
As more users use the gas of Camisea the fixed transportation cost are shared among more users and therefore the tariff for natural gas transportation to each user is getting lower. Source: Peruvian Newsletter Mercado Energia, May 2, 2008. laterhttp://mercadoenergia.com/mercado/2008/05/02/precios-de-tarifas-electricas-se-reducen-hasta-en-7-y-precio-del-gasnatural-baja-5.html
14 IPCC default values as provided in table 1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories. 15
Default value for power plant newer than year 2000. Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, Version 1, UNFCCC.
page 19
0.0036
Conversion of MWh to Terajoules
Since the emission factor of Alternative 1, which is 0.45381 tCO2/MWh, is lower than that of Alternative 2, which is 0.511 tCO2/MWh, then the baseline scenario for the project is deemed to be Alternative 1, the continuation of the current situation. Step 4: Common Practice Analysis In Peru, there are no other existing projects or those that are underway that might be considered similar or comparable to the project activity. The Ventanilla Conversion from Single-cycle to Combined-cycle Power Generation Project is the first of its kind in the country. Since similar activities cannot be observed, the proposed project activity is deemed to be additional16. B.6. Emission reductions: B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: The Approved Consolidated Methodology, ACM0007, Version 3, was chosen as applicable to the Project, which is the conversion of an open-cycle power plant into a combined-cycle power plant. This baseline methodology shall be used in conjunction with the approved consolidated monitoring methodology, ACM0007 (Monitoring Methodology for Conversion from Single-cycle to Combined-cycle Power Generation). The Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, Version 1, EB 35, has been chosen per guidance in ACM0007 to estimate the combined margin emission factors of the electricity grid to which the project is connected. Emissions Reductions: As per AMC0007, the following equation will be applied to estimate ERs: where: ERy= BEy - PEy - Ly ; ERy are the emissions reductions due to the project activity during the year y in tCO2; BEy are the baseline emissions due to displacement of electricity during the year y in tCO2; PEy are the project emissions during the year y in tCO2; and, Ly are the leakage emissions during the year y in tCO2. Project Emissions: ACM0007 states that project emissions (PEy) include emissions from the use of fossil fuel to operate the gas turbine or engine (PEGTy) and emissions from the use of supplementary fossil fuel used in order to operate the steam turbine (PESTy). The project emissions of the combined cycle conversion are thus represented by the formula:
16
If we observe Table 16 that was taken from COES, the dispatch center, there is a list of al thermal plants in Peru and there is only one thermal power plant that declares having a combined cycle technology. However, this power plant is neither comparable nor similar to this project for the following reasons: 1) It has other scale, the power capacity of that power plant is around 19.5 MW. The proposed project activity has a power capacity of 490MW. 2) It has an old technology not comparable to the one of the project (More than 26 years old). Therefore, its efficiency is only 29% while the proposed project will have an efficiency of 53.8% or higher. 3) It is a technology for diesel; the proposed project is Natural gas.
page 20
PEy = PEGTy + PESTy PEGTy = PESTy = where: FGTi,y is the amount of fuel i (in a mass or volume unit) consumed to operate the gas turbine or engine in year y; FSTj,y is the supplementary fuel j (in mass or volume units) consumed in Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) to operate the steam turbine in year y; NCV is the net calorific value (energy content) per mass or volume unit of the fuel used; and, EFCO2 is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel used. Baseline emissions: According to ACM0007 the baseline scenario is the following: electricity would be generated by the operation of the power plant in open-cycle mode, and by grid-connected power plants. The baseline emissions for year y (with assumption made regarding the baseline situation) are calculated as follows: BEX,y = (EFOC *OGX,y ) + (EFgrid,y * (PGy - OGX,y )) where: EFOC is emission factor for the plant operating in open-cycle mode in tCO2/MWh; OGX,y electricity generated by the open-cycle in the baseline, in MWh; PGy is the actual electricity generated by Project in year y, in MWh; and, EFgrid,y is the CO2 emission factor for the electricity displaced due to the project activity during the year y in tCO2/MWh. Since more than one fuel is used in the internal combustion engine, diesel and natural gas, the baseline calculation will assume the emission factor of the less intensive carbon fuel that has been used before or after project implementation, which is natural gas. Step 1: Estimate the electricity generated by the open-cycle in the baseline, OGX,y OGX,y is estimated by two different ways: (i) amount of baseline power generation assuming historical data; and (ii) amount of baseline power generation calculated assuming load situation of project power plant. (i) Amount of baseline power generation assuming historical data OGH,y = HGOC HGOC is the average net annual generation in MWh from the operation of the power plant in open-cycle mode based on five years of generation records prior to start of the Project. If five years data is not available, then data for the highest number of complete years available should be used, with a minimum of three full years. (ii) Amount of baseline power generation calculated assuming load situation of project power plant where: OGP,y = OC/PC * PGy
FGTi,y * NCVi * EFCO2,i FSTj,y * NCVj * EFCO2,j
where:
page 21
OC is the net power generation capacity17 of the open-cycle gas turbine or engine in MW, before the project activity; PC is the net installed power generation capacity of the Project in MW, including both the open-cycle plus the steam turbine capacity; and, PGy is actual electricity generated by Project in year y in MWh. Step 2: Estimate the emissions factor for the electricity generated in open-cycle mode in the baseline, EFOC: EFOC, the emissions factor for the open-cycle mode generation in the baseline is estimated from the historical performance of the plant when it operated in open-cycle, using data for 5 years18 prior to the start of the Project, as follows: EFOC = FCHIST/ HGOC,x * NCV * EFCO2 where: FCHIST is the annual average fuel consumption of the open-cycle gas turbine or engine, in mass or volume units, estimated using data for five years prior to the start of the Project; HGOC,x is the average net annual generation from the operation of power plant in open-cycle mode based on x years of generation records prior to the start of the Project; NCV is the net calorific value, or energy content, per mass or volume unit of the fuel; and, EFCO2 is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel. Step 3: Determine the emissions factor for the operating margin, EFy The baseline emission factor (EFy) will be calculated as a combined margin (CM), following the guidance in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System. Step 4: Conservatively determine the baseline emissions, BEy The baseline emission BEy for year y is the lower value between the baseline emissions calculated on the basis of historical power generation, BEH,y, and the baseline emissions calculated based on the load factor of the project situation, BEP,y: BEy = Minimum { BEH,y; BEP,y} Leakage: The main emissions potentially giving rise to leakage in the context of the proposed project activity are: i.
ii.
CH4 leakage in production, transportation and consumption of increased quantity of natural gas consumed by the project activity; and, Emissions arising due to power plant construction.
According to ACM0007, the CH4 emissions can be ignored while applying this methodology, if project proponents demonstrate through estimation that these are a negligible fraction of baseline. Besides, construction-related emission sources do not need to be considered as leakage in applying this methodology. On regard of CH4 emissions, they are negligible for the following resons:
Net capacity is defined as gross capacity less auxiliary consumption of the plant. If five years data is not available then data for the most number of complete years available should be used, with a minimum of one full year.
17 18
page 22
1. The infrastructure for gas consumption was already built for the open cycle power plant. 2. Since the project activity use the residual heat of the exiting turbines, its gas consumption is marginal. Only for the supplementary burners included in each HRSG. This consumption represent an additional 11% and it was not necessary to modify the already installed infrastructure. 3. Monitoring record of CH4 leakages have been almost cero. Comparing this with the size of the emission reductions of the project becomes this value negligible. 4. The natural gas production was a national project, Ventanilla is only one consumer among severals, and there is a line of natural gas open cycle power plant planed or in construction. If Ventanilla no consume natural gas, other will replace it. Therefore the existence of Ventanilla not affects the production of natural gas. Besides the additional consumption due to the combined cycle project is very small to represent a main player in the natural gas consumption of the country.
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: NCV NG TJ/Gg Net Calorific Value of fuel, i.e. natural gas IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Default Value Value applied: 48 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment: NCVDiesel TJ/Gg Net Calorific Value of fuel, i.e. heavy fuel oil IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Default Value 43 -
EFCO2 tCO2/TJ CO2 emission factor for fossil fuel, i.e. natural gas IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Default Value 56.100 -
page 23
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment:
HGOC MWh average net annual generation from the operation of power plant in opencycle mode. COES 691,853.60 This is historical data based on the 3 years before the project activity. As historical data, it does not change in future. For calculating the Plant Load Factor for open-cycle. This is historical data based on the 5 years before the project activity. As historical data, it does not change in future. OC MW Net power generation capacity of the open-cycle gas turbine or engine (before the project activity) Installed power test conducted by COES 160 each turbine. 320 total. -
PC MW Net installed power generation capacity of the Project, including both the open-cycle plus the steam turbine capacity Manufacturer 500 -
FCHIST (Natural Gas) Tons Historic fuel consumption of the Project in open-cycle generation. Ministry of Energy and Mines statistics 143,794.07 -
Average fossil fuel (Natural Gas equivalent) consumption from the last 5 years.
Baseline emission parameters included in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System.
page 24
EFCO2,i,y and EFCO2,m,i,y tCO2/GJ CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories. Value applied: Diesel Oil = 72,600 Residual Fuel Oil = 75,500 Natural Gas = 54,300 Coal = 87,300 Justification of the choice The CO2 emission factor is used to calculate the CO2emission coefficients of data or description of of the power plants in the grid. Step necessary to find the baseline emission measurement methods and of the grid according to the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an procedures actually applied Electricity System. Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:
B.6.3
According to ACM0007, the spatial extent of the project boundary encompasses the power plant at the project site and all power plants connected physically to the electricity system to which the CDM project power plant is connected. ACM0007 is used for the ex-ante calculation of ERs from the Project; this ex-ante estimate is for illustrative purposes, as ERs will be monitored ex-post, according to the methodology. The Ventanilla Power Plant started its operations in 1998 and data have accumulated since then. Therefore, the baseline historic data is based on annual periods of 12 months starting on october 2001 and accounting for five complete years until September 2006. Emission Reductions: As per AMC0007, the following equation will be applied to estimate ERs: where: ERy= BEy - PEy - Ly ; ERy are the emissions reductions due to the project activity during the year y in tons of CO2; BEy are the baseline emissions due to displacement of electricity during the year y in tons of CO2; PEy are the project emissions during the year y in tons of CO2; and, Ly are the leakage emissions during the year y in tons of CO2. (a) Project Emissions: As detailed in Section B.6.1 the project emissions of the combined cycle conversion in Ventanilla are represented by the formula: PEy = PEGTy + PESTy PEGTy =
PESTy =
i
FGTi,y * NCVi * EFCO2,i FSTj,y * NCVj * EFCO2,j
where: FGTi,y is the amount of fuel i, in a mass or volume unit, consumed to operate the gas turbine in year y;
page 25
FSTj,y is the supplementary fuel j, in mass or volume units, consumed in the HRSG to operate the steam turbine in year y; NCV is the net calorific value, or energy content, per mass or volume unit of the fuel used; and, EFCO2 is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel used. For the purpose of the ex-ante calculations the following assumptions are considered: Assumption 1 on PEGTy: The ex-ante emissions estimation from the use of fossil fuel to operate the gas turbine (PEGTy) was estimated by first estimating FGTi,y. As the project facility will use only natural gas, the fuel consumption of the gas turbines was projected based on the expected load factor of the plant and the historical efficiency of the gas turbines. With this information, the plant fuel requirement formula was used to find the expected fuel consumption of natural gas. In the future the fuel consumption is going to be calculated ex-post with actual data.
Table 10: Ex- ante Calculation of the Fuel Consumption of the Gas Turbines Thermal Plant Ventanilla Technolog y Gas Turbine PFR/ MWh(2) 0.00973 Annual PFR/ MWh (TJ/year) 24,547 NCV (TJ/ton) 0.0480000 Annual Fuel Consumption (ton) 511,394.59
Fuel Natural Gas
Eficiency(1)
MWh(3)
37.00%
2,522,880
1. Source: Historic data 2. PFR per MWh = Plant Fuel Requirement formula per MWh =MWh*3.6*10^9/(NEC*10^12) 3. Load factor will be 90% when the combined-cycle is in operation.
Next, data from 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories was used to calculate the NCV and EFCO2 as follows:
page 26
Table 11: Calculations of NCV and EFCO2 Natural Gas NCV 48.00 Unit Tj/Gg Source 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Page 1.18 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Page 1.24
EFCO2
56.10
TCO2/Tj
Assumption 2 on PESTy: The ex-ante emissions estimation from the use of supplementary fossil fuel in order to operate the steam turbine (PESTy) was estimated based on information by the Project Developer and the specifications of the equipment. With these two assumptions, the project emissions from the combined-cycle conversion during the first crediting period were calculated and are summarized in the table below:
Table 12: Project Emissions from the Combined-Cycle Conversion Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PEy 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 PEGTy 1,377,083 1,377,083 1,377,083 1,377,083 1,377,083 1,377,083 1,377,083 PESTy 77,766 77,766 77,766 77,766 77,766 77,766 77,766 FGTi,y (tons) 511,395 511,395 511,395 511,395 511,395 511,395 511,395 FSTj,y 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 28,879 EFCO2 (tCO2/Tj ) 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10
(b) Baseline Emissions: According to ACM0007, the baseline scenario is the following: electricity would be generated by the operation of the power plant in open-cycle mode, and by grid-connected power plants. The baseline emissions for year y are calculated as follows: BEX,y = (EFOC *OGX,y ) + (EFgrid,y * (PGy - OGX,y )) where: EFOC is emission factor for plant operational in open-cycle mode in tCO2/MWh; OGX,y is the electricity generated by the open-cycle in the baseline; PGy is the actual electricity generated by Project in year y; and, EFgrid,y is the CO2 emission factor for the electricity displaced due to the project activity during the year y. Since more than one fuel have been used in the existing gas turbines, i.e. natural gas and diesel, the baseline calculation will assume the emission factor of the less intensive carbon fuel that has been used before or after project implementation, which is natural gas. Step 1: Estimate the electricity generated by the open-cycle in the baseline, OGX,y
page 27
(i)
Amount of baseline power generation assuming historical data OGH,y = HGOC HGOC is the average net annual generation from the operation of power plant in open-cycle mode based on five years of generation records prior to start of the Project.
Table 13: Average Annual Generation Calculation Year 1 Jul 01 Jun 02 Year 2 Jul 02 Jun 03 2,340 Year 3 Jul 03 Jun 04 151,870 691,897 Year 4 Jul 04 Jun 05 1,622,450 Year 5 Jul 05 Jun 06 1,664,467
where:
Annual Generation (MWh) Average Annual Generation (MWh)
18,358
Therefore, the net annual generation from the operation of power plant in open-cycle mode based on five years of generation records prior to start of the Project is: HGOC = 691,897 MWh (ii) Amount of baseline power generation calculated assuming load situation of project power plant where: OGP,y = OC/PC * PGy OC is the net power generation capacity19 of the open-cycle gas turbine or engine before the Project; PC is net installed power generation capacity of the Project including both the open-cycle plus the steam turbine capacity; and, PGy is actual electricity generated by Project in year y. The resulting calculations are as follows: OC = 320 MW PC = 500 MW PGy = 3,942,000 MW between the years 1- 7, assuming a capacity expansion of 180 MW, load factor of 90%, and 8,760 hours per year. Step 2: Estimate the emissions factor for the electricity generated in open-cycle mode in the baseline, EFOC : The emissions factor for the open-cycle mode generation in the baseline, EFOC, is given by the historical performance of the plant when it operated in open-cycle using data for 5 years prior to the start of the Project. EFOC is calculated as follows: EFOC = FCHIST/ HGOC,x * NCV * EFCO2 where: FCHIST is the annual average fuel consumption of the open-cycle gas turbine, in mass or volume units, estimated using data for five years prior to the start of the Project; HGOC,x is the average net annual generation from the operation of power plant in open-cycle mode based on x years of generation records previous to the start of the Project; NCV is the net calorific value, or energy content, per mass or volume unit of the fuel; and,
19
Net capacity is defined as gross capacity less auxiliary consumption of the plant.
page 28
EFCO2 is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel.
Table 14: Estimation of EFOC
1 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 2 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 3 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 4 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 5 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh)
Jul-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ago-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sep-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oct-01
246,124.00 0.00 946,314.35 3.26
Nov-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dic-01
496,566.00 0.00 1,909,230.84 5.68
Ene-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-02
819,322.00 0.00 3,150,185.14 9.41
Abr-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Total Year 1
6,005,730.33 18.358
Jul-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ago-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sep-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oct-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nov-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dic-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ene-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-03
196,287.00 0.00 754,697.65 2.34
Abr-03
2,156.00 0.00 8,289.54 0.00
May-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Year 2
762,987.19 2.340
Jul-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ago-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sep-03
2,558,084.00 0.00 9,835,495.94 3.58
Oct-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nov-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dic-03
18,488.00 0.00 71,083.92 0.22
Ene-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Abr-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-04
84,000.00 0.00 322,968.93 0.00
Jun-04
10,522,458.00 0.00 40,457,464.61 148.07
Total Year 3
50,687,013.40 151.870
Jul-04
11,031,147.00 0.00 42,413,306.79 160.41
Ago-04
7,847,877.00 0.00 30,174,053.05 110.44
Sep-04
3,879,252.00 34,938,585.00 49,853,797.82 143.10
Oct-04
502,853.00 39,059,519.00 40,992,922.53 146.35
Nov-04
0.00 43,615,523.00 43,615,523.00 151.11
Dic-04
0.00 29,962,065.00 29,962,065.00 105.93
Ene-05
0.00 33,815,156.00 33,815,156.00 110.87
Feb-05
0.00 26,144,367.00 26,144,367.00 84.34
Mar-05
0.00 32,542,254.00 32,542,254.00 111.35
Abr-05
0.00 33,573,422.00 33,573,422.00 115.14
May-05
0.00 57,010,771.00 57,010,771.00 216.17
Jun-05
0.00 43,962,761.00 43,962,761.00 167.24
Total Year 4
464,060,399.19 1,622.450
Jul-05
0.00 59,850,502.00 59,850,502.00 230.64
Ago-05
22,512.00 46,585,081.00 46,671,636.67 179.31
Sep-05
228,522.00 52,141,904.00 53,020,540.98 202.27
Oct-05
4,425.00 26,886,357.00 26,903,370.54 102.78
Nov-05
179,029.00 45,070,303.00 45,758,645.92 172.71
Dic-05
0.00 46,423,462.00 46,423,462.00 174.08
Ene-06
0.00 32,956,763.00 32,956,763.00 110.25
Feb-06
0.00 34,673,758.00 34,673,758.00 116.84
Mar-06
84,966.00 14,925,714.00 15,252,397.08 47.11
Abr-06
0.00 2,955,129.00 2,955,129.00 10.24
May-06
0.00 37,337,594.00 37,337,594.00 139.40
Jun-06
0.00 48,261,622.00 48,261,622.00 178.85
Total Year 5
450,065,421.19 1,664.467
Source: Annual statistics for electric sector. Ministry of Energy and Mines.
Table 15: Auxiliary Data for the Estimation of EFOC Natural Gas NCV EFCO2 48.00 56.10 0.74 0.84 3.18 3.84 Diesel 43.00 Unit Tj/Gg tCO2/Tj
For NG: kg/m3 For D2: Kg/litter
Source 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Page 1.18 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.. Page 1.24 World Bank. Greenhouse Gas Assessment Handbook. Sep. 1998. Page.135 Project Developer Project Developer
Density Density per gallon Equivalence of 1 gallon of diesel to 1 m3 of natural gas
kg/gallon
With these assumptions, the annual average fuel consumption of the open-cycle engine and average net annual generation from the operation of power plant in open-cycle mode based on x years of generation records prior to the start of the Project are summarized below:
FCHIST annual average in cubic meter of natural gas equivalent = 194,316,310.26 FCHIST annual average in tons of natural gas equivalent = 143,794.07 HGOC,x annual average MWh = 691,897.00
And the emissions factor for electricity generated in open-cycle mode in the baseline is:
EFOC = 0.560 tCO2/MWh Step 3: Determine the emissions factor for the operating margin, EFy: The baseline emission factor, EFy is calculated as a CM, following the guidance in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System. According to this tool, the baseline emission factor is calculated as the weighted average of the operating margin emission factor (EFOM,y) and the build margin emission factor (EFBM,y) where the weights wOM and wBM, by default, are 50% (i.e., wOM = wBM = 0.5). This is presented below:
page 29
Estimated anthropogenic emissions were calculated for the Project following a 6-step-process: Step 3.1: Identify the relevant electric power system. Step 3.2: Select an OM method. Step 3.3: Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method. Step 3.4: Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM). Step 3.5: Calculate the build margin emission factor. Step 3.6: Calculate the combined margin emissions factor. Step 3.1: Identify the relevant electric power system The project activity supplies electricity to the SEIN and is connected through the Ventanilla substation located at the project facility. Step 3.2: Calculate the operating margin emission factor Out of four options for the OM, the Dispatch Data Analysis OM (OM -DD) was selected. The Simple OM method cannot be used since low cost, must-run resources constitute more than 50% of total grid generation in Peru. Also, it was not necessary to use either the Simple Adjusted OM approach or the Average OM approach because detailed dispatch data is available. Step 3.3: Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method. The formula for the OM-DD emission factor (EFgrid,OM-DD,y) used was provided by the Tool as follows: EFgrid,OM-DD,y = hEGPJ,h*EFEL,h / EGPJ,y where, EFgrid,OM-DD,y is the dispatch data analysis operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y; is the electricity displaced by the project activity in hour h of year y; is the CO2 emission factor for power units in the top of the dispatch order in hour h of year y; is the total electricity displaced by the project activity in year y; is the number of hours in year y in which the project activity is displacing grid electricity; is the year in which the project activity is displacing grid electricity.
EGPJ,h EFEL,DD,h EGPJ,y h y
For this calculation, the hourly generation in 2006 was used, which was the most recent data available. At the time the Projects Baseline Study was completed, the hourly generation data did not yet exist for one entire year. Therefore, it was assumed that the Project operated at 88.2% capacity to be conservative, which is little less than the expected load factor of 90% of the Project, and dispatched equally during all hours of the year. Considering this assumption, the variables were defined as follows:
EGPJ,y is an approximation of the total electricity generated by the Project in 2006. It was calculated
by multiplying 90% of the installed capacity of the Project times 8760; and,
page 30
EGPJ,h is an approximation of the total electricity generated by the Project in each hour of 2006. It
was assumed the Project generated at 88.2% of its full installed capacity of 500 MW in each hour. As hourly fuel consumption data is not available, then the hourly emissions factor is determined based on the energy efficiency of the power unit and the fuel type used, as follows:
EFEL,DD,h = n EGn,h x EFEL,n,y / nEGn,h

