Gunung Megang - Final PDD

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM
FOR CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES (F-CDM-PDD)

Version 04.1
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)
Title of the project activity
Gunung Megang Add-on Combined Cycle

Project
Version number of the PDD
Version 1.3
Completion date of the PDD

Project participant(s)
16 June 2013
PT Metaepsi Pejebe Power Generation; and
E.ON Carbon Sourcing GmbH
Republic of Indonesia
ACM0007: Conversion from single cycle to
combined cycle power generation Version
6.1.0
Category 1: Energy industries (renewable - /
non-renewable sources)
Host Party(ies)
Sectoral scope and selected methodology(ies)
Estimated amount of annual average GHG

emission reductions
106,172 tCO2e/yr
SECTION A. Description of project activity

A.1. Purpose and general description of project activity
>>
The proposed project (the "project activity") will convert the single cycle gas-fired Gunung Megang Power Plant
into a combined cycle plant. The two existing natural gas based gas turbines have a combined gross installed
capacity of 83.18 MW1 and both currently operate in open cycle mode (commenced in April 20072).
The purpose of the project activity is to utilise waste heat to generate additional electricity through steam, without
upgrade, significant modification or retrofit of the existing open cycle gas turbines.
The scope of this project activity includes the installation of two Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs)
which utilize the waste heat from gas turbines to generate steam. Duct burners operating on natural gas fuel will
be used to supplement the energy content of the waste heat. The steam will be used to generate electricity via a
Steam Turbine with the net total installed capacity of 31.8MW3. The electricity will be sold to the state-owned
electricity company (PLN)4 and supplied to the Sumatra national grid through the existing substation built inside
the Gunung Megang Power station.
The baseline scenario is the same as the existing scenario and is the continuation of the operation of the existing
two gas turbines in an open cycle mode, for supply of electricity to the Sumatra grid. Additional electricity would
be supplied by the grid, which comprises predominantly power plants fuelled by high carbon intensive fossil fuels
such as coal. All of the waste heat utilized for power generation in the project activity would continue to be
vented, in absence of the project activity.
The project activity will displace electricity that would have been generated and supplied by the Sumatra grid in
the baseline. As such, the project activity will reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the
generation of electricity by the grid, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2). The project activity will generate some
incremental GHGs as some additional gas will be used in the project activity. The estimated annual average total
GHG emission reductions for the 10-year crediting period are 106,172 tCO2e/yr.
The project activity is a clean energy source as it will utilize waste heat to produce energy. The proposed project
will contribute to sustainable development in Sumatra in different ways5.
The Indonesian Designated National Authority also stipulates in its procedure for issuing Host Country Approval
for CDM projects, that the project owner must demonstrate compliance with its established sustainable
development criteria. This is demonstrated by the project owner through the formal check method6 and this
document has also been submitted to the Indonesian DNA as part of the Host Country LoA process.
Social well-being:
The project activity will create temporary employment opportunities during construction and permanent
employment opportunities during operation7 for the local people. The project is estimate to generate up to
742,560 man-hours of new employment8 in the 16 months of its construction alone.
SD32 (Page 100/296); See Nominal Plant Net Output for Simple Cycle
SD55_GE_Commissioning_Closeout (With reference to SD55, the operational warranty is stated to begin 22nd April 2007.
At the validation site visit, the DOE approved that this date may be used as the Starting Date of the open cycle plant. The
DOE also approved that SD55 is sufficient evidence for this date.)
3
SD3_EPC_latest
4
PT. PLN (Perusahaan Listrik Negara) is the State-owned operator of the transmission and distribution networks in
Indonesia.
5
SD4a_Sustainable_Development_Criteria
6
SD65_Indonesia_Sustainable_Development_Compliance
7
Newly hired highlighted in yellow at SD36_Operation_Organization_chart
8
Manloading Estimate
2
In addition, the construction of the project will create business opportunities for contractors,
manufacturers, transporters and suppliers, etc.
The project will generate much-needed electricity and thus contribute to the social well-being of Sumatra.
Economic well-being:
The overall increase in installed capacity of the project activity will partially support the country's target
towards the 67%9 increase in national power generation during 2010 to 2020, and thus contribute to the
overall development of the country;
The gains in efficiency of the project activity will contribute to a more efficient use of finite fossil fuel
energy resources in Indonesia (namely gas).
Environmental well-being:
The project activity will utilise waste heat to generate electricity, thereby increasing the overall power
generation efficiency in the plant. Through this improvement in efficiency, the project activity will reduce
GHG emissions when compared to the baseline scenario and will thus contribute to the mitigation of
climate change.
The project activity will result in reduction of CO2 emissions and other local pollutants such as NOX and
SOX per unit of electricity produced in the plant when compared to other fossil fuel and coal based power
generation in the province. Thus the project will contribute to improved air quality.
A.2. Location of project activity
A.2.1. Host Party(ies)
>>
A.2.2. Region/State/Province etc.
>>
South Sumatra
A.2.3. City/Town/Community etc.
>>
Muara Enim
A.2.4. Physical/Geographical location
>>
The project site is located in Gunung Megang, which is the sub-district of Muara Enim regency. The address is as
follows:
JI. Raya Palembang - Muara Enim
Km. 152 Gunung Megang
Muara Enim, South Sumatra,
Indonesia.
The geographical coordinates of the project site are:
30 30' 26.14" S
1030 48' 01.52" E
Project Location Map:
SD5_Indonesia_Energy_67%_2010to2020 (or) http://www.theindonesiatoday.com/energy-headlines/7543-indonesiaelectricity-generation-to-increase-67-in-2010-2020-period.htm
A.3. Technologies and/or measures

>>
The combined cycle power generation technology consists of key equipment such as Gas Turbines, Heat
Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs) and a Steam Turbine (ST). Two units of duct burners operating on natural
gas will supplement the waste heat entering the steam turbine. The primary fuel currently utilized for power
generation is natural gas supplied by PT. Medco EPI at a capacity of 18 MMSCFD10 , transported using 16"
diameter pipeline. The gas fuel is filtered in the scrubber system which has a capacity of 30 MMSCFD before
entering into the gas turbine.
The project activity will install two HRSGs and one ST to the existing facility to produce additional electricity, by
utilising the energy content in the waste heat from the turbine exhaust gas (4680 C) 11, which is currently not used
and simply vented. The exhaust flue gas will be passed through the HRSGs to generate steam which will be used
in the steam turbine to produce electricity. Use of the otherwise wasted heat in the turbine exhaust gas results in
high thermal efficiency compared to other combustion-based generation technologies.
The baseline scenario is the same as the scenario existing prior to the implementation of the project activity.
Section B.4 identifies the applicable baseline scenario. In the Baseline scenario, electricity is supplied by the grid
and additions to the grid.
The existing equipment at the project site includes two General Electric LM6000PC gas turbines currently
operating in open cycle mode. The two gas turbines currently have a combined gross installed capacity of 83.18
MW12). GE energy, the turbine supplier has also given a capacity guarantee for each gas turbine of 40.575 MW13.
This is a guaranteed combined capacity of 81.15 MW. The turbines used in the baseline will not be altered in the
project activity. The specifications of the turbines used in the existing facility are presented in the Table below.
Table 1: Gas Turbines14
Gas Turbine
10
11
12
13
14
Unit 1
Page 28, Section 3.3.2 of SD33_INCEPTION_REPORT

SD3_EPC_latest
SD32 (page100/296); See Nominal Plant Net Output for Simple Cycle
SD1_Gas_Turbine_Performance_Sheet
SD1_Gas_Turbine_Performance_Sheet
Unit 2
Unit 1
Unit 2
Gas Turbine
Manufacturer
GENERAL ELECTRIC (GE)
GENERAL ELECTRIC (GE)
Type
GE LM6000PC NDWG 10 GT
GE LM6000PC NDWG 10 GT
Rated Capacity
(Guarantee)
40,575 kW
40,575 kW
Serial Number
191-537
191-572
Generator
Manufacturer
MEIDEN
MEIDEN
Type
FRAME 800 LL EK-AFT
FRAME 800 LL EK-AFT
Serial Number
1 N 7849 R 1
1 N 7848 R 1
Start date of operation
April 2007
April 2007
Remaining Lifetime*
14 years
14 years
*The choice of remaining lifetime of 14 years has been explained in this section under the heading 'Equipment
Lifetime.
The project activity will involve the installation and operation of the following equipment:
1. Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) - 2 units
2. Steam Turbine - 1 unit
3. Cooling system - 1 unit
4. Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and Waste Water Treatment System (WWTP)
The specification of key equipment installed for the project activity is presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Project activity equipment specifications
Unit 1
HRSG15
Manufacturer
DELTAK
Type
DINO-3328
Rated Capacity
132.64 t/h
HP Steam Pressure
66.79 bar
HP Steam Temperature
400.7 C
HP Feed water temperature
111.6 C
LP Steam Pressure
6.42 bar
LP Steam Temperature
191.2 C
LP Feed water temperature
108.8 C
Remaining lifetime16
25 years
STEAM TURBINE17
Manufacturer
Type
Operational Medium
Operation Mode
Rated Capacity
Steam Pressure
Steam Temperature
15
16
17
Unit 2
DELTAK
DINO-3329
132.64 t/h
66.79 bar
400.7 C
111.6 C
6.42 bar
191.2 C
108.8 C
25 years
SIEMENS AG
SST-400
Superheated Water Steam
Sliding Inlet Pressure
132.3 t/h
64.01 bar
397.8 C
SD8_HRSG_spec_sheet & SD3_EPC_latest