where: EFEL,DD,h EGn,h EFEL,n,y n h is the CO2 emission factor for power units in the top of the dispatch order in hour h in year y; is the nNet quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit n in hour h; is the CO2 emission factor of power unit n in year y; is the number of power units in the top of the dispatch20; and, is the number of hours in year y in which the project activity is displacing grid electricity.
The following chart shows the EFEL,n,y of the all thermal units of the SEIN. Each emission factor has been calculated as per the guidance for the simple OM, using the option B2.
20
At each hour h, each power units generation should be stacked using the merit order. The group of power units n in the dispatch margin includes the units in the top x% of total electricity dispatched in the hour h, where x% is equal to the greater of either: (a) 10%; or (b) the quantity of electricity displaced by the project activity during hour h divided by the total electricity generation in the grid during that hour h.
page 31
Table 16: Emission Factors of Thermal Plants in the SEIN

Thermal Plants Emission Factors 2006
Thermal Plants ag_tg1 ag_tg2 bvista1 bvista2 calana123 calana4 ccomb Chil1 chi_slz12 chicl_o chiltv2 chiltv3 chimb cnp_mann cnp_slz dolores1 dolores2 ilo1catk ilo1tg1 ilo1tg2 ilo1tv1 ilo1tv2 ilo1tv3 ilo1tv4 ilo2_carb mal_tg1 mal_tg2 mal_tg3 mal_tg4 moll123 molltg1 molltg2 paita1 paita2 piura1 piura2 shcummins shou_tv1 shou_tv2 shou_tv3 sullana taparachi tg_piu truji tumbes uti_5 uti_6 westin yarinac AGUAYTIA 1 AGUAYTIA 2 BELL MAN 1,2 BELL MAN 1,2 CALANA 123 CALANA 4 C. COMBINADO CHILCA TG1 GAS SULZER CHILINA DS CHICLAYO OESTE-D TV2 CHILINA TV3 CHILINA TG1 CHIMBOTE DS PACAS-MAN DS PACAS-SULZER DOL ALCO 1-2 GM 1-2-3 DOL ALCO 1-2 GM 1-2-3 KATCATO (ENERSUR) TG1 ILO TG2 ILO ILO TV1 ILO TV2 ILO TV3 ILO TV4 TV CARBON ILO II TG1 TG2 TG3 TGN4 MOLLENDO 1,2,3 TGM1 MOLLENDO TGM2 MOLLENDO DS PAITA1 DS PAITA2 DS PIURA1 DS PIURA2 CUMMINS TV1 SHOUGESA TV2 SHOUGESA TV3 SHOUGESA DS SULLANA TAPARACHI TG PIURA TG TRUJILLO TUMBES TG S.ROSA UTI5 TG S.ROSA UTI6 TG WESTINGHOUSE Yarinacocha (5) Technology Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Combined Cycle Gas-Steam Gas Turbine Natural Gas Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Gas Turbine Diesel Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Coal Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Diesel 2 / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Gas Turbine Diesel Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Gas Turbine Diesel Diesel 2 / Residual Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Diesel 2 / Residual Fuel Natural Gas Natural Gas Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Residual 6 Residual 6 Diesel 2 Natural Gas Diesel 2 Residual 6 R500 R500 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 R500 R500 R500 R500 Coal Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas R500 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Residual 6 Residual 6 Diesel 2 R500 R500 R500 Diesel 2 Diesel 2 Residual 6 Diesel 2 Residual 6 Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Residual 6
m,y Real NECs (1)

31.00% 30.00% 37.00% 31.00% 40.00% 37.00% 29.00% 36.00% 42.00% 35.00% 21.00% 23.00% 25.00% 31.00% 36.00% 33.00% 33.00% 38.00% 30.00% 32.00% 35.00% 35.00% 34.00% 34.00% 41.00% 21.00% 22.00% 22.00% 28.00% 43.00% 30.00% 32.00% 35.00% 32.00% 37.00% 34.00% 40.00% 29.00% 29.00% 31.00% 34.00% 36.00% 26.00% 23.00% 43.00% 26.00% 26.00% 31.00% 43.00%
EFCO2 (2)
KgCO2/Tj 54,300 54,300 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 72,600 54,300 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 75,500 87,300 54,300 54,300 54,300 54,300 75,500 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 72,600 72,600 75,500 72,600 75,500 54,300 54,300 54,300 75,500
CO2 Emissions Factor (tCO2/MWh) (3) 0.631 0.652 0.706 0.843 0.680 0.735 0.901 0.543 0.622 0.777 1.294 1.182 1.045 0.843 0.726 0.792 0.792 0.688 0.871 0.817 0.777 0.777 0.799 0.799 0.767 0.931 0.889 0.889 0.698 0.632 0.871 0.817 0.747 0.817 0.735 0.799 0.653 0.937 0.937 0.877 0.769 0.726 1.045 1.136 0.632 0.752 0.752 0.631 0.632
(1) Source: COES. Estadistica de Operaciones 2005. Cuadro No 4.7. Eficiencia Termica % (2) See table 2 bellow
Table #2
EFco2 (Kg/Tj)
Type of Fuel
D2 72,600 Residual 75,500 Natural Gas 54,300 Coal 87,300
Source: IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of Chapter1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories (3) CO2 emission factor of power unit EF =( EFco2*0.0036)/(m,y*1000). Source: EB 35 , Annex 12, "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system Version 1.Page 7. Equation 4.
The information on the hourly generation of all plants in the SEIN21 and their associated emission factors was entered using Excel software and organized in columns where the position of the columns was determined by the monthly grid dispatch merit order22. This organization helped identify the plants that fall within the top x %
21 22
Data provided by COES. This was done by the merit orders assigned to each unit of the SEIN, as published by COES in its annual statistics.
page 32
of grid dispatch each hour of the year. In the ex-ante calculations, the quantity of electricity displaced by the project activity during hour h divided by the total electricity generation in the grid during that hour
h is greater than 10% so the percentage of the project activity over the grid generation is used to
determine the plants that fall within the top x % of grid dispatch each hour of the year. The resulting DDA-OM emission factor was calculated as follows: EOMy/ EGy =2,452,442/3,863,160 = 0.63483 tCO2//MWh Step 3.4: Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM) According to the Tool, the BM is defined as the generation-weighted average emission factor of either: (1) the 5 most recently built power plants (BM1), or (2) the most recently built power plants accounting for 20% of all power generation (BM2), whichever groups annual generation is greater. Both groups must exclude power plants that are registered as CDM projects. In terms of vintage of data, project participants have chosen option (2): For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor shall be updated annually, ex-post. Any additions to installed capacity in the SEIN were identified and considered. The table below shows the capacity additions to the SEIN, and their annual generation. The annual generation of the additions included in this table for ex-ante calculations is from 2006, which is the latest year that information was publicly available.
Table 17: Capacity Additions in the SEIN (1999-2006)
Plant Date Technology Installed Capacity Added (MW) 175.96 109.8 136.76 127.7 25.6 5.278 19.6 85.8 1.25 18.339 150.9 141.1 42.6 113.1 92.682 2006 total installed capacity 175.96 109.8 136.76 127.7 25.60 5.28 19.60 85.80 1.25 18.34 150.90 141.10 42.60 113.10 263.49 % of total installed capacity. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 35% 2006 total production in GWh 89.494 185.78 838.97 525.79 73.77 35.65 132.93 740.37 0.95 42.38 894.24 880.98 213.54 769.48 1482.29 2006 Gen (GWh) of the new addition 89.49 185.78 838.97 525.79 73.77 35.65 132.93 740.37 0.95 42.38 894.24 880.98 213.54 769.48 521.39
TG11 Chilca Santa Rosa UTI 5 y 6 YUNCAN Santa Rosa(Westinghouse) Yarinacocha Arcata Huanchor Machupichu San Nicolas Cummins Tumbes Chimay Ilo2 Yanango San Gaban II Caon del Pato
Dic-06 Ago-06 Ago-05 Jun-05 Mar-03 Abr-03 Nov-02 Oct-01 Jun-01 Jun-01 Oct-00 Ago-00 Feb-00 Feb-00 Nov-99
Gas turbine Natural Gas Gas turbine Natural Gas Hydro Gas turbine Natural Gas Diesel 2 / Residual Hydro Hydro Hydro Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Hydro Steam Turbine / Coal Hydro Hydro Hydro
Source: COES
In the table above, it can be seen that the 5 most recently built plants up to year 2006 were the thermal plants of TG1 Chilca, UTI 5 and 6, Yuncan Hydro, Santa Rosa (Westinghouse), and Yarinacocha, with their total annual generation being 1,714 GWh. On the other hand, the total annual generation of the most recently built plants accounting for 20% of the grid was greater at 4,644 GWh, therefore, this latter group was selected for the BM calculation. The list in Table 17 comprises the most recently built power plants accounting for 20% of all power generation, up to the commissioning of Yanango in February 2000. Step 3.5: Calculate the build margin emission factor The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated as follows:
page 33
EFgrid BMy = [m EG,m,y, x EFEL,m,y] / [mGENmy] where:
EFgrid,BM,y EGm,y EFEL,m,y m y
is the build margin CO2 emission factor in year y; is the net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y; is the CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y; is the number of power units included in the BM; and, is the most recent historical year for which power generation data is available.
In the table below, the selected sample of most recently built plants was organized by their annual electricity generation output, their weights with respect to the total generation of the selected sample, and their emission factors. By multiplying the emission factor per plant with its assigned weight and then summing up the results, the weighted average of the selected sample was obtained. The resulting BM2 equals 0.27279 tCO2/MWh for the year 2006.
Table 18: BM Calculation Plant Name Most Recent Year Gen (MWh) TG11 Chilca 89 Santa Rosa UTI 5 y 186 YUNCAN 839 Santa Rosa(Westinghouse) 526 Yarinacocha 74 Arcat 36 Huanchor 133 Machupichu 740 San Nicolas Cummins 1 Tumbes 42 Chimay 894 Ilo2 881 Yanango 214 Tota 4,655 % per 1.92% 3.99% 18.02 11.30 1.58% 0.77% 2.86% 15.91 0.02% 0.91% 19.21 18.93 4.59% 100 CO2 emission Factor 0.543 0.752 0.000 0.631 0.632 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.653 0.632 0.000 0.767 0.000 0.2727 Weighted average emission factor
BM2=
0.2727
tCO2//MWh
page 34
Step 3.6: Calculate the combined margin emissions factor The baseline emission factor was calculated as a CM, which is the simple average23 of the OM and the BM. All margins are expressed in tCO2/MWh. CM = 0.5*OM + 0.5*BM CM = 0.5*(0.63483) + 0.5*(0.27279) = 0.454 tCO2/MWh The resulting baseline emission factor is 0.454 tCO2/MWh. Step 4: Conservatively Determine Baseline Emissions: The baseline emission BEy for year y is the lower value between the baseline emissions calculated on the basis of historical power generation, BEH,y, and the baseline emissions calculated based on the load factor of the project situation, BEP,y: BEy = Minimum { BEH,y; BEP,y} where: BEX,y = (EFOC *OGX,y ) + (EFgrid,y * (PGy - OGX,y )) With the above assumptions the baseline emissions for the first crediting period are summarized in the table below:
Table 19: Baseline Emissions During the First Crediting Period Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEy
1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64
BEH,y
1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64
BEP,y
2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70
EFOC
0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
OGH,y
691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00
OGP,y
2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00
EFgrid,y
0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454
PGy
3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.000
(c) Leakage:
According to ACM0007, the main type of leakage that occurs in this type of project is leakage of methane emissions in the production, transportation and consumption of increased quantity of natural gas consumed by the project activity. Emissions arising due to power plant construction can be ignored when applying this methodology as well as methane emissions if project proponents demonstrate through estimation that these are a negligible fraction of baseline. The production of natural gas is totally independent of the project facility and none of the natural gas that is not consumed by the Project is sold elsewhere. Leakage during transportation too is negligible since the natural gas pipeline to the facility was prepared to accept all the required natural gas demanded by the project facility. At the power plant, there is a mitigation system connected to a flare to avoid methane leaks during the operation of the Project. A safety engineer continuously controls flanges in order to measure any fugitive emissions of
23
The default weights of 50%-50% were kept.
page 35
methane. This is just one of the various preventive actions taken by the Project Operator, in addition to controlling corrosion, using cathodic protection as maintenance routine, etc. B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:
Based on the calculations above, the implementation of the project activity will result in an average ex-ante estimation of ERs conservatively calculated at approximately 2,851,070 tCO2e for the first crediting period.
Table 20: Ex-ante Estimation of the Projects ERs Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total tCO2e Project Emissions (tCO2e) 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 1,454,849 10,183,943 Baseline Emissions (tCO2e) 1,862,145 1,862,145 1,862,145 1,862,145 1,862,145 1,862,145 1,862,145 13,035,012 Leakage (tCO2e) Overall Emission Reductions (tCO2e) 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 407,296 2,851,070
B.7 B.7.1
Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: Data and parameters monitored: FGTi,y tons Consumption of fuel i of project during the year for operating the engine: The fuel in this project is natural gas. EDEGEL records For ex-ante calculations, the expected fuel consumption is 511,394.59 tons. The proportion of data to be monitored is 100%. Fossil fuel input to each engine is continuously monitored and recorded hourly. Data will be downloaded and consolidated for input to the monitoring data model annually or when periodic verification is required. Value applied is an estimation based on recorded data for the Ventanilla power plant. Any direct measurements with mass or volume meters at the plant site should be cross-checked with an annual energy balance that is based on purchased quantities and stock changes. Meters should be subject to regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure efficiency. FSTj,y tons Consumption of fuel j of project during the year for operating the steam turbine. The fuel in this project is natural gas. EDEGEL records
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used:
page 36
Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied QA/QC procedures to be applied:
For ex-ante calculations, the expected fuel consumption is 28,879.09 Fossil fuel input to each engine is continuously monitored and recorded daily. Data will be downloaded and consolidated for input to the monitoring data model annually or when periodic verification is required. Value applied is an estimation based on recorded data for the Arizona power plant Any direct measurements with mass or volume meters at the plant site should be cross-checked with an annual energy balance that is based on purchased quantities and stock changes. Meters should be subject to regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure efficiency. Supplementary fuel is consumed in the HRSG heat recovery system. Each HRSG includes supplementary burners after the gas turbine in order to increase the heat and produce more steam and consequently increasing the power capacity of the steam turbine. PG,y MWh Net quantity of electricity generated by the project power plant EDEGEL and COES records For ex-ante calculations, the expected electricity generated by the project power plant is: 3,942,000 per year. Initial value based on the following assumptions: - Installed capacity expansion equivalent: 180 MW - Dispatch assumption: 90% - Hours per year: 8,760 PGy will be measured continuously and recorded hourly ex-post by EDEGEL and COES. The consistency of metered net electricity generation should be crosschecked with receipts from sales, if available. Meters should be subject to regular maintenance and testing regime to ensure efficiency. Electricity used for the operation of the plant should be subtracted. NCVi,y GJ / mass or volume unit Net calorific value (energy content) of Natural gas It was used IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories. If the NCV become available locally and the values are reliable, then they will be used. 48Tj/Gg There was no local information regarding this variable this is why IPCCC default values were used -
Any comment:
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used:
Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment:
page 37
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment:
EGm,y and EGn,h MWh Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power plant / unit m, or n in year y or hour h COES records COES data from 2006 public available. For ex-ante calculation, the lastest public information is used. This is COES Annual Statistics 2006. Directly measured based on the information provided by COES. This data will be measured every 15 minutes and recorded hourly. The proportion of data to be monitored is 100% and the data will be archived electronically. Monitoring frequency: o Dispatch data OM: Hourly o BM: For the first crediting period. For the second and third crediting period, only once ex-ante at the start of the second crediting period. m,y Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m in year y Data from COES Net energy conversion efficiencies for all thermal plants are available in the Annual Statistics of COES. For the ex-ante calculation, the latest information was used, which is from the year 2006. Every year this data will be checked with the last available Annual Statistics of COES.
Data / parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment
If the data used is significantly lower than the default value of the applicable technology, project proponents should assess the reliability of the values, and provide appropriate justification if deemed reliable. Otherwise, the default values above shall be used. This information will be monitored yearly.
page 38
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment:
Merit Order Text The merit order in which power plants are dispatched by documented evidence COES Information is available to the DOE in Excel spreadsheets based on information provided by COES. The merit order public available in the Annual Statistics of COES was used. For each year, the variable cost of thermal plants from the SEIN in effect in December is used. The proportion of data to be monitored is 100% of all plants in the merit order. The data will be archived electronically and in paper for original documents. The plants should be stacked in the dispatch data analysis. EFCO2,i,y and EFCO2,m,i,y tCO2/GJ CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in table 1.4 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories. Diesel Oil Residual Fuel Oil Natural Gas Coal = = = = 72,600 75,500 54,300 87,300
The merit order public available in the Annual Statistics of COES was used. For each year, the variable cost of thermal plants from the SEIN in effect in December is used. The proportion of data to be monitored is 100% of all plants in the merit order. The data will be archived electronically and in paper for original documents. If the EFco2 become available locally and the values are reliable, then they will be used. The CO2 emission factor is used to calculate the CO2emission coefficients of the power plants in the grid. Step necessary to find the baseline emission of the grid according to the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System. Cap PJ W Installed capacity of the thermal power plant after the implementation of the project activity.
Project site.
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in
500
page 39
section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures to be applied: Any comment:
Determine the installed capacity based on recognized standards. The monitoring frequency would be yearly.
It would be checked with COES information -
B.7.2
Description of the monitoring plan:
The Monitoring Plan (MP) details the actions necessary to record all the variables and factors required by ACM0007, Version 3, October 2007 (EB35) as explained in section B.7.1 above. All data will be archived electronically, and backed up regularly. Moreover, this information will be kept for the full crediting period, plus two years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs for this project activity, whichever occurs later. The full version of the MP is attached to this PDD as Annex 4. Project staff will be trained regularly in order to satisfactorily fulfill their monitoring obligations. The authority and responsibility for project management, monitoring, measurement and reporting will be agreed between the project participants and formalized. Procedures for calibration of monitoring equipment, maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations, and record handling will be established. As the project construction proceeds, monitoring will be finalized ready for implementation at the start of project operation. No special monitoring equipment is needed. Endesacarbono will provide EDEGEL with a MP and preprogrammed spreadsheets such that the Project Developer will only need to collect the information as described and apply the formulas as instructed in the MP. COES, the dispatch center and EDEGEL will be the only data provider for the annual ex-post calculation of the Projects ERs. The designated project staff will confirm these data with their own records, which they will cross check with sales receipts. B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) The baseline study and monitoring methodology was completed on 10 March 2008 by: Francisco Fernndez-Asn EndesaCarbono Email: francisco.asin@endesacarbono.com
SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1 Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: 22/06/2004
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