SD13_Tool_to_determine_remaining_lifetime_of_equipment_V1
SD9_ST_Spec_Sheet
Remaining lifetime18
GENERATOR
Apparent Output
Rated Capacity
Voltage
Current
Frequency
Speed
25 years
42,937 kVA
34,350 kW
11 kV (with 5% range)
2,253 A
50 Hz (with 2% range)
1,500 rpm
The electricity generated by the project activity will be supplied to the existing substation located in the west side
of the power plant.
Equipment Lifetime:
The earliest Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed with PLN has the contract period of 20 years19. The routine
maintenance of equipment and the replacement of significant parts extends/ensures the lifespan of the major
equipments, such as gas turbines and generators.
The project owner has applied default equipment lifetimes as given in Tool to determine the remaining lifetime
of the equipment version 1. As per this tool, a default value can be used if the following criteria are met:
Criterion 1: The project participants can demonstrate that the equipment has been operated and maintained
according to the recommendations of the equipment supplier.
Regarding operation of the plant, the plant manager follows a set of standard operating procedures which are
designed to meet the equipment suppliers recommendations. SD58_SOP is provided to support this.
Regarding maintenance, the project owner has a contract with MTU Maintenance Berlin-Brandenburg, which is
an entity authorized by GE, and has a special focus on GE LM series of turbines, which are used by the project
owner. SD57_Exclusive Service Agreement MEPPOGEN & MTU.2-1 is provided to support this and
demonstrate that the baseline project has been properly maintained.
Criterion 2: There are no periodic replacement schedules or scheduled replacement practices specific to the
industrial facility, that require early replacement of equipment before the expiry of the technical lifetime;
The project owner confirms that there are no periodic replacement schedules or scheduled replacement practices
specific to this plant facility, which may require early replacement of equipment before expiry of technical
lifetime.
This is also evidenced by SD56_Meppo-Gen Plant History Sheet.
Criterion 3: The equipment has no design fault or defect and did not have any industrial accident due to which the
equipment cannot operate at rated performance levels.
The project owner confirms that there are no design faults or defects and that the plant did not have any industrial
accidents due to which the equipment cannot operate at rated performance levels. Maintenance records (SD59) for
the existing plant confirm this.
The technical default lifetime20 of the existing gas turbines (<50MW) is 150,000 hours, which is equivalent to 17
operational years. This is longer than the 10-year crediting period.
18
19
20
SD10_PPA_4May2007 ( page (61/130) of PDF) SD13_Tool_to_determine_remaining_lifetime_of_equipment_V1
However, to be conservative, the total lifetime operating hours has been estimated based on the plant load factor
of 85% for the combined cycle plant. Assuming that the plant runs at full capacity for 85% of the time, this gives
an operational life time of 20 (calculated as 17/0.85) calendar years. This assumption and leads to a higher value
of the plant lifetime and overestimates the revenue from this project and hence the calculated rate of return.
The existing plant has been operating since April 2007. The combined cycle project is expected to be
commissioned in March 2013. The existing plant would have been operating for six calendar years by the time of
commissioning of the CCGT project. Hence, the remaining lifetime of the plant at the point of CDM project
commissioning would be 20-6 = 14 years.
As per the "Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of the equipment", the default lifetime of 25 years21 has been
chosen for the economic lifetime of the new steam turbine and boilers. However, given that the project activity
depends on the waste heat from the existing gas turbines, the project activity can only continue to operate while
the gas turbines continue to operate. As such, the project activity will have an economic life equal to the
remaining economic life of the existing gas plant. Therefore, the lifetime of the project activity, and the
assessment period, is 14 years.
Environmentally sound and safe equipment will be purchased and installed for the project activity. The
international equipment suppliers (General Electric (GE), Siemens and Deltak) have a reputation of providing
high quality, modern, up-to-date, energy efficient equipment that is proven to be safe for the environment and for
operators.
The existing system comprises of two sets of Gas Turbine power generator with the combined gross installed
capacity of 83.18 MW. Based on historical averages from the last three years of operation, the system consumed
around 131,912,025 m3 of natural gas per year and generated 525,248 MWh electricity for supply to the grid. The
major GHG emission source considered at the existing site was emission due to natural gas combustion at the gas
turbine. The exhaust gas is released to the atmosphere at the exhaust stack.
GHG Emission
Exhaust Gas
Generator
GT
816.54 t/hr
503.99 0C & 1.01 bar
Exhaust
Stack
Electricity
Natural Gas
GHG Emission
131,912,025 m3/yr
Exhaust Gas
Generator
525,248 MWh/yr
150 kV
NATIONAL
GRID
Exhaust
Stack
GT
Figure 2: The flow diagram of existing open cycle power plant system
The proposed new system comprises the addition of two sets of HRSG and one steam Turbine power generator
with the installed capacity of 31.822 MW. The proposed system will recover the exhaust gas from gas turbine and
generate additional electricity thus in increase the overall energy efficiency of the plant. The combined cycle
system will consume an estimated 165,953,633 m3 of gas per annum which is higher than existing system. The
21
22
SD3_EPC_Latest; For Case # 1 under Combined Cycle Add-On
process flow diagram below shows the schematic of the project scenario, as well as details of heat balance23 and
energy generation from the proposed project.
Exhaust Gas
CO2
Waste Heat
Generator
GT
161 t/h
HP: 66 bar &
4800C
LP: 2.65 bar
& 1800C
HRSG
816.54 t/hr
503.99 0C & 1.01 bar
Supplementary
Gas
ST
NCV,i,y, FCi, y
Natural Gas
Waste Heat
HRSG
GT
816.54 t/hr
503.99 0C & 1.01 bar
EGPJ, y
Electricity
Generator
819,060
MWh/yr
Supplementary
Gas
165,953,633 m3/yr, GHG

1128.9 BTU/SCF Emission
Generator
Steam
Steam
NATIONAL
GRID
161 t/h
HP: 66 bar &
4800C
LP: 2.65 bar
& 1800C
Exhaust Gas
Monitoring Points
Figure 3: The flow diagram of proposed combined cycle power plant system. Monitoring points and
parameters monitored are also shown, along with the values applied ex-ante
The greenhouse gases involved in the baseline and project scenario are described in section B.3 of this document.
The power plant, in project scenario, uses additional gas as compared to baseline scenario.
A detailed Monitoring Plan for this project has been described in section B.7.
The following table contains some important characteristics of the power plant in the baseline and project
scenarios.
Table 3: Power plant characteristics Baseline Scenario and Project Scenario
S.No
Property
Baseline Scenario
Project Scenario
83.1824 MW
114.4225 MW
Average Annual Allowance for

shut-down days (as per PPA)
6.1 days/year26
33 days/year27
Actual shut-down days

(measured)
25 days/year28
N.A
Net Power supplied to grid29
525,248,300 kWh/yr
819,060,000 kWh/yr
Gross Generation Capacity
5
23
Total Gas consumption
30
131,912,025 cu.m/yr
165,953,63331 cu.m/yr
Page 40 & 42, Section 4 of SD33_INCEPTION_REPORT

SD32 (Page 100/296); See Nominal Plant Gross Output for Simple cycle (83.178 rounded off to 83.18)
25
SD3_EPC_Latest; Project Gross output = Total Plant Net Output (111.231) + Total Plant Demands (3.186) = 114.417
rounded off to 114.42
26
SD10a_PPA_4May2007, page (61/130 of PDF)
27
SD10c-Draft-amendment-of-PPA-APPENDIX-G1-electricity-price, page G-14, under SO average value
28
See worksheet Historical Shutdown of Revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet
29
See worksheet Electricity Generation of revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet
30
See worksheet Historical Average of revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet
24
S.No
Property
Predicted Annual Availability