20 years
page 40
C.2
Choice of the crediting period and related information:
The project activity will use a renewable crediting period. Therefore, only C.2.1 will be completed. C.2.1. Renewable crediting period C.2.1.1. 15/03/2010 C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: Starting date of the first crediting period:
Seven (7) years with the option of two renewal periods. C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C.2.2.1. C.2.2.2. Starting date: Length:
SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts:
As one of the requirements for building and operating a thermal power plant of more than 10 MW, the ECL established that such projects must have carried out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA requires a full accounting of the potential negative and positive environmental impacts related to the civil and electro-mechanical works of electricity generation projects, as well as the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) to prevent or reduce the negative environmental impacts identified through the EIA. According to MINEMs Guideline for Environmental Impact Assessment of Electrical Activities24; in thermal power plants, the boundary is the area where the facilities of the project are located. The Project Developer hired the services of Walsh Per S.A. Ingenieros y Cientficos Consultores, for the elaboration of the EIA. Walsh Per S.A. is registered with MINEMs Registry of Authorized Consultant Firms to prepare EIAs for projects in Peru. MINEM is the environmental authority for this project activity according to the Framework Law for the Private Investment growth. The EIA for the Project was approved by MINEM on 26 April 2004. The purpose of the EIA is to: (1) fulfill the environmental national legislation and the safety and environmental policies of the Project Developer. (2) determine, evaluate and assess the potential environmental impacts during the construction and operation of the fuel switch to natural gas of the existing gas turbines and the conversion to combined cycle; and (3) formulate adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts identified under (2) and (4) incorporate environmental conservation and safety criteria in the development of the construction and operation activities.
24
Gua para elaborar estudios de impacto ambiental para las actividades elctricas, Ministerio de Energa y Minas (MINEM).
page 41
The EIA includes an EMP for consolidating the measures to avoid or mitigate any adverse impacts. This plan includes monitoring program, a plan for contingencies and a plan for the closure of operations. The EMP will be supervised by MINEM and the electricity regulator (OSINERG). 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: The EIA identifies the potential impacts the Project could pose on the environment and on society. It also includes an EMP to lay out measures to prevent, mitigate and control any such impacts of the Project. The EMP includes the following programs to achieve its objectives: (i) the Control and Mitigation Program, (ii) the Monitoring Program, (iii) the Contingency Plan, and (iv) the Closure Plan. Based on the results of a cost-benefit analysis in the EIA, it was recommended that the Project go forward given its low negative environmental impacts versus its potential benefits for the country. It was also deemed to result in less environmental impact than other thermal alternatives. The following table presents a summary of the identified environmental impacts, as well as the measures for mitigating them.
page 42
Table 21: Environmental Impacts and Associated Mitigation Measures

Qualification Low significance Medium significance High significance Score 1.00 - 1.50 1.75 - 2.50 2.75 - 3.00 PARAMETERS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - MEASURES MATRIX
Construction Phase
Score
Measures The dust generated for the movement of the terrain and from the use of the access roads during construction was minimized by humiditing the soil. All the fine material, as cement, was contained in containers. A program for the well maintenance of the machinery and equipments was placed to allow them to work in optimal conditions. It is included all the trucks used during the construction phase. The paint used for the protection of the infrastructure used material with the lowest possible content of volatile organic compounds.
Operation Phase
Score
Measures Since the Project use Natural Gas the contamination of the air has been small. In addition a chimney of 50 mt tall also reduces the impact in the air. The plant count with a continue analysis system for the control of pollution. This will be part of an automatic network for emission monitoring. Until now, the plant is fulfilling the environmental norms if in the future this change, the project sponsor will make the necessary investment to reduce the emissions bellow national regulations. In addition, the facility has prevention system for the bad functioning of the equipments. This will be accomplished by doing the adequate maintenance according to the manufactures recommendations.
Emission of particle material
1.54
1.50
Emission of combustion gases Air quality and sound
1.46
1.50
Increment in sound levels
1.61
The effect of the noise hasnt reached the surround populated areas because the works are located in the property of the plant. For workers and visits, the company provided hearing protection and silencers for the equipments. The machinery and equipments were supervised to avoid excessive noise. To control the exposition levels in the work zones, the project sponsor adopted the criteria of The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the USA and the criteria of the municipality of Callao.
1.60
The sound is minimized through the correct functioning and maintenance of the equipment and for the construction technique. The facilities of the project have enough capacity to support the sound pressure of the generators and is enough hermetic to have a minimum impact outside of the plant. The maximum sound level for the equipments is 85dBA to one meter of distance. The only equipments the overpass that limit are the turbines. Through hermetic building and other measures the level of sound are 70 dBA during the night and 80 dBA during the day and fulfills the standards of the Provincial Municipality of Callao
Soil
Pollution risk due to accidental spills
1.33
The transportation of fuels are operated by specialized companies the count with the appropriated authorizations. The places of storage are located 50 mt far from the work areas. The connections for load an unload are visible to control leakages and spills. Dikes have been built around fuel storage facilities to avoid spills according to American Petroleum Institute (API) regulations.
1.75
The land use for the land is for at least 30 years, according to the contracts signed with the government. The use of the land after la plant will be out of service will be affected for the pollution existed in the area. The prevention of the soil contamination will reduce the restrictions in the use of land in the future. The solid waste produced during operation are transported to a landfill . The mud of the treatment plan will be used to fertilize the land and create green areas inside of the property of the plant.
Risk to affect the water quality of the Chillon River Water
The water required for the construction of the Project used the existing water network of the Ventanilla Plant that are based in water wells. During the construction Works, it World be prohibited to dump any material to the course of the river.
2.00
As part of the fulfillment of the Environmental Management Plan, the Project sponsor is performing the monitoring of the generated effluents of the plant. The effluents after treatment are used to irrigate the forested areas and some portion is discharged to the river but previously treated. To monitor the effectiveness in the treatment measures regarding the temperature of the water, ph, oils and fats and suspended solids the effluents will be measure in the discharge point and 200 meters downstream of the river.
Diminution of the aquifer levels
The operation of the cooling system has brought a bigger demand of water meaning a more consumption of the underground water. It is estimated that the demand will reach a 2.50 maximum of 3 600,000 m
3
/year. However according to the hydrological studies done,

3
the aquifer could support a demand of 5 000,000 m /year. According to the baseline study of biological resources of the area, the existence of wildlife is almost inexistence. The movement of land was limited to the property of the plant. To reduce the landscape impact produce for the installation of the equipment for the combined cycle, it was use an architectural landscape design based in the forestation and vegetation of the affected area and surroundings. 1.67 For the logistic support for the construction of the Project, it was used the highway to Ventanilla and Del Bierzo Av. Both roads are designed to support the necessary trucks for the construction. There is a system to close automatically the natural gas pipeline when leakage is detected. In addition three is a contingency plant for earthquakes The thermal plant use existing infrastructure as road and water wells and are prepared to support the new scale of the facility. According to the environmental analysis, only some birds live closet to the chimneys of the Project and are used to live with people. Dissuasive mechanisms are used to impede birds to cause security problems. Throw objects and feed animals are prohibited.
Wildlife
Perturbation of the wildlife
1.13
1.50
Landscape
Landscape alteration
1.33
Earthquake
Risk of earthquakes damages
Infrastructure
traffic interruption
1.48
Employment generation
1.95
The Project dint requires a great amount of workers. The workers required are specialized and qualified. However, the movement of land, the deposition of material, transportation and food has been supplied by local workers. This labor requirement was only temporary and it was explained clearly to the local population and authorities.
2.40
This cheap source of electricity cause positive long term effects to the country. This effect is accentuated for the direct employment that provides the facility as well as the requirement of local services. The Project sponsor will maintain and strength the support to the community activities, like water provision to schools, and the construction of a medic post and a police station.
Social Aspects Energy growth Dust was generated during construction however the construction was located inside of the property of the facility and far enough to don't affect any human settlements. 2.88 The project produce more energy at a cheaper price The emission are under the limit established by the national Standards of air quality (ECA) so don't represent any threat to local population The project not only will demand labor and services but also has brought new technology and energy supply . Due to the inclremt in the supply of energy new industries and mining companies would be willing to invest due to the better conditions. More taxes for the government
Local inhabitant health Dinamization of local economic and national economy Economic Aspects. Growth in investments Generation of revenues for the government.
1.50
2.75 2.75 3.00
page 43
SECTION E. Stakeholders comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
As is the case with every large infrastructure project, the activities of constructing and operating a power plant could potentially cause impacts on the environment and on society. These potential impacts have to be communicated to the local stakeholders of a project through a process of public consultation and participation as part of the EIA, as required by the Ministerial Resolution RM 295-2002-EM/VM of MINEM. The process of local consultation and citizen participation for the Ventanilla Project had the following objectives: (i) to inform local stakeholders on the characteristics and various stages of the Project, indicating the potential impacts and the measures for their prevention and mitigation; and (ii) to gather the views of local stakeholders on the Project in a systematic way, aiming to know their concerns and analyze their proposals.
In order to solicit the views of local stakeholders on the Project, the Project Developer conducted the
following: Surveys: 33 surveys were distributed to the inhabitants of the settlements in the vicinity of the plant on in October 2003. The distribution was as follows: 12 surveys in the town of Mariano Ignacio Prado; 6 surveys in the town of Virgen de las Mercedes; 13 surveys in the town of 18 de Octubre; and 2 surverys in the town of Parque Porcino. The surveys helped the Project Developer ascertain the level of knowledge on the Project among the local stakeholders. The surveys were also used to inform the stakeholders on the characteristics of the Project and to find out the level of acceptance for the Project. Interviews: The Project Developer visited four local institutions in September and October of 2003 in order to understand their point of view regarding environmental and social problems in the area of the Project. These four institutions were: The Department of Urban Development at the Municipality of Ventanilla, the Police Station for ecologic affairs in Parque Porcino, the Municipal Agency in Parque Porcino, and the Health Center in Ventanilla25. The interviews with the staff of these institutions were used to gather suggestions to be analyzed for possible inclusion in the EIA. Participative workshops: Two workshops were held. The first one was announced on 16 October 2003 and occurred on 21 October at a building located on Av. Del Bierzo No. 700, Parque Porcino, Ventanilla. The second one took place on 25 November 2003 at a local church. In both cases, the Project Developer informed the participants on the Project and gathered their views.
In addition, in June 2008, the National Environment Fund performed a new local consultation to inform local inhabitants about the environmental benefits of the project and its CDM status. This local consultation includes 23 interviews to local representatives as well as 5 workshops to inform and discus about the project. E.2. Summary of the comments received: Surveys: In the surveys, first the Project Developer explained the Project, then asked if the participants agreed with the Project. 78.8% of the participants approved the Project. Based on this result, the Project was deemed to have a strong degree of acceptance among local stakeholders. One reason for such a positive outcome is that the Project Developer has always had a good relationship with local stakeholders through the construction and operation of the original project. Another question raised by the survey was whether the Project could affect the tranquility of the local habitants. 36.4% of the participants did not believe it would affect their tranquility negatively. The rest had concerns about potential noise, dust, pollution, the influx of new people to the area, work conflicts, increased traffic, etc. Finally, the last question in the survey was regarding the willingness of local inhabitants to work in the construction of the project. 45.5% of those surveyed expressed interest and
25
The Director of the Health Center could not be reached, even though the Project Developer visited the institution several times.
page 44
6.1% did not. The rest did not have an opinion. In summary, the results of the survey were summarized as positive and in favor of the Project. Interviews: The following table summarizes the major concerns and suggestions by the staff of the four institutions interviewed by the Project Developer.
Table 22: Outcome of Interviews with Local Stakeholders Department of Urban Development, Municipality of Ventanilla Police Station, Parque Porcino Some among the local settlers could interfere with the execution of the Project, demanding jobs. The river is very polluted due to dumping of solid waste by the surrounding settlements. Establish a mechanism of permanent dialogue with local stakeholders, aiming for agreements. Keep supporting the police station, the school and the medical post. Municipal Agency, Parque Porcino It is possible to perceive odor and smog from the thermal plant of Ventanilla. Local population has poor conditions of health due to the presence of the landfill of Callao. Help the improve sewage treatment systems. Invest in aforestation outside the plant to mitigate local pollution. Contribute to the improvement of local infrastructure.
Concerns
The problem of the landfill of El Callao
Suggestion s
Prevent the dumping of solid and liquid waste to the environment. Establish a monitoring program for pollution in the area. Contribute to providing basic services to the local populations.
Workshops: The first workshop was held with the presence of local authorities and pig farmers of the Association of the Pork Park of Ventanilla. At the conclusion of the presentation on the Project and its possible impacts, the representative of the Association provided a document with some conditions to be met by the Project Developer. Some of the key conditions were: providing reliable electricity access to the Pork Park of Ventanilla; providing job opportunities to the local population; sponsoring guidelines for the breeding and genetic improvement for the pigs at the Pork Park of Ventanilla; creating green areas and aforesting the vicinity of the Project; and, providing drinking water to the inhabitants of the Pork Park.
In the second workshop, 33 local stakeholders participated. At the conclusion of the Project Developers presentation on the Project, its possible impacts, and the measures to mitigate them, the participants voiced their concerns as follows: Will the land of the local inhabitants be expropriated? Could the power plant of Ventanilla be misused as an explosive in a potential terrorist attack? Will the local children breathe more polluted air?
In addition, the participants suggested the following: Create green areas at the plant in order to avoid invasions by homeless people;
page 45
E.3.
Evaluate supplying drinking water to the local inhabitants; Support the local community; and, Improve the supply of electricity to the area. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
The Project Developer directly answered some of the concerns of the local stakeholders at the first workshop. At the second workshop, the Project Developer provided the following answers: The Project Developer never planned to expropriate land because it has enough land within the same property of the previously existing thermal plant of Ventanilla to develop the new project; At the Ventanilla power plant, there is no storage of fuel, therefore, the danger of explosions is nonexistent. In the rare case of a potential natural gas leakage, all pipelines have sensors that are equipped to close the valves automatically in the unlikely case of pipeline pressure going down; and, Before mid-2004, the plant used diesel, but then switched to natural gas, therefore, local pollution associated with the plant has been reduced considerably. In addition, the Project meets all the environmental limits and standards of the country.
The Project Developer, as part of its social policy of permanent communication and participation with the local stakeholders, has been supporting the supply of drinking water to the police station, the school and the medical post. It is important to mention that the Project Developer is not trying to substitute the role of the government as a provider of basic services. In addition, as a result of the last consultation performed in year 2008, the project sponsor (EDEGEL) has committed to invest part of the CDM revenues to social and environmental activities. These are: 1. Support the process to provide electricity to the local inhabitants. EDEGEL will support to the inhabitants of Parque Porcino de Ventanilla in its process to get electricity from the electric distributor. Regarding to this, EDEGEL will do the following: Verify the electricity expansion plan of the electric distributor of the area Coordinate the meetings between the local community and the representatives of the electric distributor. Make faster the completion of permits and documentation Advice in the requisites to access to the installation of the electric service (Propriety titles etc.) 2. Support in the process to get drinking water:EDEGEL will support the necessary actions to provide drinking water to the area of Parque Porcino de Ventanilla 3. Taking care of the environment EDEGEL will continue the program for the forestation of the influence area of the power plant of Ventanilla in alliance with local inhabitants. EDEGEL will develop a training environmental program regarding health topics and technical training in swine rising, which is the main activity of the area. 4. Education 5. EDEGEL aims to improve the education of the closer communities, therefore will execute programs in the local schools as: Mathematics for everyone: To improve the level of training of mathematics with a innovative methodology. The program consist in annual donation of mathematics texts, permanent training to the teachers, learning routes, and audiovisual materials. Improvement of the school infrastructure. Annually, the company will invest in the maintenance of the surrounding schools. Donations of school material for the students Others:
page 46
In addition, other portion of the CDM revenues will be used in other communities that live in one of the river basins where EDEGEL has hydro power plants in projects related to the social responsibility to that communities.
page 47
Annex 1 CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: Street/P.O.Box: Building: City: State/Region: Postfix/ZIP: Country: Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Last Name: Middle Name: First Name: Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal E-Mail: Organization: Street/P.O.Box: Building: City: State/Region: Postfix/ZIP: Country: Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Last Name: Middle Name: First Name: Department: EDEGEL S.A.A. Av. Victor Andres Belaunde, 147 San Isidro, Lima Lima Peru
Engineer Mr. Castaeda Jorge Environmental Manager 511 3192428 5112156369 jcastaneda@edegel.com ENDESA Carbono S.L. Ribeira del Loira, 60 Madrid 28042 Spain +34.91.213.1414 +34.91.213.1052 francisco.asin@endesacarbono.com Mr. Francisco Fernandez Asin Executive Director
page 48
Annex 2 INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING The Project has not received, and will not receive, any public funding.
page 49
Annex 3 BASELINE INFORMATION The table below shows emission factor calculations with actual 2006 NECs from the Annual Statistics (Estadstica anual de Operaciones) published by COES. In the monitoring, emission factors should be updated using the latest available Annual Statistics.
Table A3-1: Emission Factors of Thermal Plants in the SEIN, 2006
m,y Real NECs (1)

31.00% 30.00% 37.00% 31.00% 40.00% 37.00% 29.00% 36.00% 42.00% 35.00% 21.00% 23.00% 25.00% 31.00% 36.00% 33.00% 33.00% 38.00% 30.00% 32.00% 35.00% 35.00% 34.00% 34.00% 41.00% 21.00% 22.00% 22.00% 28.00% 43.00% 30.00% 32.00% 35.00% 32.00% 37.00% 34.00% 40.00% 29.00% 29.00% 31.00% 34.00% 36.00% 26.00% 23.00% 43.00% 26.00% 26.00% 31.00% 43.00%
EFCO2 (2)
KgCO2/Tj 54,300 54,300 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 72,600 54,300 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 75,500 87,300 54,300 54,300 54,300 54,300 75,500 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 72,600 72,600 75,500 72,600 75,500 54,300 54,300 54,300 75,500
Table #2
EFco2 (Kg/Tj)
Type of Fuel
page 50
The table below shows the capacity additions to the SEIN, and their annual generation. The annual generation of the additions included in this table for ex-ante calculations is from 2006, which is the latest year, for which information was publicly available.
Table A3-2: Capacity Additions in the SEIN (1999-2006)
Table A3-3: Fuel Consumption and Energy Production During the Five Years Prior to the Project Start
1 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 2 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 3 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 4 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh) 5 year Fuel Consumption (Gallons D2) Fuel Consumption (Cubic meter natural gas) Total in cubic meter natural gas equivalent Total Electricty production (GWh)
Jul-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ago-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sep-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oct-01
246,124.00 0.00 946,314.35 3.26
Nov-01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dic-01
496,566.00 0.00 1,909,230.84 5.68
Ene-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-02
819,322.00 0.00 3,150,185.14 9.41
Abr-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Total Year 1
6,005,730.33 18.358
Jul-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ago-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sep-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Oct-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nov-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dic-02
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ene-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-03
196,287.00 0.00 754,697.65 2.34
Abr-03
2,156.00 0.00 8,289.54 0.00
May-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jun-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Year 2
762,987.19 2.340
Jul-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ago-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sep-03
2,558,084.00 0.00 9,835,495.94 3.58
Oct-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nov-03
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dic-03
18,488.00 0.00 71,083.92 0.22
Ene-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feb-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mar-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Abr-04
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
May-04
84,000.00 0.00 322,968.93 0.00
Jun-04
10,522,458.00 0.00 40,457,464.61 148.07
Total Year 3
50,687,013.40 151.870
Jul-04
11,031,147.00 0.00 42,413,306.79 160.41
Ago-04
7,847,877.00 0.00 30,174,053.05 110.44
Sep-04
3,879,252.00 34,938,585.00 49,853,797.82 143.10
Oct-04
502,853.00 39,059,519.00 40,992,922.53 146.35
Nov-04
0.00 43,615,523.00 43,615,523.00 151.11
Dic-04
0.00 29,962,065.00 29,962,065.00 105.93
Ene-05
0.00 33,815,156.00 33,815,156.00 110.87
Feb-05
0.00 26,144,367.00 26,144,367.00 84.34
Mar-05
0.00 32,542,254.00 32,542,254.00 111.35
Abr-05
0.00 33,573,422.00 33,573,422.00 115.14
May-05
0.00 57,010,771.00 57,010,771.00 216.17
Jun-05
0.00 43,962,761.00 43,962,761.00 167.24
Total Year 4
464,060,399.19 1,622.450
Jul-05
0.00 59,850,502.00 59,850,502.00 230.64
Ago-05
22,512.00 46,585,081.00 46,671,636.67 179.31
Sep-05
228,522.00 52,141,904.00 53,020,540.98 202.27
Oct-05
4,425.00 26,886,357.00 26,903,370.54 102.78
Nov-05
179,029.00 45,070,303.00 45,758,645.92 172.71
Dic-05
0.00 46,423,462.00 46,423,462.00 174.08
Ene-06
0.00 32,956,763.00 32,956,763.00 110.25
Feb-06
0.00 34,673,758.00 34,673,758.00 116.84
Mar-06
84,966.00 14,925,714.00 15,252,397.08 47.11
Abr-06
0.00 2,955,129.00 2,955,129.00 10.24
May-06
0.00 37,337,594.00 37,337,594.00 139.40
Jun-06
0.00 48,261,622.00 48,261,622.00 178.85
Total Year 5
450,065,421.19 1,664.467
Justification for the use of COES information system data for baseline calculation: The baseline calculation disregarded the data that is not collected by COES and deemed COES data to be the best approximation of total SEIN data on both generation and installed capacity additions. COES data was also deemed to be the best data to allow a good monitoring practice because of three reasons: 1. There is no better quality data on generation in the SEIN than what is collected by COES. Information on plants connected to the SEIN but not registered with COES regarding generation and installed capacity additions is provided by the plants management periodically to the MINEM. However, this data does not pass through a verification or validation process, nor is it required to comply with technical standards as rigorously as COES requires from the power plants that are its own members. 2. The limitations of MINEMs final annual reports and data availability would not allow for good monitoring practice.
page 51
3. The generation of these other plants connected to the SEIN but not registered with COES is irrelevant as it comprised only 2% of total SEIN electricity generation in 2006, as Table A3-4 below shows.
Table A3-4: Generation in SEIN and COES Year 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 SEIN (GWh) 25,251 23,434 22,288 20,999 20,018 18,755 COES (GWh) 24,762 23,001 21,903 20,689 19,658 18,463 COES/ SEIN 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.98 Not recorded by COES 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02
Source: Anuario Estadstico MINEM, 2001 - 2006 and Estadstica de Operaciones COES 2001-200
page 52
Annex 4 MONITORING INFORMATION I. Background information II. Purpose of the Monitoring Plan III. Use of the Monitoring Plan by the Operator IV. Organizational, Operational and Monitoring Obligations A. Obligations of the Operator B. Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure and Required Spreadsheets V. Annexes The ERCP Organizational Structure and Quality Assurance and Control Procedure
page 53
I. Background Information The baseline methodology and monitoring methodology for the Ventanilla Conversion from Single-Cycle to Combined-cycle Power Generation are in accordance with the approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0007, Baseline methodology for conversion from single-cycle to combined-cycle power generation, (Version 03, Sectoral Scope 01, 2 Nov 2007). The proposed project activity converts two open-cycle gas turbines thermal plants of 160 MW each into a combined-cycle facility that adds approximately 180 MW of generating capacity to Perus electric power grid with minimal incremental additions to GHG emissions. For the foreseeable future, the project activity will allow an equivalent capacity of existing relatively high GHG-emitting generating units supplying the grid to be taken out of service for such things as scheduled maintenance and/or to conserve increasingly costly imported fuel. Over the long term, the facility will continue to displace energy produced by other relatively high GHGemitting facilities supplying the grid and may also delay the need to construct additional generating capacity, depending on the countrys growth in electricity demand. The total Project installed capacity and estimated yearly average generation will be 500 MW, generating approximately 3, 942 GWh annually. The Project is expected to displace 407,296 tCO2e per year, which will amount to 2,851,070 tCO2e for the first crediting period of 7 years, generating the equivalent amount of GHG emissions reductions (ERs). II. Purpose of the Monitoring Plan The CDM defines monitoring as the systematic surveillance of a projects performance by measuring and recording performance-related indicators relevant to the project activity. This report presents the Monitoring Plan (MP) for the Project. The MP defines a standard against which the performance in terms of the Projects ERs will be monitored and verified, in conformance with all relevant requirements of the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol. Both the Baseline and the MP are subject to verification procedures. III. Use of the Monitoring Plan by the Project Operator The MP identifies key performance indicators of the Project and sets out the procedures for metering, monitoring, calculating and verifying the ERs generated by the Project annually. Adherence to the instructions in the MP is necessary for the project operator26 to successfully measure and track the impact of the Project, and to prepare all data required for the periodic audit and verification process that must be undertaken to confirm the attainment of the corresponding ERs. The MP can be updated and adjusted to meet operational requirements. The Verifier approves such modifications during the process of initial or periodic verification. In particular, any shifts in the baseline scenario may lead to such amendments, which may be mandated by the Verifier. Amendments may also be necessary as a consequence of new circumstances that affect the ability to monitor ERs, as described here, or to accommodate new or modified CDM rules. IV. Organizational, Operational and Monitoring Obligations A. Obligations of the Operator Monitoring performance of the Project requires the fulfilment of operational data collection and processing obligations by the project operator (the Operator) throughout the crediting period of the Project. The Operator is obligated to ensure that sufficient and accurate information is available to calculate ERs in a transparent manner, and that adequate information is collected and maintained to facilitate successful verification of accounted ERs.
26
As of today, EDEGEL is the Projects developer, as well as operator.
page 54
Key responsibilities: Managers of the departments of Control, Production, Finance and Sales will compose the steering committee that will approve the monitoring reports. The Electricity Production area of the sales department will be in charge of emission reduction calculation and will report to the steering committee. This organizational structure for this activity is included in the monitoring plan in the Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure (ERCP) Organizational Structure. Training of monitoring personnel: The team established in the ERCP Organizational structure, and composed of the MP Steering Committee and the ERCP Management, will be trained by Endesacarbono in a one day workshop on a comprehensive set of tools and knowledge required to implement the monitoring plan. The training on the MP and associated responsibilities will build the capability of the MP Steering Committee and the ERCP Management to replicate, on an ex-post basis, an equivalent process that has been demonstrated in this PDD for an ex-ante emissions avoidance calculation as if the plant were in operation in 2006. All relevant personnel will be trained by Endesacarbono in a one day workshop on a comprehensive set of tools and knowledge required to implement the monitoring plan, including: (a) accurate monitoring of the performance and output characteristics of the plant to record and keep accurate data; (b) collection and integration of utility data for the current year; (c) incorporation of these data sets into spread sheets preprepared by Endesacarbono, and (d) consistently calculating verifiable CERs as a function of measured plant output against a current-year emission factor that serves as a recognized proxy for emissions displaced from the grid. Equipment Required: Adequate computer services and file storage are required, and maintenance of computers and data contained therein are described under the following section. Adequate metering and logging equipment will be procured for measuring electricity generation by the plant, and net levels of electricity dispatched for sale to the grid. As explained in section B.7.2 of the PDD, no other special monitoring equipment is needed for this project, which relies primarily on COES data for calculating the relevant grid emission factor. Procedures for maintenance and installation of equipment, as well as calibration, will be performed according to manufacturer specifications of equipment. All measurements, data gathering, record keeping, and procedures for dealing with possible monitoring data adjustments will be performed in specific consideration of the data gathering requirements of the MP and as determined as adequate for meeting the baseline and monitoring requirements described in ACM0007. Data Collection and Integration: The monitoring methodology requires monitoring of the following:
Electricity generation from the proposed project activity; Fuel consumption from the proposed project activity; Data needed to recalculate the emissions attributable to the operation of the gas turbines or engines in open cycle under the baseline scenario. Data needed to recalculate the operating margin emission factor, based on the choice of the method to determine the OM, consistent with the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System; and, Data needed to recalculate the build margin emission factor, consistent with the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System.
In order to monitor the above data adequately, the monitorables are divided into project emissions parameters and baseline emission parameters. Project emissions parameters
page 55
A system was established for monitoring the amount of natural gas combusted by the project activity. On-site fossil fuel consumption for the operation of the power plant is metered through flow or volume meters or respectively with an energy balance over the year, considering stocks at the beginning and at the end of each year. Project participants would cross-check these estimates with fuel purchase receipts. The following table lists the data to be collected or used in order to monitor emissions from the project activity.
Table A4-1: Data to be Collected for Monitoring Project Emissions
Measured (M) calculated (C) estimated (E) How will Proportion data be of data archived? monitored (electronic/ paper) For how long is archived data kept?
ID number
Data Type Data variable
Data unit
Recording frequency
Comment
1. FGTi,y
Volume
Consumption of natural gas during the year for operating gas turbine. Consumption of natural gas during the year for operating steam turbine.
Hourly, prepare annually an energy balance
100%
Electronic
During the crediting period
The quantity of natural gas combusted will be measured with a flow meter and will be crosscheck with fuel purchase receipts The quantity of natural gas combusted will be measured with a flow meter and will be crosscheck with fuel purchase receipts Since local measurements of NCV is not available, IPCC default values is used. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Page 1.18. The value is 48 Tj/1000tones IPCC default values is used. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Page 1.24.The value is 56.1 Tones/Tj
2. FSTi,y
Volume
Hourly, prepare annually an energy balance
100%
Electronic
3. NCV
Net calorific value
Net calorific value of natural gas
Tj/1000 tones
It was set ex-ante for the whole crediting period
100%
Electronic
4. FCO2
Emission factor
CO2 emission factor for natural gas
tCO2/Tj
100%
Electronic
Baseline emission parameters Note that data required to calculate the emissions factor for grid displacement of electricity (EFy) is contained in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System. Besides the parameters listed in the table below, project participants shall monitor all baseline emission parameters included in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, except the electricity generation of the project activity (PGy), which is included in the table below.
page 56
Table A4-2: Data to be Collected for Monitoring Baseline Emissions