Factor (as agreed in PPA)
Plant Load Factor (Total

Electricity Generated/Max.
Capacity*)
Baseline Scenario
Project Scenario
32
85%33
80%
74.8%34
85% (predicted)35
8
Plant Efficiency
38.8%36
42.24%37
*Maximum Capacity is defined as the electricity that would be produced if the plant were to run at full capacity
for 8,760 hours in the year.
The technology is to be transferred to the host Party by importing the turbine and generator technology and
through training provided to the local engineers and the local project team. Additional maintenance and technical
support will be provided by the equipment provider during the operation of the plant.
A.4. Parties and project participants
Party involved
(host) indicates a host Party
Private and/or public

entity(ies) project participants
(as applicable)
Indicate if the Party involved

wishes to be considered as
project participant (Yes/No)
Party A (host)
PT Metaepsi Pejebe Power

Generation
No
Party B
The Netherlands
No
A.5. Public funding of project activity

>>
There is no public funding provided for the proposed project.
SECTION B. Application of selected approved baseline and monitoring methodology
B.1. Reference of methodology
>>
Methodology Used:
The approved consolidated methodology ACM0007: Conversion from single cycle to combined cycle power
generation Version 6.1.0 is used for the combined cycle conversion project.
Tools used:
31
Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality, Version 5.0.0
Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, Version 2
Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, Version 3.0.0
See worksheet Data Input - FC Calculation of revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet

SD10a_PPA_4May2007, page page (61/130 of PDF)
33
SD10b-Draft-amendment-of-PPA-APPENDIX-G1-electricity-price, page G-14
34
SD44_PLF_estimation
35
SD45_PLF_Justification
36
SD32 (Page 100/296); See Nominal Plant Net Efficiency under Simple Cycle
37
SD3 (Page 2/4); See Plant Efficiency under (Case 1)
32
Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment, Version 01
B.2. Applicability of methodology

>>
Approved methodology ACM0007 is applicable to the proposed project activity as per the justifications follows:
Methodology Criteria
Project Applicability
This methodology applies to project activities that

convert one or several grid connected power units
at one site from single-cycle to combined-cycle
mode.
The project activity will convert a grid connected

open cycle power generation facility at one site into
a combined cycle facility that adds approximately
31.8 MW of generating capacity.
The unit(s) have an operational history of at least

one year with no major retrofit, and at least one unit
has an operational history of more than three years
with no major retrofit. There is no major retrofit in
these time periods.
The unit has an operational history of more than

three years (five years) with no major retrofit38 in
these time periods. There have been two major
maintenance events of note, which did not involve a
major retrofit to the units. Details of these
maintenance events are provided below this table.
In the case that a unit has less than three years

operational history: all project power unit(s) were
designed and commissioned for operation in single
cycle mode only. This shall be demonstrated by the The unit began operation in April 200739 and as
project participants by providing relevant
such has an operational history of more than three
documents, such as original process diagrams and years.
schemes from the construction of the plant, licenses
and/or by an on-site check by the DOE prior to the
implementation of the project activity.
During the most recent three years prior to the
implementation of the project activity and during
the crediting period the project power unit(s) use(d)
only the following fuel types:
(a). Fossil fuels; and/or
(b). Blends of fossil fuels and bio-fuels, where the The project owner has been using only fossil fuel
bio-fuel is blended to the fossil fuel in a
(Natural Gas) for power generation since the open
situation that is outside the control of the
cycle plant was commissioned.
project participants (such as regulatory
requirements to blend biodiesel with diesel or
biogas with natural gas).
Note that this methodology does not allow crediting
for an increase in the share of bio-fuels.
The type(s) of fossil fuels used by the project power
unit(s) during the crediting period were also used
during the most recent three years prior to the
implementation of the project activity, except,
where applicable, any auxiliary fuel consumption
(e.g. for start-ups) which shall not exceed 3% of the
total fuel consumption in the unit(s) (measured on
an energy basis).
38
39
SD56_MEPPO-GEN PLANT HISTORY SHEET

SD55_GE-Commissioning-Closeout
Natural gas will be the fuel source used in the

combined cycle plant and natural gas was also used
prior to the project implementation since the open
cycle plant started to operate.
Moreover, this methodology is applicable under the

condition that the project activity does not increase
the lifetime of the existing gas turbine or engine
during the crediting period, as determined using the
.Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of
equipment. (i.e. this methodology is applicable up
to the end of the lifetime of existing gas turbine or
engine, if shorter than crediting period).
The crediting period chosen is 10 years, without

renewal. It has been explained in Section A.4.3 that
the remaining lifetime of the equipment is 14 years
from the start of CDM activity, so the project
activity does not increase the lifetime of the existing
plant during the crediting period.
For further clarity, there have been two maintenance events of note:
1. Damage due to Silica content during commissioning in 2007
During the initial operating/commissioning period both gas turbines were contaminated with silica from water
being sprayed at the compressor inlet to enhance the output and also in the burner cans to reduce NOx emissions.
Due to the contamination, the Turbine 2 was removed and sent to Europe for repairs. During this period a lease
engine was utilized at the Site and Turbine 1 continued to remain in service. SD_63 contains the MTU repair
report on this repair.
As evidenced by SD_63, this incident was not a major retrofit of the turbine unit(s).
2. Damage to Electric component, 2007
In August 2007, during a unit trip the generator breaker failed to open and the unit motored on the system for
approximately 25 minutes before the Power Plant staff were able to disconnect the generator from the Grid. The
incident resulted in severe damage to GT1 and to the Sulzer GT / Generator gearbox for which there were no
spares available, and to the breaker where there were also no spares available at the time. Temporary repairs were
undertaken at the time and permanent repairs were completed when the required damaged items were replaced.
The cause of the failure was reported to be the loss of the DC battery supply to the control system.
SD64 contains a report by Sulzer on the repairs performed and is evidence that no major retrofit was done on the
turbine(s).
In addition, The Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality, Version 5.0.0
lays out the following applicability criteria.
Methodologies using this tool are only applicable if

the potential alternative scenarios to the proposed
project activity available to project participants
cannot be implemented in parallel to the proposed
project activity.
The only available alternate scenario is to continue

to operate the plant in open cycle mode. This
scenario cannot be implemented in parallel with the
project activity which is to convert the open cycle
operation into combined cycle mode.
B.3. Project boundary

The spatial extent of the project boundary includes the power plant at the project site and all power plants
considered for the calculation of the baseline emissions. A flow diagram of the project boundary, physically
delineating the project activity is presented below:
Exhaust Gas: Co2

GHG Emission: Co2
Waste Heat
Generator
G
T
Stea
HRSG
Supplementary
Gas
ST
Natural
Gas
GHG Emission: Co2
Generator
GT
Supplementary
Gas
Waste Heat
Electricity
Generator
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
Exhaust Gas:
G
R
I
D
HRSG
Stea
Electricity
GHG Emission
GHG Emission
Electricity
PLN Power
Independent Power Producers
Monitoring Points
Project Boundary
Figure 4: Flow diagram of project boundary
The following table shows which emission sources and gases are included in the project boundary for the purpose
of calculating project emissions and baseline emissions:
Project scenario
Baseline scenario
Source
GHGs
Included?
Grid
connected
electricity
generation
CO2
CH4
Yes
No
N2O
No
On-site
fossil fuel
combustion
to operate
the power
unit in open
cycle mode
On-site
fossil fuel
combustion
in the gas
turbine to
operate in
combined
cycle mode
On-site
fossil fuel
consumption
to
supplement
the exhaust
heat in
operating
steam
turbine
CO2
CH4
Yes
No
N2O
No
CO2
CH4
Yes
No
N2O
No
CO2
CH4
Yes
No
N2O
No
Justification/Explanation
Significant emission source
Excluded for simplification. This emission source is
assumed to be very small.