Measured (M) calculated (C) estimated (E) Proportion of data monitored How will data be archived? (electronic/ paper) For how long is archived data kept?
ID number
Data Type
Data variable
Data unit
Recording frequency
Comment
5. HGOC
Electricity quantity
Historical Net quantity of electricity generated by the OpenCycle operation of power plant.
MWh
Once in crediting period
100%
Electronic
During the creditng period
Historical data of electricity supplied by the project to the grid. Five years previous to the start of project was for this calculation.
6.PGy
Electricity quantity
Net quantity of electricity generated by the project power plant.
MWh
PGy will be measured continuously and 100% recorded hourly by EDEGEL and COES.
Electronic
It will be measured by the elctricty meters of the plant and will be cross-check with COES reports
7.PC
Electricity Generation Capacity
Net generation capacity of the project power plant.
MW
Annually
100%
Electronic
Capacity of the project power plant in combined cycle operation be given as declared net capacity. Historical data of annual fuel consumption by the project operating in open cycle mode, based on data of five year pervious to the start of the project. Since local measurements of Net calorific values is not available, IPCC default values is used. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Page 1.18. The value is 48 Tj/1000tones for natural gas and 43 Tj/1000tones for Diesel.
8.FCHIST
Fuel quantity
Historic Fuel consumption of the project in OpenCycle generation
Volume
Once in creditng period
100%
Electronic
9. NCV
Net calorific value
Net calorific value of fossil fuel type used Tj/1000 previous to tones the start of the project.
100%
Electronic
10. EFCO2
Emission factor
CO2emission factor for natural gas
tCO2/Tj
100%
Electronic
IPCC default values is used. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Page 1.24.The value is 56.1 Tones/Tj
page 57
Net power generation capacity of the openMW cycle gas turbine(before the project activity)
11. OC
Electricity Generation Capacity
Once in crediting period
100%
Electronic
Capacity of the project power plant prior to the Project is as declared net capacity.
Baseline emission parameters included in the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System are as follows:
Table A4-3: Baseline Emission Parameters
Measured (M) calculated (C) estimated (E) Proportion of data monitored How will data be archived? (electronic/ paper) For how long is archived data kept?
ID number
Data Type Data variable
Data unit
Recording frequency Dispatch data OM: Hourly : This data will be measured every 15 minutes and recorded hourly. BM: For the first crediting period, yearly. For the second and third crediting period, only once ex-ante at the start of the second crediting period.
Comment
EGm,y Electricity and EGn,h quantity
Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power plant / unit m, or n in year y or hour h
MWh
100%
Electronic
Directly Measured based on the information provided by COES.
m,y
Average net energy Net energy conversion conversion efficiency of efficiency power unit m in year y
Yearly
100%
Electronic
Net Energy Conversion Efficiencies for all thermal plants are available in the annual statistics of COES.
Merit Order
The merit order in which power plants Text are dispatched by documented evidence
Yearly
100%
Electronic
It used the merit order public available in the annual statistics of COES. For each year, it is used the variable cost of thermal plants from the SEIN in effect at December.
page 58
Table A4-4: Monthly Data Collection At the end of each month: Report hourly generation of plants in the SEIN(measurement: 15 or 30 27) COES (Data Provider) Report dispatch merit orders. As the project will be an active member of COES all data will come from COES. This data is collected once a year. Use real NECs per power plant in the SEIN. This data is collected once a year. Substantiate all ER claims with COES receipt data. Operator (Data processor) Fill in monthly data in all required spreadsheets, following the ERCP Issue a monthly report
As the primary purpose of Verification is independent inspection and validation of ERs actually achieved by the Project, the ERCP Management will seek to establish and maintain a strong and efficient relationship with the Verifier, i.e. the DOE, in order to ensure a dependable and transparent outcome. In doing so, the ERCP Management will: provide all necessary monitoring information about ERs to facilitate the verification work and cooperate with the DOE on all data requests and questions; during the crediting period, always take into account requests by the CDM Executive Board and conduct preparatory work for the Verification to obtain high quality results and efficiency; and, ensure that ERCP Management and ERCP Steering Committee review all monitoring reports before they are transmitted to the DOE.
Procedures for review of reported results/data and for corrective actions The project will count with procedures to measure the performance of the project. This includes appropriate meters to measure the dispatched electricity as well as the procedures to guarantee the reliability of the data. Based on the ERCP Quality Control Procedure, quality control and inspection procedure will be established for monitoring of the proposed project activity to assure monitoring accuracy. Such procedure will include, but not limited to, the following: During yearly consolidation of monthly calculation, spreadsheets will be reviewed. Corrective actions in case of malfunction/breakdown or for more accurate monitoring and reporting. Once a year an internal audit will be performed by the ERCP steering committee to see if the monitoring plan has been performed according the guidelines established in the PDD. o Project performance review every year according to the PDD. Independent verification of monitoring results and achievement of the emission reduction expected in the PDD is a critical outcome for all CDM projects. The ERCP management should work closely with the verifier (DOE) to assure a dependable and transparent outcome, and they will: o o o o o o Keep efficient contact with the DOE who verifies the projects emission reduction. Provide all necessary monitoring information about emission reduction to facilitate the verification work. During the crediting period, always take into account requests by the CDM Executive Board and conduct preparatory work for the verification to obtain result of high quality and efficiency.
27
Half an hour measurement is still acceptable if total SEIN production calculated with it, does not deviate greatly (i.e. less than 1%) from total SEIN Production calculated with the 15-minute measured data
page 59
o o
The ERCP management should be prepared in advance the monitoring report and before verification, it should be reviewed by the ERCP steering committee. The projects management and its operators also should cooperate for relevant communication to answer all questions raised by DOE for emission reduction verification.
Immediately upon detecting a problem or being informed of a discrepancy, ERCP management will take immediate action to rectify it. Should COES fail to provide adequate information, the steering committee will file claim with COES to obtain the information (and as a member of COES, the project sponsor has the right to seek get information from COES). If a major investment is required, the ERCP management will notify the steering committee to ask to the management of Ventanilla to invest in the monitoring personal or/and equipment. B. Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure and Required Spreadsheets The ERCP is the basic instrument for gathering, recording and processing information that will result in the measured ERs. The Operator shall keep the ERCP as a reference manual. The ERCP should contain: (i) data gathered from COES, and (ii) data processed by the operator. All data processing should be done in Excel, for which a new version will be acquired annually to avoid versioning problems over time. The ERCP is designed for monthly calculation, based on final monthly COES reports. Although it will only be possible to know the ERs at the end of each year (31 December for the Project), filling data monthly in the required spreadsheets will provide time to review formulas, minimize errors and have data readily available for the Verifier in any period of the year. There are only 3 required spreadsheets to update with new data: Ventanilla ER.xls, Ventanilla OM-DD.xls and Ventanilla BM2.xls. The names of these files should be kept but should also reflect the date for which the latest adjustment is made. ER Spreadsheet: This Excel file contains all data and formulas necessary to calculate the Emission Reductions of the project. The datas year is the year of project generation (1 January - 31 December). 5 worksheets compose the ER Spreadsheet: Worksheet ERy: This worksheet consolidates the results of the baseline emissions, project emissions and leakage and calculates the emission reduction of the project for a year. Worksheet PEy: This worksheet calculates Project emissions that include emissions from the use of fossil fuel to operate the gas turbine or engine (PEGTy) and emissions from the use of supplementary fossil fuel used in order to operate the steam turbine (PESTy). Worksheet BEx,y: This worksheet calculates the baseline emissions of the electricity that would be generated by the operation of the power plant in open-cycle mode, and by grid-connected power plants in the absence of the Project. Worksheet OG: This worksheet calculates the generation of power plant in open-cycle mode in the baseline; and, Worksheet EFoc: This worksheet calculates the emission factor of the open-cycle mode.
Worksheet ERy(TCO2)
Year 1 2 3 4 ERy 407,295.66 407,295.66 407,295.66 407,295.66 BEy 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 PEy 1,454,848.98 1,454,848.98 1,454,848.98 1,454,848.98 Ly
page 60
5 6 7
407,295.66 407,295.66 407,295.66
1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64
1,454,848.98 1,454,848.98 1,454,848.98
The table above contains pre-established formulas to calculate the emission reductions. This worksheet is linked to the other worksheets. The values showed above are only for reference and are calculate based in year 2006 data. All these variables should be updated yearly according to the information of COES and the Project Developer. Worksheet PEy:
Year period PEy (tCO2) PEGTy (tCO2) PESTy (tCO2) FGTi,y (tones NG) FSTj,y (tones NG) EFCO2(tCO2/Tj)
1 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36 2 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36 3 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36 4 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36 5 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36 6 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36 7 1,454,848.98 1,377,083.36
77,765.62 77,765.62 77,765.62 77,765.62 77,765.62 77,765.62 77,765.62
511,394.59 511,394.59 511,394.59 511,394.59 511,394.59 511,394.59 511,394.59
28,879.09 28,879.09 28,879.09 28,879.09 28,879.09 28,879.09 28,879.09
56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10 56.10
The table above contains pre-established formulas to calculate the project emissions. The values showed above are only for reference and are calculate based in year 2006 data. All these variables should be updated yearly according to the information of the Project Developer regarding fuel consumption of the plant.
page 61
Worksheet BEx,y BEH,y (tCO2)

1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BEy (tCO2)
1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64 1,862,144.64
BEP,y (tCO2)
2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70 2,055,901.70
EFOC (TCO2/MWh )
0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
OGH,y (MWh)
691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00 691,897.00
OGP,y (MWh)
2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00 2,522,880.00
EFgrid,y (TCO2/MWh )
0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454 0.454
PGy (MWh)
3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.00 3,942,000.000
The table above contains pre-established formulas to calculate the baseline emissions. The values showed above are only for reference and are calculate based in year 2006 data. All these variables should be updated yearly according to the information of the Project Developer and COES less EFoc that is calculated ex-ante for the whole crediting period. OGH,y and OGP,y have been calculated in the Worksheet OG, EFoc has been calculated in Worksheet EFoc and EFgrid,y has been calculated in the OM-DD Spreadsheet and The BM Spreadsheet Worksheet OG:
RESULTS HGOC,x (MWh) OGP,y (MWh)
691,897.0 0 2,522,880 2,522,880 2,522,880 2,522,880 2,522,880 2,522,880 2,522,880
2009 OC(MW) PC(MW) PGy (MWh)

320.00 500.00 3,942,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
3, 942, 000
3, 942, 000
3, 942, 000
3, 942, 000
3, 942, 000
3, 942, 000
The table above contains pre-established formulas to calculate the value of OGP,y. The values of OC (MW), PC (MW) and HGOC,x (MWh) are fixed for the first crediting period. The values showed above are only for reference and are calculate based in year 2006 data. PGy (MWh) should be updated yearly according to the information of the Project Developer and COES.
page 62
Worksheet EFoc
FCHIST (tons of natural gas) HGOC,x (MWh) EFOC (tCO2/MWh) 143,794.07
691,897.60
0.560
The table above contains pre-established formulas to calculate the value of EFoc. FCHIST and HGOC,x are the average yearly fuel consumption of the 5 years before the commissioning of the Project and the average yearly energy production of the 5 years before the commissioning of the Project respectively. OM-DD Spreadsheet: This Excel file contains all data and formulas necessary to calculate the OM-DD. The datas year is the year of project generation (1 January 31 December). 17 worksheets compose the DDA-OM Spreadsheet: Worksheet #0: COEFs (tCO2/MWh) calculation for each plant in the SEIN. The COEF will be calculated ex- post annually along the first crediting period. Worksheet #1: COEFs (tCO2/MWh) to assign to each plant in the SEIN. Worksheet #2: Calculation of grid dispatch merit order for all thermal plants in the SEIN. Worksheet #3 to Worksheet #14: One worksheet per month of the year. These worksheets contain the hourly generation of the plants in the SEIN.
Worksheet #0 Table # 1: COEF Calculation Table A4-1 below shows COEF calculations and is pre-filled with actual 2006 NECs from COES Annual Statistics 200628. These are only examples for estimating the reference baseline. In the monitoring, COEFs will vary according to the information published by COES each year.
28
COES. Estadstica de Operaciones. In year 2006, NEC appears as Eficiencia Trmica % in the chart No 4.7
page 63
Table A4-5: Emission Factors of Thermal Plants in the SEIN, 2006

m,y Real NECs (1)

31.00% 30.00% 37.00% 31.00% 40.00% 37.00% 29.00% 36.00% 42.00% 35.00% 21.00% 23.00% 25.00% 31.00% 36.00% 33.00% 33.00% 38.00% 30.00% 32.00% 35.00% 35.00% 34.00% 34.00% 41.00% 21.00% 22.00% 22.00% 28.00% 43.00% 30.00% 32.00% 35.00% 32.00% 37.00% 34.00% 40.00% 29.00% 29.00% 31.00% 34.00% 36.00% 26.00% 23.00% 43.00% 26.00% 26.00% 31.00% 43.00%
EFCO2 (2)
KgCO2/Tj 54,300 54,300 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 72,600 54,300 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 75,500 87,300 54,300 54,300 54,300 54,300 75,500 72,600 72,600 72,600 72,600 75,500 75,500 72,600 75,500 75,500 75,500 72,600 72,600 75,500 72,600 75,500 54,300 54,300 54,300 75,500
Table #2
EFco2 (Kg/Tj)
Type of Fuel
page 64
Table A4-5 contains pre-established formulas to calculate the emission factors. Data on actual NECs, technology and fuel has to be updated each year. New thermal plants have to be included in the year they appear. All these variables should be updated yearly according to the information in the Annual Statistics publicly available on the COES website, therefore, the emission factors for each year will depend on the latest data. The specific information source for all these data is the chart entitled Costos Variables de las Centrales Termoelctricas del SINAC, which in the years 2004,2005 and 2006 of the COES Annual Statistics, appeared in chart number 4.7., Estadstica anual de Operaciones. CO2 emission factor of power unit EF =( EFco2*0.0036)/(m,y*1000).29 The formula to use to calculate the COEFs per plant for Table A4-5 is:
EFEL,m,y = ( EFco2*0.0036)/(m,y*1000)
where,
EFEL,m,y EFCO2,m,i,y
m,y
= CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) = Average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i used in power unit m in year y (kgCO2/TJ) = Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m in year y (%) = applicable year during monitoring (ex-post option)
y
Worksheet #1
The following Table A4-6 assigns a COEF to each plant in the SEIN according to its COEF established in Worksheet #0, Table A4-5. Table A4-6 holds up to 101 plants, of which 34 are hydropower plants and 67 are thermal plants. 80 of the 100 plants already exist, 28 of which are hydropower plants and 52 are thermal, while 21 are future plants, of which 6 will be hydropower plants and 15 thermal plants. Data on future plants should be filled as the arrows in Table A4-6 indicate, as they enter the SEIN. Plants that did not dispatch in any hour of the year in question should not be considered for the DDA-OM calculation at all, so that they do not occupy extra space unnecessarily.
29
EB 35, Annex 12, Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor for an Electricity System, Version 1, page 7, equation 4.
page 65
Table A4-6: Plants in the SEIN by Technology and Assigned COEF

Plant HP1 HP2 HP3 HP4 HP5 HP6 CH Yuncan CH MANTARO CH RESTITUCION CH Huinco CH Matucana CH Yaupi CH Oroya-Pachac. CH Malpaso Cahua Pariac Arcata CH Gallito Ciego CH Callahuanca CH Moyopampa CH Huampan CH Chimay CH Yanango CH Huanchor CH Carhuaquero CH ARICOTA CH CHARCANI CH CHARCANI CH CHARCANI CH MACHUPICCHU CH HERCA CH SAN GABAN CH CHARCANI CH Can del Pato TG1 CHILCA AGUAYTIA 2 (2) AGUAYTIA 1 (2) MALACAS TGN4 TV CARBON ILO II TG WESTINGHOUSE TG S.ROSA UTI5 TG S.ROSA UTI6 ILO TV1 ILO TV2 MALACAS TG3 MALACASTG2 ILO TV3 ILO TV4 MALACAS TG1 MOLLENDO 1,2,3 Yarinacocha (5) SULZER CHILINA TUMBES CALANA 123 CALANA 4 TV3 SHOUGESA TV1 SHOUGESA TV2 SHOUGESA DS PIURA1 DS CHICLAYO OESTE-D DS PIURA2 TV3 CHILINA CUMMINS TV2 CHILINA TG PIURA DS PACAS-SULZER DS PAITA1 BELL MAN 1,2 DS SULLANA DOL ALCO 1-2 GM 1-2-3 KATCATO (ENERSUR) DOL ALCO 1-2 GM 1-2-3 TAPARACHI TGM2 MOLLENDO TGM1 MOLLENDO DS PAITA2 DS PACAS-MAN C. COMBINADO TG2 ILO BELL MAN 1,2 TG1 ILO TG1 CHIMBOTE TG TRUJILLO TP56 TP57 TP58 TP59 TP60 TP61 TP62 TP63 TP64 TP65 TP66 TP67 TP68 TP69 TP70 Technology COEF(tCO2/MWh) Marginal Cost(US/MVh) Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Hydro 0.000 0 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.543 10.81 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.652 14.89 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.631 15.55 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.698 20.04 Steam Turbine / Coal 0.767 22.28 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.631 28.16 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.752 36.7 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.752 36.7 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.777 59.45 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.777 59.45 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.889 68.71 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.889 69.15 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.799 70.26 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.799 70.63 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.931 70.97 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.632 72.9 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.632 75.43 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.622 86.17 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.632 88.07 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.680 92.11 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.735 92.69 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.877 96.27 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.937 103.27 Steam Turbine / Residual 0.937 104.29 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.735 111.09 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.777 116.01 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.799 117.9 Steam Turbine / Residual 1.182 129.88 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.653 139.55 Steam Turbine / Residual 1.294 142.39 Gas Turbine Diesel 1.045 148.16 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.726 151.06 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.747 163.39 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.706 164.29 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.769 167.84 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.792 167.92 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.688 168.7 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.792 169.13 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.726 171.16 Gas Turbine Diesel 0.817 171.17 Gas Turbine Diesel 0.871 178.13 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.817 179.09 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.843 182.44 Combined Cycle Gas-Steam 0.901 188.46 Gas Turbine Diesel 0.817 192.71 Diesel 2 / Residual 0.843 195.26 Gas Turbine Diesel 0.871 207.06 Gas Turbine Diesel 1.045 227.7 Gas Turbine Diesel 1.136 228.57 Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown Unknown 0.000 Unknown
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03.1. CDM Executive Board
page 66
Worksheet #2: Monthly Merit Order This worksheet uses the merit order publicly available in the COES Annual Statistics. For example, for 2006 the variable costs of thermal plants in the SEIN in effect in December 2006 were used. This data is shown below:
page 67
Table A4-7: Variable Costs of Thermal Plants in the SEIN

Plant HP1 HP2 HP3 HP4 HP5 HP6 CH Yuncan CH MANTARO CH RESTITUCION CH Huinco CH Matucana CH Yaupi CH Oroya-Pachac. CH Malpaso Cahua Pariac Arcata CH Gallito Ciego CH Callahuanca CH Moyopampa CH Huampan CH Chimay CH Yanango CH Huanchor CH Carhuaquero CH ARICOTA CH CHARCANI CH CHARCANI CH CHARCANI CH MACHUPICCHU CH HERCA CH SAN GABAN CH CHARCANI CH Can del Pato TG1 CHILCA AGUAYTIA 2 (2) AGUAYTIA 1 (2) MALACAS TGN4 TV CARBON ILO II TG WESTINGHOUSE TG S.ROSA UTI5 TG S.ROSA UTI6 ILO TV1 ILO TV2 MALACAS TG3 MALACASTG2 ILO TV3 ILO TV4 MALACAS TG1 MOLLENDO 1,2,3 Yarinacocha (5) SULZER CHILINA TUMBES CALANA 123 CALANA 4 TV3 SHOUGESA TV1 SHOUGESA TV2 SHOUGESA DS PIURA1 DS CHICLAYO OESTE-D DS PIURA2 TV3 CHILINA CUMMINS TV2 CHILINA TG PIURA DS PACAS-SULZER DS PAITA1 BELL MAN 1,2 DS SULLANA DOL ALCO 1-2 GM 1-2-3 KATCATO (ENERSUR) DOL ALCO 1-2 GM 1-2-3 TAPARACHI TGM2 MOLLENDO TGM1 MOLLENDO DS PAITA2 DS PACAS-MAN C. COMBINADO TG2 ILO BELL MAN 1,2 TG1 ILO TG1 CHIMBOTE TG TRUJILLO TP56 TP57 TP58 TP59 TP60 TP61 TP62 TP63 TP64 TP65 TP66 TP67 TP68 TP69 TP70 Technology Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Steam Turbine / Coal Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Gas Turbine Natural Gas Gas Turbine Natural Gas Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Gas Turbine Natural Gas Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Steam Turbine / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Gas Turbine Diesel Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Combined Cycle Gas-Steam Gas Turbine Diesel Diesel 2 / Residual Gas Turbine Diesel Gas Turbine Diesel Gas Turbine Diesel Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown COEF(tCO2/MWh) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.543 0.652 0.631 0.698 0.767 0.631 0.752 0.752 0.777 0.777 0.889 0.889 0.799 0.799 0.931 0.632 0.632 0.622 0.632 0.680 0.735 0.877 0.937 0.937 0.735 0.777 0.799 1.182 0.653 1.294 1.045 0.726 0.747 0.706 0.769 0.792 0.688 0.792 0.726 0.817 0.871 0.817 0.843 0.901 0.817 0.843 0.871 1.045 1.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Marginal Cost(US/MVh) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.81 14.89 15.55 20.04 22.28 28.16 36.7 36.7 59.45 59.45 68.71 69.15 70.26 70.63 70.97 72.9 75.43 86.17 88.07 92.11 92.69 96.27 103.27 104.29 111.09 116.01 117.9 129.88 139.55 142.39 148.16 151.06 163.39 164.29 167.84 167.92 168.7 169.13 171.16 171.17 178.13 179.09 182.44 188.46 192.71 195.26 207.06 227.7 228.57 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Worksheet #3 to Worksheet #14: Hourly Generation of the Plants in the SEIN
page 68
12 monthly worksheets that contain the hourly generation of all plants in the SEIN in each month of the most recent year (August-July) should be identical in # of columns, formulas, general organization but not in data. Worksheets #3 Worksheet #14 columns C to CY should be organized as follows:
COEFs: TECHNOLOGY: Hydro Hours of the month HP1. 1 . . Future HPs . . . . . 744 There is an unchangeable pre-defined order for exisiting and future HPs - for all the crediting period Existing TPs should be placed according to grid dispatch merit order as well as future TPs Existing HPs 0.00 Hydro ..HP6 0.00 Hydro CH Yuncan 0.00 Hydro .. 0.00 Hydro Caon del Pato 0.00 Gas Turbine Natural Gas TG1 CHILCA 0.56 Gas Turbine Natural Gas 0.67
..
..
Unknown Unknown TP56.
Unknown Unknown .TP70
AGUAYTIA 2 (2) ..
Hourly generation of hydropower plants, both existing and future, should occupy columns D to AK only. Hourly generation of thermal plants, both existing and future, should occupy columns AL to CY only. The pre-defined order for hydropower plants is shown below where the -1 position =D column and 28th position =AK column. This order should hold for the first crediting period. Thermal plants should be sorted according to their calculated monthly merit order in the grid dispatch. Future hydropower plants, for a maximum of 6, are reserved a column to the very left of columns D to AK. Future thermal plants, for a maximum of 12, should be reserved a column to the very right of columns AL to CY, as if they were the last in the monthly merit order of the grid system dispatch. Finally, the associated COEFs of SEIN plants should be entered in the first row of the corresponding plants column. For future plants COEF = 0.
page 69
Predefined order from left to right (D to AK) for all hydropower plants30
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hp1 hp2 hp3 hp4 hp5 hp6 Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro HP1 HP2 HP3 HP4 HP5 HP6 CH Yuncan CH MANTARO CH RESTITUCION CH Huinco CH Matucana CH Yaupi CH Oroya-Pachac. CH Malpaso CH Cahua CH Pariac CH Arcata CH Gallito Ciego CH Callahuanca CH Moyopampa CH Huampan CH Chimay CH Yanango CH Huanchor CH Carhuaquero CH ARICOTA CH CHARCANI CH CHARCANI CH CHARCANI CH MACHUPICCHU CH HERCA CH SAN GABAN CH CHARCANI CH Can del Pato
The formula component of each monthly worksheet (W#3W#14) is given by columns CZ to FD (not shown in this PDD). Formulas will use data entered in columns D to CY and will bring a resulting DDAOM. The only data column in this set is EE, which should be filled with the Projects hourly generation. The resulting DDA-OM will show up at the low end of column EE in W# January. The BM Spreadsheet: This Excel file, composed of three worksheets, contains all the calculations necessary to update the BM2. The datas year is the year of the Project generation. Worksheet #15: Additions to the SEIN according to COES Worksheet #16: The BM2 calculation in the year the Projects generation started. Worksheet #17: The Baseline Emission Factor and ERs in the year the Projects generation started.
The only difference between negative and positive positions is that negatives are for none-eexistent plants up to December 2006. Even when they occur they should keep that position. Note that future hydropower plants are reserved a column to the very left of Worksheet #3-Worksheet #14
30
page 70
Worksheet #15: Additions to the SEIN