B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario

>>
Approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0007 - "Conversion from single cycle to
combined cycle power generation" version 6.1.0 is used to determine and demonstrate the baseline scenario. The
methodology states the approved version of the "Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate
additionality" should be used to demonstrate additionality and identify the most plausible baseline scenario.
The methodology also states:
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.
The future load factor of the open cycle plant in the baseline is unlikely to change due to new conditions in the
grid. The baseline plant has a valid PPA for 20 years that specifies the operational parameters. The baseline PLF
is based on the technical capacity of the existing open-cycle plant and the cost of generating the electricity by the
baseline plant relative to other power plants in the grid.
The project activity will increase the efficiency of the power plant by converting to combined cycle technology.
As such, the relative cost of electricity generated by the plant will decrease. As a result, PLN has increased the
projected availability factor demanded from the plant from 80% to 85% load factor (as the electricity is now
slightly cheaper relative to other sources in the grid). This reflects the improved efficiency of the plant and not
new conditions in the grid. As such, the increase in the PLF would not apply to the baseline power plant.
Indonesia is facing increased electricity demand and has a current supply shortfall that is forecast to increase in
the coming decade4041. Given this scenario, PLN is unlikely (unable) to deviate from its planned power off-take
from the various available sources of electricity.
There are no significantly new conditions expected in the grid. In 2010, the power generating capacity of the
Sumatra grid was over 4.5 GW42. Given such a large base of generating power plants and the forecast supply
shortfall, it is unlikely that there will be any changes that will significantly affect the conditions in the grid.
As such, the future estimated load factor for the baseline scenario is not likely to be materially affected.
The Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality is applied below.
Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios
Identify all alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity(s) which can be the baseline scenario via
the following Sub-steps:
1a.
1b.
Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity

Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations
Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity
In this sub-step, alternatives to the project activity need to be identified. In accordance with the Methodology, the
following six possible alternative scenarios/alternatives are identified:
Alternative (1).
Alternative (2).
Alternative (3).
Alternative (4).
Alternative (5).
Alternative (6).
Proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity;
Continuation of the current practice ( not implementing the project activity);
If applicable, the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM
project activity undertaken at a later point in time (e.g. due to existing regulations, endof-life of existing equipment, financing aspects).
Coal fired power plants with the installed capacity equal to proposed project activity
Oil fired power plants with the installed capacity equal to proposed project activity
Renewable power plants with the installed capacity equal to proposed project activity
Step 1a states in the tool "Identify all alternative scenarios that (a) are available to the project participants, (b)
cannot be implemented in parallel to the proposed project activity, and (c) provide outputs or services with
comparable quality, properties and application areas as the proposed CDM project activity."
Alternative (1) This is a feasible and credible alternative and so could be the baseline scenario (but faces
investment barriers explained below)
Alternative (2) This is a feasible and credible alternative and so could be the baseline scenario
Alternative (3) - The existing power plant assets are relatively new (6 years) and have 14 years remaining lifetime.
There are no scheduled relevant changes to the existing regulations or financing conditions. As such, Alternative
(3) is not applicable.
Alternative (4) The investment is being made at an existing natural gas fired power station to extend the
capacity by utilizing waste heat. Building a new coal-fired power station represents a completely different kind of
investment that could be implemented in parallel to the project activity. However, investment in a coal power
plant is not permitted at the site and coal infrastructure is not in place, so this investment is not available to the
40
SD61b_Power_shortage_Indonesia
SD61a_Power_shortage_Sumatra
42
SD60 _Sumatra_ Power_Generating _Capacity
41
project participants. Note that the project owner has an existing gas supply contract43 until 2013 and therefore it is
expected that the plant will continue to be operated by natural gas, with a new contract or with the existing
contract re-negotiated. A coal fired power plant would also generate more GHG than the proposed project and so
would not meet the objectives of the investment or provide outputs of 'comparable' quality. Therefore, Alternative
4 could not be the baseline scenario.
Alternative (5) - The investment is being made at an existing natural gas fired power station to extend the capacity
by utilizing waste heat. Building a new oil-fired power station represents a completely different kind of
investment that could be implemented in parallel to the project activity. However, investment in an oil power
plant is not permitted at the site and oil infrastructure is not in place, so this investment is not available to the
project participants. Note that the project owner has a gas supply contract44 until 2013 and thereafter it is
expected that the plant will continue to be operated by natural gas, with a new contract or re-negotiated existing
contract. An oil fired power plant would also generate more GHG than the proposed project and so would not
meet the objectives of the investment or provide outputs of 'comparable' quality. Therefore, Alternative 5 could
not be the baseline scenario.
Alternative (6) The project participants are independent power producers with access to this site and this
existing natural gas power plant. Renewable energy resources such as Hydro, Wind, Geothermal and Solar are
not adequately obtainable to implement a plant with the rated capacity equal to proposed project activity at this
site. Renewable energy power plants also usually generate electricity irregularly and so do not generate electricity
suitable for base load supply. Therefore Alternative 6 could not be the baseline scenario.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are identified as possible baseline scenarios and are assessed further in Step 1b.
A presidential decree45 committed private-sector power producers to supply power under the second phase of the
governments fast-track power generation program. The second phase intends to move away from coal and add
a second 10,000 MW of capacity by 2013 or 2014 like phase I. Phase one mostly depended on coal based power
generation. As such, the continuation of the current scenario based on natural gas fired generation of electricity is
in line with national regulations and policies.
Step 1b: Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations
Alternatives
(1): Proposed project

activity undertaken without
being registered as a CDM
project activity
(2): Continuation of current

practice (to not
implementing the project
activity)
Explanation
This is consistent with prevailing laws and
regulations since the project was proposed by
the project developer under the current laws and
regulations governing the Indonesian power
sector. There are several other existing gas fired
combined cycle power plants in Indonesia.
There is no legal requirement to register projects
such as this under the CDM.
The current practice is clearly consistent with
prevailing laws and regulations. There is no
regulation in Indonesia to prevent the
continuation of current practice and no
regulation that requires the conversion of single
cycle power stations to combined cycle.
Compliance with
country's laws and
regulation (Y/N)
Alternatives scenarios (1) and (2) are in compliance with mandatory legislation and regulations, taking into
consideration the enforcement in Indonesia and national and sectoral policies and regulations.
43
SD15_Gas Contract Signed

SD15_Gas Contract Signed
45
SD4_Fast_Track_Programme_2nd_Phase (or) http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/indonesia-opens-fasttrack-door-to-private-energy-producers/352537
44
Step 2. Barrier Analysis

Investment barriers
The proposed project activity (Alternative 1) does face an Investment Barrier, as demonstrated in Section B.5
below. The continuation of the current scenario (Alternative 2) requires no investment and does not face an
investment barrier.
Technological barriers
There are no major technological barriers that face the proposed project activity (Alternative 1) or the
continuation of the current scenario (Alternative 2).
Lack of prevailing practice
There are no major barriers identified due to prevailing practice as Indonesia has several existing grid connected
combined cycle power plants in operation.
The above analysis demonstrates that among the identified alternatives, Alternative 1 faces Investment Barriers as
explained in section B.5 and Alternative 2, does not face any technical barriers due to implementation.
The baseline scenario is thus identified to be the same as the existing scenario, which is the continued operation of
the existing Open Cycle Gas Turbine power plant at the existing project site with the existing Plant Load Factor.
All of the waste heat utilized for power generation in the project activity would continue to be vented, in absence
of the project activity. In the baseline scenario, the OCGT power plant would continue to generate the same
amount of electricity per year as in the existing scenario and would continue to provide this electricity to the
Sumatra grid. In the baseline scenario, additional electricity would be supplied by existing and new power plants
connected to the grid, which comprise predominantly power plants fuelled by high carbon intensive fossil fuels
such as coal. As such, the project activity will reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the generation of
electricity by more carbon intensive fossil-fuel fired power stations connected to the grid.
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are further assessed using 'Investment Analysis' and the results are presented in
Section B.5 below.
B.5. Demonstration of additionality
>>
Prior CDM consideration
The early consideration of CDM is demonstrated in accordance with the latest Guidance on the demonstration
and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM, version 446. As per the guidelines, the project owner notified
in writing the CDM-EB and the Indonesian DNA of the intention to register the project activity with the CDM on
06 May 201147. The Chronology of the project activity is outlined in Table 4 below:
Table 4: Project activity events in chronological order
Event
Date
Supporting Evidence
Manufacturing Slot
Agreement for Steam turbine
24 November 2010 SD38_Slot_reservation_agreement
with Siemens (Investment
Decision Date)
Agreement between
Meppogen and EON for
26 January 2011
Emissions Reductions Purchase Agreement
CDM Project
implementation and CER
Sale
46
Annex 61 of EB 48 (or)
SD4c_Guidelines_on_The_Demonstration_and_Assessment_of_prior_Consideration_of_the_CDM
47
SD20_Prior consideration note_06May2011
Event
Steam Turbine contract
signed
CDM Prior Consideration
notification issued to
UNFCCC Secretariat and
Indonesian DNA
Agreement between EON
and Biosphere capital for
CDM project Consultancy
EPC contract signed
Construction Start Date
Contract Between Bureau
Veritas and EON.
Date
18 March 2011
Supporting Evidence
SD9_ST_Spec_Sheet
6 May 2011
SD20_Prior consideration note_06May2011
2 June 2011
Consultancy Contract
Sep 2011
Oct 2011
10 Nov 2011
SD32b_EPC_CONTRACT
SD32b_EPC_CONTRACT
Validation Contract
In compliance with the Tool for the Demonstration and Assessment of Additionality, investment
analysis (step 3) has been selected as an appropriate method to demonstrate additionality.
Step 1: Identification of Alternatives to the Project Activity Consistent with Current Laws and
Regulations
Refer above section B.4
Step 2: Barrier Analysis
Refer above section B.4
Step 3: Investment Analysis
The alternative scenarios remaining after Step 2 are Alternative (1) and Alternative (2). Since one of the
alternatives, Alternative (2), is the continuation of current practice that does not require any investment, it is not
possible to conduct an investment comparison analysis. Therefore, benchmark analysis is conducted in order to
evaluate the financial attractiveness of Alternative (1), the proposed project activity without being registered as a
CDM project activity.
Equity Internal Rate of Return (E-IRR), or return on equity (ROE) is selected as the most suitable financial
indicator, since the investment decisions of the project owner and investors are based on the expected ROE of the
project activity. The minimum required ROE for the project must be at least in line with the ROE for similar
energy projects in Indonesia for the project to be attractive to investors. Therefore, this analysis compares the EIRR of the project activity with the benchmark E-IRR required for energy projects in Indonesia. The post-tax EIRR of the project has been calculated.
The appropriate benchmark E-IRR has been selected based on the Guidelines on the assessment of investment
analysis (version 5), published as part of the CDM Executive Board's 61st meeting (the Guidelines). According
to the Guidelines, paragraph 15:
If the benchmark is based on parameters that are standard in the market, the cost of equity should be determined
either by: (a) selecting the values provided in Appendix A; or by (b) calculating the cost of equity using best
financial practices, based on data sources which can be clearly validated by the DOE, while properly justifying all
underlying factors
Appendix A of the Guidelines provides conservative default values for the approximate expected return on equity
for different project types and host countries. Since the project is in the energy industry it is included in the
projects of Group 1 as specified by Appendix A. Thus, given the project is located in Indonesia, the E-IRR
benchmark applied for the project in this analysis is 12.5%. This is a post-tax Equity IRR.
Table 5 below presents the main information used in the E-IRR calculation for the project activity.
Table 5: Basic parameters for financial evaluation
Parameter
Unit
Value
Data Source
Contracted Capacity: Project
MW
110
Draft new PPA48
Contracted Capacity
(Baseline)
MW
80
Baseline plant PPA49
Load Factor (AFEA)
85%
PPA50
MWh/yr
258,420
Calculation51
Total Investment
USD
54,405,543
EPC Proposal, Bank Mandate

letter, Management estimation52
Electricity Tariff
USD/kWh
0.058
Calculation53
Quantity of Gas Consumption
mmBTU/annum
1,137,565
Calculation54
Gas Price (for additional gas

consumed in project)
USD/mmBTU
5.255
Price under negotiation
O&M Expenses (additional

for the project)
USD/annum
1,960,000
ETSAP study56
USD
45,000,000
Bank mandate letter57
8.00%
Bank mandate letter
Years
14
Remaining lifetime of the open

cycle plant based on default value
of Tool to determine remaining
lifetime of equipment
Post-tax IRR
9.50%
Calculation58
Benchmark
12.50%
Guidelines on the assessment of

investment analysis (version 5)
Net (Additional) Electricity

Generation by project
Bank Loan
Interest Rate
Assessment Period
Note that the assumed amount of gas consumed in the project scenario is based on the estimated heat rate of the
CCGT turbines as specified in the original PPA for the OCGT plant. This PPA specifies estimated heat rates for
the gas turbines when run at different Plant Load Factors, including at 80% (the existing and baseline scenario)
and at 85% (the proposed project). The PPA thus provides a consistent source of estimates for the gas
consumption of the gas turbines for both the baseline and the project scenario. The additional amount of gas
consumed by the project as compared to the baseline can therefore be calculated. The gas consumed by the duct
48
SD10c (page G-14) see under CC (MW)

SD10a (page 61/130; G-14), see under CC (MW)
50
SD10c (page G-14) under AFp
51
SD_100_Additionality_Spreadsheet; worksheet PLN Tariff
52
SD100_Additionality_Spreadsheet; worksheet Assumptions
53
SD_100_additionality_Spreadsheet; worksheet PLN Tariff
54
SD_100_Additionality_Spreadsheet; worksheet Assumptions
55
SD50_Additional_Gas_Price_MEDCO_MEPPOGEN
56
SD40-gas_fired_power_plant_study (page 4/5); See Table, O&M cost under Costs
57
SD24_Bank_Mandate_Letter
58
SD_100_Additionality_Spreadsheet; See worksheet Cash Flow
49
burners is added to the additional gas burned in the gas turbines to estimate the total additional gas consumed by
the project. This information was available at the time of the investment decision. An estimation of the overall
heat rate of the CCGT plant was also later calculated in the EPC documentation (including turbines and duct
burner). This was finalised after the investment decision and separately to the PPA. The EPC calculation is
considered more technically accurate than the assumptions used in the PPA and so is used in the calculation of
emissions reductions. As such, the estimate of gas consumption by the project activity that is used in the
calculation of emission reductions is not the same as the estimate used in the financial analysis. The estimate of
gas consumption used in the financial analysis is slightly higher than that used in the emission reduction
calculations, and thus conservative from an investment analysis and additionality perspective.
The post-tax Equity IRR of the project activity without the additional income from CDM is 9.50%, which is
below the benchmark ROE of 12.5%. This indicates that the project is not financially viable without CDM
assistance and thus indicates that the project is additional.
Sensitivity Analysis
The key parameters/ assumptions that affect the E-IRR of the project are:
Capital expenditure
Electricity tariff
Amount of electricity supplied to the grid
Gas costs/ price
Operational expenses
The impacts on E-IRR due to variations in these key parameters are shown in the Table below.
Table 6: Sensitivity analysis
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
Threshold
Tariff
1.65%
5.48%
9.50%
13.74%
18.14%
104%
Plant Load factor
21.64%
14.98%
9.50%
2.40%
-0.77%
97%
Capex
17.82%
12.50%
9.50%
7.42%
5.84%
95%
O&M expenses
10.60%
10.05%
9.50%
8.95%
8.42%
72%
Gas price
12.82%
11.15%
9.50%
7.88%
6.30%
90%
A range of +/- 10% is applied and threshold values are also calculated:
The analysis is performed with the terms of the draft new PPA (SD10c), as the investment decision was
based on these terms It is evident that at the tariff that has been proposed in the draft PPA, the project
IRR at 9.50% is below the benchmark. The tariff needs to increase by 4% to reach the benchmark IRR
value. Since the tariff is fixed by the PPA for the duration of the PPA, such an increase is not foreseen and
therefore the project is additional. In fact, the final PPA offered some time after the investment decision
has less favourable terms.
Plant Load factor: To reach the benchmark Equity IRR, the plant load factor must decrease by 3% and
reach 82.4%. The calculation of the tariff is complex. It has several different components and is
dependent on many variables. Strangely, if the PLF decreases, the net effect is for a slightly higher IRR.
If PLN does not take the agreed 85% PLF, PLN will still pay the PP for this amount (though slightly less
than the full amount). As such, if for some reason less than 85% is demanded by PLN, the costs of the
plant decline while revenue does not hence the IRR increases.
This decrease in the PLF is very unlikely given that the draft PPA states a projected Availability Factor of
85%. Therefore PLN will have to pay the project owner for an offtake of 85% or more, even if the actual
offtake PLN manages is lower than this projected value of 85%. This makes it uneconomical for PLN to
offtake a lower quantity of electricity than 85%. Therefore, the load factor is expected to be 85% or more.
Historical records of electricity generation also support the estimation that the load factor for the
combined cycle power plant would be at least close to the Availability Factor contracted as per the PPA.
Besides, Indonesia is facing increased electricity demand and has a current supply shortfall that is forecast
to increase in the coming decade5960. In this scenario, it can be reasonably expected that PLN would
offtake its projected electricity quantity of 85% of total contracted capacity or more. Meppogen is
contractually obliged to supply this amount and cannot decide to supply less.
Capital expenditure for the project would have to decrease by 5% for the project to be economically
attractive and thus not additional. Cost reductions of this magnitude are unlikely given that the cost
assumptions are based on current supplier and construction quotations. In fact, there have been several
cost increases or variances that were not foreseen and have not been included in the analysis.
O&M expenses would need to reduce by 28% for the project to become non-additional. A reduction in
O&M cost of this magnitude is extremely unlikely.
The gas price for additional gas used in this project used in the additionality analysis is 5.2
USD/mmBTU. This is the price amendment proposed to the gas supplier MEDCO by the project owner.
The project owner has confirmed that this price was rejected by MEDCO as it was deemed to be too low.
Negotiations to set the gas price are ongoing, and it is expected that a gas price higher than 5.2
USD/mmBTU will be fixed. In this scenario, the project owners assumption of 5.2 USD/mmBTU for the
gas price is very conservative and over-estimates the returns from the project. In the present analysis, the
gas price needs to reduce by 10% and reach a value of 4.68 USD/mmBTU for the project to become
financially attractive. For the reasons discussed above, a decrease of this magnitude is extremely unlikely.
Step 4: Common practice analysis