Table A4-8: Additions to the SEIN
Worksheet #16: BM Calculation

Table A4--9: Selection of the Sample Group
Year Plant Name Dic-06 TG11 Chilca Ago-06 Santa Rosa UTI 5 y 6 Ago-05 YUNCAN Jun-05 Santa Rosa(Westinghouse) Mar-03 Yarinacocha Abr-03 Arcata Nov-02 Huanchor Oct-01 Machupichu Jun-01 San Nicolas Cummins Jun-01 Tumbes Oct-00 Chimay Ago-00 Ilo2 Feb-00 Yanango Feb-00 San Gaban II Nov-99 Caon del Pato T/. Plant Type Gas turbine Natural Gas turbine Natural Hydro Gas turbine Natural Diesel 2 / Residual Hydro Hydro Hydro Diesel 2 / Residual Diesel 2 / Residual Hydro Steam Turbine / Coa Hydro Hydro Hydro Most recent year generation(GWh) 89.49 185.78 838.97 525.79 73.77 35.65 132.93 740.37 0.95 42.38 894.24 880.98 213.54 769.48 521.39 5,946 Filter most recent 20% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Most recent 20% Filter 5 most units generation recent units 89.49 1 185.78 1 838.97 1 525.79 1 73.77 1 35.65 132.93 740.37 0.95 42.38 894.24 880.98 213.54 4,655 5 20.24% 22,995 4,599 5 Most recent units generation 89 186 839 526 74
13 SEIN Annual Gen= 20% of SEIN Gen=
1714
Most recent 20% units generation 4,655
>
5 Most recent units generation 1,714
Any new plant recorded in Worsheet#15 will require an additional row in Worksheet #16. In this worksheet, columns whose titles are highlighted in blue should be updated. New plants should be added on new rows, as the arrow above indicates. The first filter (5th column composed by 1s and 0s) ensures that the samples annual generation comprises the most recent 20% of capacity additions to the SEIN. The second filter (7th column) counts up to 5 most recent plants. An automatic check is included in this table, which checks whether the generation of the 5 most recent plants built is greater than the generation of the sample (latest 20% of capacity additions) and indicates which of the two should be selected for the BM2 calculation.
page 71
The selected sample of most recently built plants is organized by their annual electricity generation output, their weights with respect to the total generation of the selected sample, and their emission factors. By multiplying the emission factor per plant with its weight and then adding the results, the weighted average of the selected sample was obtained in tCO2/MWh. Sometimes, a new plant is composed of more than the generating unit, in which case the emission factor is going to be the lower. This result is the BM2 and was calculated as 0.27279 tCO2/MWh for the year 2006.
Table A4-10: BM2 Calculation
Plant Name TG11 Chilca Santa Rosa UTI 5 y 6 YUNCAN Santa Rosa(Westinghouse) Yarinacocha Arcata Huanchor Machupichu San Nicolas Cummins Tumbes Chimay Ilo2 Yanango Total Most Recent Year Gen (MWh) 89 186 839 526 74 36 133 740 1 42 894 881 214 4,655 % per plant 1.92% 3.99% 18.02% 11.30% 1.58% 0.77% 2.86% 15.91% 0.02% 0.91% 19.21% 18.93% 4.59% 100% CO2 emission Factor tCO2/MWh 0.543 0.752 0.000 0.631 0.632 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.653 0.632 0.000 0.767 0.000 0.27279 Weighted average emission factor BM2= 0.27279 tCO2//MWh
The emission factors should be extracted accordingly from Worksheet 0 that would be updated yearly according to data Published by COES from this year forward. Worksheet #17: CM and ERs of the year Worksheet #17 shows the ERs of the year calculated from results of spreadsheets for DDA-OM and BM2. Cells which have highlighted titles in blue should be updated at the end of the year (31 December).
DDA OM = BM2 = CM =
0.63483 tCO2/MWh 0.27279 t tCO2/MWh 0.45381 tCO2/MWh
page 72
V. Annexes The ERCP Organizational Structure and Quality Assurance and Control Procedure
Monitoring plan (MP) Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure (ERCP)
ERCP Organizational Structure
MP Steering Committee Board of Directors
ERCP Management Responsible for Emissions Reductions Calculation
page 73
Emissions Reductions Calculation Procedure (ERCP) Quality Control for Electricity Displacement
Grid Operator Data: Projects and SEIN units hourly generation data. COES provides this information in Excel via E-mail or CD to the Project Operator. Projects historical monthly generation before the project activity implementation registered by Grid operator, provided in Excel by Grid Operator via E-mail or CD to the Project Operator. Yearly Merit Order of the SEIN units. COES provides this information though it annual statistics report. Real NECs of the units of the gird. COES provides this information though it annual statistics report . New unit that enter to the SEIN annually
Project Operator Data: Net electricity sold to Grid Operator Projects monthly fossil fuel consumption metered by the project operator and double-checked with fuel provider invoices. Projects monthly fossil fuel consumption metered by the project operator and double-checked with fuel provider invoices. Projects historical monthly fossil fuel consumption metered by the project operator and double-checked with fuel provider invoices.
The Project Operator will perform monthly recording and check calibration of electric meters periodically. Only one person will be responsible for the ERCP,. Quality of Data Collection: Data: Monthly generation from Grid Operator and fossil fuel consumption from provider, remaining information from the Project Operator. Format: Summarized in Excel. Frequency: Monthly
Quality of Data Processing: Original Data Organized Data Entered Data Processed Data Results All must be recorded and manipulated in Excel with records of data points and electricity sales receipts. Yearly consolidation of monthly calculations.
page 74
Quality of Data Storage: Prevent Excel version problems by updating Excel software packages every year in PCs used for the ERs calculations Keep all data for 2 years after the first crediting period, i.e. for a total of 9 years Assign a password to Excel spreadsheets used for the ERCP Save the document with the last date in which an alteration was made so that old versions are kept on disc Keep all written documentation in a folder that will be provided to the DOE together with the data collected in Excel
Quality of Data Delivery: Provide to the DOE the e-mails/CDs through which Data Provider delivered the original data Provide to the DOE the sales receipts Provide to the DOE evidence of all calculations made showing all preliminary versions of spreadsheets saved on disc.
page 75
Annex 5
Information regarding the CDM consideration of the project and it continues effort to secure the CDM registration In year 2004 with the commissioning of the Peruvian Natural gas reserves of Camisea, Peru started to have access to a large amount of cheap fuel. The main players of the electric sector decide to switch all its thermal power plants to natural gas and new capacity additions were focus in new open cycle power plants. No one invested o planned to invest in conversion to combined cycle power plants. As it was explained before there were no incentives to do this due the low price of natural gas and the related risk for a new technology. The project sponsor also switched al its thermal power plants to natural gas and although all new investments on thermal plants were open cycle power plants, it was the only one that decided for the conversion to combined cycle power plant. Knowing the low economic attractiveness and the risk to develop this project, it decided to have the assistance of the CDM to become the project more attractive while helping to its main shareholder, ENDESA, to fulfill its emission reduction commitments in Europe. So, project sponsor considered always the conversion to combined cycle as a CDM project. There are evidences of this since year 2003 as a report of ECO securities regarding CDM projects of ENDESA, a record of the Climate Change office of Spain, records of ENDESA regarding CDM potential projects in it operations in south America; communication between ENDESA staff about the proposed project activity as CDM an even a budget for the PDD preparation was mentioned. These documents were delivered to the DOE. The project sponsor continuously made efforts to secure the CDM status of the project. In April, 2004, a proposal of KPMG for the registration of the proposed project was presented to EDEGEL. This proposal was done as per a request of EDEGEL (project sponsor). However, the project sponsor, due to the importance CDM status of the project, wanted to ensure its CDM registration without taking risks. So first, the company decided to wait until a methodology for this type of project appears. This occurred on November 28, 2005 (Methodology for conversion from single cycle to combined cycle power generation --- Version 1). However, by that date, EDEGEL, has a smaller project in Peru, the Rehabilitation of the Callahuanca Hydroelectric Power Station that also was considered a CDM project for the company. So, the company decided to go first with this smaller project, and later with Ventanilla to take advantage of the first experience and reduce registration risks. However, the registration of Callahuanca was a nightmare. After a long process of selecting a CDM consultant company and preparing the PDD, the PDD was open for comments the 26 of November 2006 as part of its validation process. Some methodological problems appeared and the project finally was registered in January 2008. Immediately after the success of this registration and with the experience gained, EDEGEL decided to start the application of Ventanilla and after two months, (March 27, 2008),the project was open to comments as part of the validation process. Described below please find an assortment of documents that show the continue interest of the project sponsor to get the CDM status for Ventanilla. The documents have been delivered to the DOE. February 2003 1. CDM Consideration 3 Ficha Proyecto MDL VentanillaENDESA Espaa_Feb 2003.pdf
This is part of a document of ENDESA that shows summaries of potential CDM projects of ENDESA investments in Latin America. The first page of the document shows the list of all the potential CDM projects and mention that the list was updated in February 28,2003. Among the Peruvian projects, the project of Ventanilla is mentioned. The next page of the document (page 16 of the complete document), shows the summary of the CDM project of Ventanilla.
page 76
2.
CDM Consideration 4 Ficha Proyecto MDL VentanillaOficina Espaola de Cambio Climtico_Feb 2003.pdf
The Spanish Office for Climate Change (OECC = Oficina Espaola de Cambio Climatico) in year 2003 recorded through summary forms CDM Projects supported by Spanish companies. This OECC document is a summary referred to the project of Ventanilla. May 2003 3. CDM Consideration 1 E-mail ENDESA Espaa aprobando Proyecto MDL Ventanilla_May 2003.pdf
In this e-mail, the regional (South America) manager of environment and sustainable development of ENDESA (main shareholder of EDEGEL), Wilfredo Jara is informing to Maria Antonia Abad, Manager of Climate change of ENDESA the list of CDM projects of the region. In this list the project of Ventanilla is mentioned as the reconversion of Ventanilla. This e-mail is dated on May 16, 2003 given a proof that by that time ENDESA was thinking in the project of Ventanilla as a CDM project. Also in the last page of the document, there is an email that have the figure of two attached documents, one is the calculation of CO2 emissions of Ventanilla. June 2003 4. CDM Consideration 5 Informe ECO Securities-Proyecto MDL Ventanilla_Jun2003.pdf
In June 2003 Ecosecurities issued a report for ENDESA consisting in an analysis of the CDM potential Projects of ENDESA portfolio. In this report the CDM project of Ventanilla is mentioned. September 2003 5. CDM Consideration 2 E-mail ENDESA Espaa PPTO Proyecto MDL Ventanilla_Set 2003.pdf
In this e-mail Wilfredo Jara, regional manager of environment and sustainable development of ENDESA, is requesting to Rafael Mateo, ENDESA officer, to include in the Operational Annual Plan (POA) of year 2004 the budget to develop the baseline studies and other paper work that the selected CDM projects require to be registered. In this e-mail Wilfredo mentioned that this budget was approved by the management of Spain and the decision was communicated though the Sub-director of environment of ENDESA for Spain and Latin-America, Juan Carlos Brandao. In the list of CDM projects, Ventanilla is mentioned with a budget of US$100,000 for CDM studies. The date of the email is September 2003. April 2004 6. Contrato KPMG_Ventanilla_Abr04.pdf
EDEGEL (project sponsor) asked to KPMG a proposal to develop the PDD of Ventanilla and KPMG sent the proposal one month after the starting date of the project (April 2004). However, as explained below the project sponsor decided to wait. The
page 77
proposal is attached in this e-mail. February 2005
7.
News about Ventanilla as a CDM project of ENDESA Feb 2005.doc
The global news agency IPS inter Press Service, published in February 2005 in its web page (http://ipsnoticias.net/interna.asp?idnews=32957) a report about Spain and Climate Change. This report include information about the willingness of ENDESA to develop CDM projects as the project of Ventanilla. November 2005 8. Methodology for conversion from single cycle to combined cycle power generation was approved
The CDM methodology for projects such as Ventanilla was approved on November 28, 2005. June 2006 9. Minute between EDEGEL(Project Sponsor) and FONAM (National Environment Fund).jpeg
A representative of EDEGEL, Jorge Castaeda, in charge of the CDM development of ENDESA projects in Peru, had a meeting with the Executive Director of FONAM, Julia Justo, regarding EDEGEL CDM projects. In these minutes Ventanilla is mentioned as a CDM project and EDEGEL expressed its interest to start the process of CDM registration of Ventanilla since they were finishing the PDD of Callahuanca and the methodology for conversion to combined cycle was approved recently. FONAM is a Peruvian institution created by a congressional law and one of its functions is to promote CDM development in Peru. http://www.fonamperu.org/Entrada2.php March 2007 10. ahlcarbono CDM proposal to EDEGEL March 2007 ahlcarbono, the CDM consultant company that developed the PDD of Ventanilla made a proposal to EDEGEL to start working on the PDD for Ventanila. September 2007 11. Carta de Intencin Ventanilla.pdf Jesus Abadia, Director of Environment and Sustainable Development of ENDESA, sent on September 2007 a Letter of Intent to the General Manger of EDEGEL, Carlos Luna, to buy the CERs of Ventanilla. Although EDEGEL belongs to ENDESA there are also other minor shareholders. So, there had to be an agreement in EDEGEL among shareholder to sell the CES to ENDESA. However, since ENDESA has the majority shareholder of EDEGEL, it was expected that EDEGEL would accept the deal. October 2007 12. E-mail Presentation of ENDESA October 2007_.pdf Juan Carlos Brandao, environment sub-director of ENDESA, sent an e-mail to Francisco Fernandez Asin, president of ahlcarbono with attached information. One of the attached documents is a power point presentation with a project CDM portafolio of project of ENDESA in Peru. One of the projects is the
page 78
Ventanilla conversion to combined cycle. The document of the presentation is Cartera de proyectos propios en Per.ppt March 2008 13. March 27, 2008. The project is published in the UNFCCC web page as part of the validation process.

PDD 3276

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDD 3276

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Description of the project activity:

Name of Party involved (*) ((host) indicates a host Party):

Peru (host) Kingdom of Spain

Republic of Peru A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:

Region of Lima/ Province of Callao/ District of Ventanilla A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc:

Figure 1: Map of the Project Site

District of Ventanilla Ventanilla CC Power Plant

Project sponsor property

Ventanilla Combined Cycle Power Plant

Siemens gas turbines

Water circuit Cooling Water circuit

Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

Baseline: Grid electricity generation

Power Plant Santa Rosa Westinghouse

Type Open-cycle Turbo Gas

Comments Switch to natural gas from Camisea

7.5 130 109 176 176

04/07/2005 01/12/2005 01/09/2005 01/06/2006 01/08/2006 01/12/2006 01/06/2007 01/06/2007

UTI 5, UTI 6 TG1 TG2 TG1

Source: COES /OSINERG

428,245 1 year 30 years

Cost of Natural Gas (US$/1000,000 BTU) Income Tax

Investment Cost per MW (US$)

Construction Time Project Lifetime

General Assumptions Electric tariff Energy (US$/KWh) Firm Power (US$/KW-month)

Cost of Natural Gas (US$/1000,000 BTU) Income Tax

new open-cycle gas turbine conversion to combined-cycle steam turbine

428,245 US$/MW 869,891 US$/MW

EF =( EFCO2*0.0036)/( *1000) = (56,100*0.0036)/ (39.5%*1000) = 0.511 tCO2/MWh. EF

Conversion of MWh to Terajoules

FGTi,y * NCVi * EFCO2,i FSTj,y * NCVj * EFCO2,j

FGTi,y * NCVi * EFCO2,i FSTj,y * NCVj * EFCO2,j

Fuel Natural Gas

Annual Generation (MWh) Average Annual Generation (MWh)

Density Density per gallon Equivalence of 1 gallon of diesel to 1 m3 of natural gas

EGPJ,h EFEL,DD,h EGPJ,y h y

EFEL,DD,h = n EGn,h x EFEL,n,y / nEGn,h

Table 16: Emission Factors of Thermal Plants in the SEIN

m,y Real NECs (1)

EFgrid BMy = [m EG,m,y, x EFEL,m,y] / [mGENmy] where:

EFgrid,BM,y EGm,y EFEL,m,y m y

The default weights of 50%-50% were kept.

It would be checked with COES information -

Description of the monitoring plan:

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

Choice of the crediting period and related information:

Table 21: Environmental Impacts and Associated Mitigation Measures

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - MEASURES MATRIX

Emission of particle material

Emission of combustion gases Air quality and sound

Increment in sound levels

Pollution risk due to accidental spills

Risk to affect the water quality of the Chillon River Water

Diminution of the aquifer levels

/year. However according to the hydrological studies done,

Perturbation of the wildlife

Risk of earthquakes damages

2.75 2.75 3.00

The problem of the landfill of El Callao

m,y Real NECs (1)

As of today, EDEGEL is the Projects developer, as well as operator.

EF =( EFCO20.0036)/( 1000) = (56,1000.0036)/ (39.5%1000) = 0.511 tCO2/MWh. EF