In addition to the Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality, the
methodology ACM0007 version 6.1.0 defines the procedure to undertake common practice analysis. In
accordance with the Methodology, similar activities to the project activity are defined as:
...all single cycle and combined cycle power plants that have been an installed capacity within a range of
+/- 50% of the project power plant and that are using one of the fossil fuel types used by the project power units.
The relevant geographical area is in principle the host country and the relevant geographical area should include
preferably ten or more such power plants. The project activity is regarded to be 'common practice' if more than
50% of the assessed power plants operate in combined cycle mode. A list of single and combined gas power
plants (within the plant capacity limit between 55MW and 165MW) in Indonesia is presented in the Table below.
Table 7: List of single and combined cycle gas-fired power plants in Indonesia with comparable installed capacity
(55 - 165MW)
S.No
Plant
MW
Status
Type
Fuel
State
ARUN LPG
1
81.25
Operational
Gas Turbine
Gas
Aceh
PROJECT
BETARA GAS
2
69.9
Operational
Gas Turbine
Gas
Jakarta Raya
PLANT
Gas Turbine with
3
BEKASI FSW
69.5
Operational
Gas
West Java
Steam send out
KARAWANG
Gas Turbine with
4
83
Operational
Gas
West Java
INDAH
Steam send out
CITEUREUP
Steam
5
CEMENT
96
Operational
Waste Heat West Java
Turbine/Combined
WORKS
59
60
SD61b_Power_shortage_Indonesia
SD61a_Power_shortage_Sumatra
S.No
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Plant
CILACAP
MW
81
Status
Operational
GRATI
159.58
Operational
55.5
Operational
91.6
Operational
104.9
KALIMANTAN
MENAMAS
BONTANG LNG
PLANT
LHOKSEUMA
WE
PERTAMINA
MUSI
REFINERY
PALEMBANG
REFINERY
Gas
State
Central Java
Waste Heat
East Java
Gas
East Kalimantan
Gas Turbine
Gas
East Kalimantan
Operational
Gas Turbine
Gas
Aceh
70.2
Operational
Gas Turbine
Gas
South Sumatra
63.3
Operational
Gas Turbine
Gas
South Sumatra
Gas
South Sumatra
Gas
Gas
South Sumatra
South Sumatra
Waste Heat
South Sumatra
Gas
South Sumatra
Gas
South Sumatra
Gas
West Java
13
BORANG
77.5
Operational
14
15
INDRALAYA
KERAMASAN
80
159
Operational
Operational
16
BORANG
56.5
Operational
Type
Gas Turbine
Steam
Turbine/Combined
Gas Turbine with
Steam send out
Gas
Turbine/Combined
Gas Turbine
Gas Turbine
Steam
Turbine/Combined
PALEMBANG
75.7
Operational
Gas Turbine
PURSI
GUNUNG
18
80
Operational
Gas Turbine
MEGANG
KARAWANG
Gas Turbine with
19
108.4
Operational
WISMAKARYA
Steam send out
Source: World Electric Power Plants Database from PLATTS
17
Fuel
Based on the above statistics on power plants in Indonesia, there are 19 power plants that meet the common
practice inclusion criteria, of which 4 are combined cycle.
"..The project activity is regarded common practice if more than 50% of the assessed power plants operate in
combined cycle mode. A power plant is considered to operate in combined cycle mode if any of its units operate in
combined cycle mode."
Total Number of gas-fired power plants:
54
Total Number of gas-fired power plants between 55MW and 165MW
19
Total Number of combined cycle plant between 55MW and 165 MW
Total Proportion of combined cycle plant and single cycle power plants
21%
Only 21% of the gas fired power plants of comparable size operating in Indonesia are combined cycle. This is less
than the 50% threshold prescribed in the methodology ACM0007 version 6.1.0. Thus, the project activity is not
regarded as common practice.
Conclusion:
Step 3 and Step 4 demonstrated that the project:
is not financially attractive (is less attractive than the alternative)
is not common practice
Therefore, the proposed project activity is additional.
B.6. Emission reductions

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices
>>
According to ACM007 version 6.1.0, the project activity mainly reduces CO2 emissions through substitution of
power generation supplied by the existing generation sources connected to the grid and likely future additions to
the grid. The relevant methodological steps are described below:
The emission reduction is determined as follows:
ER y BE y PE y LE y
ER y
Emissions reductions in year y (tCO2)
BE y
Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2)
PE y
Project emissions in year y (tCO2)
LE y
Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2)
a. Baseline Emissions:
The baseline scenario is the generation of electricity by the operation of the existing project power unit(s) in
single cycle mode as well as by grid-connected power plants. The project will partially displace electricity
generated by the project power unit(s) in the baseline scenario. In addition, it is also expected to displace
electricity in the grid, as the quantity of electricity generation by the plant is expected to increases as a result of
the project activity. However, it is unknown to what extent such an increase is due to the project activity or would
have occurred anyway (e.g. due to a change in the electricity demand or availability of other power plants). The
calculation of baseline emissions is therefore based on the three cases:
Case 1) The quantity of electricity generated in the project power unit(s), adjusted for changes to efficiency,
(EGPJ,adj,y) is lower than or equal to the historic average annual generation level (EGBL,AVR). Baseline
emissions are calculated as:
BE y EG PJ ,adj , y EFCO 2, BL
(EGPJ,adj,y) exceeds the historic average annual generation level (EGBL,AVR) but is lower than or equal to the
maximum annual quantity of electricity that the project power unit(s) could have produced prior to the
implementation of the project activity (EGMAX). Baseline emissions are calculated as:
BE y EG BL , AVR EFCO 2, BL , y ( EG PJ ,adj , y EG BL , AVR ) min( EFCO 2, BL ; EFgrid , y )

(EGPJ,adj,y) exceeds the maximum annual quantity of electricity that the project power unit(s) could have
produced prior to the implementation of the project activity (EGMAX). Baseline emissions are calculated as:
BE y EGBL, AVR EFCO 2, BL, y ( EGMAX EGBL, AVR ) min( EFCO 2, BL ; EFgrid , y )
( EGPJ ,adj , y EGMAX ) EFgrid , y
Where:
BEy
EGPJ,adj,y
Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr)

Quantity of electricity supplied by all project power units to the electricity grid in
year y, adjusted for changes to efficiency (MWh/yr)
EGBL,AVR
EGMAX
EFCO2,BL
EFgrid,y
Average annual quantity of electricity supplied by all project power units to the
electricity grid during the defined operational history (MWh/yr)
Maximum annual quantity of electricity that could be generated by all project
power units in the baseline scenario (MWh/yr)
Baseline emission factor of all project power units operated in single cycle mode
(tCO2/MWh)
Emission factor of the electricity grid to which the project power unit is connected
(tCO2/MWh)
The project complies with Case 3 requirement as the electricity generated by the combined cycle power plant will
exceed the maximum electricity generation capacity of the single cycle plant61. Refer to section B.6.3 and the
revised_SD48_CER spreadsheet.
In the baseline scenario, the maximum electricity that could have been produced (EGmax) is defined by ACM0007
version 6.1.0 as
EGmax = CAPmax . Tmax
Referring to this calculation in worksheet Electricity Generation of revised_SD48, EGmax = 677,051 MWh/year.
In the project scenario, the plant is expected to operate at a load factor of 85%. Assuming only 85% operational
time for the project, this leads to an annual electricity generation of 819,060 MWh/year. Refer to worksheet
Electricity Generation of revised_SD48. Since this value is clearly more than maximum possible electricity
generation in the baseline scenario. Even if we assume that there are no shutdown hours in the baseline scenario
and the plant runs at 100% in the baseline. The electricity generation would be 728,656.8 MWh/year, which is
still lower than the expected generation of the plant in CCGT mode. Therefore, case C is selected.
b. Case 3 related Formulas:
The maximum annual quantity of electricity that could be generated by the project power unit(s) in the baseline
scenario (EGMAX) is calculated as:
EG MAX CAPmax Tmax

Where:
EGMAX
CAPmax
TMAX
- Maximum annual quantity of electricity that could be generated by all project power units in
the baseline scenario (MWh/yr)
- Maximum gross power generation capacity of the project power unit(s) prior to the
implementation of the project activity (MW)
- Maximum amount of time during a year in which the project power unit(s) could have
operated at full power generation capacity prior to the implementation of the project activity
(hours/yr)
If all project power units have three years operational history, and if there was no major retrofit during this period
in any of the units, then the maximum annual amount of time that the project power unit(s) could have operated at
full load prior to the validation of the project activity is calculated based on below equation.
3
TMAX 8,760
61
HMR
x 1
Operating the 110MW CCGT plant at the planned 85% availability factor is equivalent to 93.5MW, more than the
total possible from the existing 80MW plant
Where:
TMAX
- Maximum amount of time during a year in which the project power unit(s) could have
operated at full power generation capacity prior to the implementation of the project activity
(hours/yr)
- Average number of hours during which the plant did not operate due to maintenance or
repair in year x (hours/yr)
- Each year during the three years operational history
HMRx
x
The average annual amount of electricity supplied to the electricity grid by the project power unit(s) in the three
years historical period is calculated according to equation given below. This calculation is based on data from
three years operational history there was no major retrofit during this period. This satisfies the condition specified
in ACM0007.
3
EG BL , AVR
EG
x 1
3
- Average annual quantity of electricity supplied by all project power units to the electricity
grid during the three year operational history (MWh/yr)
- Quantity of electricity supplied by the project power unit(s) with three years operational
history and no retrofit in this period, to the electricity grid in year x (MWh/yr)
- Each year of the three years operational history
EGBL,AVR
EGx
x
The methodology also states that the total amount of electricity supplied to the electricity grid by all project power
units in year y of the crediting period has to be adjusted for the calculation of baseline emissions so that future
energy efficiency improvement measures shall not result in emissions reductions. Therefore, the total amount of
electricity supplied to the grid (EGPJ,y) shall be conservatively adjusted by applying a discount factor based on the
minimum of the monitored efficiencies after the implementation of the project activity, as described in the
equations below:
EG PJ ,adj , y EG PJ , y
PJ ,min, y
PJ , y
with
PJ ,min, y min( PJ ,1 ,...., PJ , y )

Where:
EGPJ,adj,y
- Quantity of electricity supplied by all project power units to the electricity grid in year y,
adjusted for changes to project power plant efficiency (MWh/yr)
EGPJ,y
- Total amount of electricity supplied to the electricity grid by the project power units in
year y (MWh/yr)
- Minimum of the yearly average energy efficiency of the project power unit(s) monitored
during the previous years (1 to y) after the implementation of the project activity for year y
- Average energy efficiency of the project power unit(s) in years 1 to y of the crediting
period (refer to PJ,y in the monitoring tables)
PJ,min,y
PJ,i
PJ,y
c. Estimating the emissions factor for electricity generated in the baseline (EFCO2,BL):
The baseline CO2 emissions factor for the project power unit(s) operated in single cycle mode (EFCO2,BL) is
determined based on the historical performance of the units and calculated according to below equation.
EFCO 2, BL
FC
x 1
i, x
NCVi , x
EG
x 1
EFCO 2,min
Where:
EFCO2,BL
FCi,x
NCVi,x
EFCO2,min
EGx
- CO2 emission factor for electricity generated in single cycle mode in the baseline
(tCO2/MWh)
- Quantity of fuel type i used by the project power unit(s) in year x (mass or volume
unit/yr)
- Net calorific value of the fuel type i used by the project power unit(s) in year x (GJ/mass
or volume unit )
- CO2 emission factor of the least carbon intensive fuel type used by the project power
unit(s) during the three years operational history (tCO2/GJ)
- Quantity of electricity supplied by the project power unit(s) with three years operational
history and no retrofit in this period, to the electricity grid in year x (MWh/yr)
d. Determine the emissions factor for the grid electricity system (EFgrid,y):
The Grid Emission Factor used in the calculation is the Combined Margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected
power generation in year y. The calculation was done by Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT),
which was then approved by the Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Utilization (DJLPE)62. The fuel
consumption data for Independent Power Producers (IPP) is calculated from the generated electricity and fuel
types. This is due to the unavailability of fuel consumption data for IPPs. The data used for the calculation of the
grid emission factor is the most recently available data at the time of submission of the PDD to the DOE.
According to Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system version 3.0.0, the following steps were
taken.
STEP 1. Identify the relevant electricity systems
STEP 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional);
STEP 3. Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM);
STEP 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method;
STEP 5. Calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor;
STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emission factor.
Step 1. Identify the relevant electricity system
The Project is connected to the Sumatera grid as delineated by the host Party DNA. Thus the Sumatera grid is
identified as the relevant electricity system.
Step 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional)
For this grid calculation, Option I "Only grid power plants are included in the calculation" is chosen, thus no
off-grid power plant is considered in the calculation.
Step 3: Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM)
For the Sumatera Grid, from 2003-2007, the amount of low-cost/must-run resources connected to the Grid
accounted for 20.95%, 17.90%, 17.28%, 19.52% and 21.99% of total Grid generation, respectively. All values are
less than 50%, thus method (a) of Simple OM is used to calculate the operating margin emission factor of the
62
DJLPE is the unit within the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources which is responsible in electricity and energy
utilization policies, regulations and programs.
Sumatera Grid. See Annex 3 for more details. To calculate the Simple OM emission factor of the Sumatera Grid,
the ex-ante option is adopted using the data vintage of a 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most
recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation.
Step 4: Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method
Option B is selected because the necessary data for option A, such as data on net electricity generation of each
power unit, the average efficiency of each power unit and fuel consumption, is not available for all power plants
in Sumatera Grid. Data of fuel consumption for each power plant owned by Independent Power Producers (IPPs)
is not publicly available. Thus, Option A cannot be adopted. Therefore, Option B is adopted to calculate the
Simple OM emission factor of the Sumatera Grid.
Option B - Calculation based on total fuel consumption and electricity generation of the system. Under this
option, the Simple OM emission factor is calculated based on the net electricity supplied to the grid by all power
plants serving the system, not including low-cost/must-run power plants/units, and based on the fuel type(s) and
total fuel consumption of the project electricity system, as follows:
EFgrid ,OMsimple, y
Where:
EFgrid,OMsimple,y
FCi,y
NCVi,y
EFCO2,i, y
EGm
i
y
( FC
i, y
NCVi , y EFCO 2,i , y )
EG y
Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed in the project electricity system in year y
(mass or volume unit)
Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or volume
unit)
CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)
Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by all power sources serving the
system, not including low-cost/must-run power plants/units, in year y (MWh)
All fossil fuel types combusted in power sources in the project electricity system in
year y
The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3 (2006-2008)
For this approach (Simple OM) to calculate the operating margin, the subscript m refers to the power plants/units
delivering electricity to the grid, not including low-cost/must-run power plants/units, and including electricity
imports to the grid. Electricity imports should be treated as one power plant m.
Step 5: Calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor
In terms of vintage of date, Option 1 is chosen: build margin emission factor is calculated ex ante based on the
most recent information available on units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD submission
to the DOE for validation. Capacity additions from retrofits of power plants are not included in the calculation of
the build margin emission factor.
The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin is determined as per the following
procedure, consistent with the data vintage selected above:
(a) Identified the set of five power units, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities, that
started to supply electricity to the grid most recently (SET5-units) and determined their annual electricity
generation (AEGSET-5-units, in MWh);
(b) Determined the annual electricity generation of the project electricity system, excluding power units
registered as CDM project activities (AEGtotal, in MWh). Identified the set of power units, excluding
power units registered as CDM project activities, that started to supply electricity to the grid most
recently and that comprise 20% of AEGtotal (if 20% falls on part of the generation of a unit, the generation
of that unit is fully included in the calculation) (SET20%) and determined their annual electricity
generation (AEGSET-20%, in MWh);
(c) From SET5-units and SET20% selected the set of power units that comprises the larger annual electricity
generation (SETsample);
Identified the date when the power units in SETsample started to supply electricity to the grid. None of the
power units in SETsample started to supply electricity to the grid more than 10 years ago, thus SETsample
was used calculate the build margin. Steps (d), (e) and (f) are ignored.
The set of power units described as (b) in the Sumatera Grid comprises the larger annual generation than that of
(a), thus the sample group (b) is used for calculating the build margin emission factor for Sumatera Grid. Power
plants registered as CDM project activities are excluded from the sample group m. Since no plants in the resulting
sample group were built more than 10 years ago steps (d), (e) and (f) are ignored. Also, since the 20% falls on part
capacity of a unit, that unit is fully included in the calculation which leads to a 20.2% of the total generation.
Details are provided in Annex 3.
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:
EG EF
EG
m, y
EFgrid ,BM , y
EL ,m , y
m, y
Where:
EFgrid, BM,y
EGm, y
EFEL, m, y
m
y
Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year
y (MWh)
CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)
Power units included in the build margin
Most recent historical year for which electricity generation data is available
The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) is determined as per the guidance in step 4 (a) for the
simple OM, using option A1, using for y the most recent historical year for which electricity generation data is
available, and using for m the power units included in the build margin.
Step 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emission factor
The weighted average CM (option A) is used. The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as follows:
EFgrid ,CM , y EFgrid ,OM , y wOM EFgrid ,BM , y wBM

Where:
EFgrid, BM, y
EFgrid, OM, y
WOM
WBM
Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%)
Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%)
The following default values should be used for wOM and wBM for all projects that are not wind and solar:
wOM = 0.5 and wBM = 0.5 for the first crediting period , and wOM = 0.25 and wBM = 0.75 for the second and third
crediting period, unless otherwise specified in the approved methodology which refers to this tool. Since a fixed
crediting period is chosen, we use wOM = 0.5 and wBM = 0.5.
The resulting emission factor for the Sumatra grid is 0.743 tCo2/MWh.
Project Emissions:
Project emissions (PEy) will be determined using the "Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from
fossil fuel combustion" version 2. PEy is referred to in this tool as PEFC,j,y where j corresponds to the combustion of
fossil fuels to operate the project power unit(s) and to supplement the exhaust heat in operating the steam turbine.
In this project, both emission sources apply:
a. combustion of fossil fuels to operate the project power units
b. to supplement the exhaust heat in operating the steam turbine
In the following calculations,
PEy is often denoted as PEFC,j,y.
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j are calculated based on the quantity of fuels combusted
and the CO2 emission coefficient of those fuels, as follows:
PE FC , j , y FCi , j , x COEFi , y
i
COEFi , y NCV i , y EFCO 2,i , y

Therefore,
PE FC , j , y FC i , j , x NCVi , y EFCO 2,i , y

i
Where:
PEFC,j,y
FCi,j,y
COEFi,y
NCVi,y
EFCO2,i,y
- CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process j during the year y (tCO2/yr);
- Quantity of fuel type i combusted in process j during the year y (mass or volume unit/yr)
- CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/mass or volume unit)
- Net calorific value of the fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or volume unit)
- Weighted average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ)
Leakage Emission:
The methodology ACM0007 provides the following scenarios where the leakage will occur:
i.
Emissions associated with the situation that exhaust heat was already recovered prior to the
implementation of the project activity, in which case the diversion of this heat to the project power unit(s)
may increase emissions elsewhere; and
Conclusion:
The waste heat was not recovered prior to the project implementation. Therefore, this scenario is not
applicable for this case.
ii. Emissions associated with extraction, production, transportation, distribution and processing of an
increased quantity of fossil fuels consumed by the project activity (LEupstream,y).
Since the quantity of natural gas consumed has increased in the project, this scenario is applicable. The
relevant calculations are shown below.
Leakage emissions are calculated as follows:
LE y LE upstream, y LE HR, y
Where:
LEy
LEupstream,y
- Leakage emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr)

- Leakage emissions associated with the upstream emissions of an increase in fossil fuel use in
the project activity in year y (tCO2e/yr)
- Leakage emissions due to a decrease in the amount of heat recovered from exhaust heat for
purposes other than power generation in the project, compared to the most recent year prior
to the implementation of the project activity, in year y (tCO2e/yr)
LEHR,y
The waste heat was not recovered63 prior to the project implementation. Therefore, LEHR,y is considered as zero.
Hence,
LE y LE upstream, y
The methodology states that "Where EGPJ,,adj,y is smaller than EGBL,AVR (as illustrated by case (a) in Figure 1),
then leakage emissions from this source are equal to zero."
In proposed project activity, the EGPJ,adj,y is bigger than EGBL,AVR and the fuel consumption by the combined cycle
power plant will be higher than the open cycle power plant. Therefore, leakage emissions associated with the
upstream emissions of an increase in fossil fuel use in the project activity are calculated as follows:
LE upstream,y
1 3
FC i,x NCVi , x
3 x =1 i
max 0, FC i, y NCVi, y EFi,upstream,CH4 GWPCH4 LE LNG,CO2, y 1
i

i FCi,y NCVi, y
Where:
LEupstream,y
FCi,y
NCVi,y
EFi,upstream,CH4 GWPCH4
LELNG,CO2,y :
FCi,x
NCVi,x
Leakage emissions associated with the upstream emissions of an increase in fossil fuel
use in the project activity in the year y (tCO2e/yr)
Quantity of fuel type i used by the project power unit(s) in year y (mass or volume
unit/yr)
Average net calorific value of the fuel type i used by the project power unit(s) in year y
(GJ/mass or volume unit)
Emission factor for upstream fugitive methane emissions from production, transportation,
distribution of fossil fuel i used by the project power unit(s) in year y (tCH4/GJ)
Global warming potential of methane valid for the relevant commitment period
(tCO2e/tCH4)
Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel combustion/electricity consumption associated with
the liquefaction, transportation, re-gasification and compression of LNG into a natural
gas transmission or distribution system in year y (tCO2e/yr)
Quantity of fuel type i used by the project power unit(s) in year x (mass or volume
unit/yr)
Net calorific value of fuel type i used by the project power unit(s) in year x (GJ/mass or
volume unit)
Each year of the three years operational history
Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel combustion/electricity consumption associated with the liquefaction,
transportation, re-gasification and compression of LNG into a natural gas transmission or distribution system
(LELNG,CO2,y) are calculated, where applicable, as follows:
LE LNG,CO2,y FC LNG,y NCVLNG,y EFCO2,upstream,LNG

63
SD34_GT(1)_Side_View_1 & SD35_Open_Cycle_Plant_Front_View
(1)
Where:
LELNG,CO2,y :
FCLNG,y :
NCVLNG,y
EFCO2,upstream,LNG :
Leakage emissions due to fossil fuel combustion/electricity consumption associated

with the liquefaction, transportation, re-gasification and compression of LNG into a
natural gas transmission or distribution system in year y (tCO2e/yr)
Quantity of natural gas produced from LNG used by the project power unit(s) in year
y (mass or volume unit/yr)
Net calorific value of natural gas produced from LNG used by the project power
unit(s) in year y (GJ/mass or volume unit)
Emission factor for upstream CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel combustion/electricity
consumption associated with the liquefaction, transportation, re-gasification and
compression of LNG into a natural gas transmission or distribution system (t CO2e/GJ)
The Natural gas supplied by the fuel supplier is in gaseous form through 16" diameter pipeline64. There will be no
liquefaction, transportation, re-gasification and compression of LNG into a natural gas required to the proposed
project activity. Therefore, this scenario is not applicable for this case and LELNG,CO2,y would be considered as
zero.
Hence,
LE upstream, y
1 3
FC i, x NCV i , x
3
x =1 i
max 0, FC i, y NCVi, y EFi, upstream,CH4 GWPCH4 1
i FC i, y NCVi, y
B.6.2. Data and parameters fixed ex ante

Data / Parameter
EFBM,y
Unit
tCO2/MWh
Description
Build Margin Emission factor for Sumatera Grid

Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT) and approved by the
Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Utilization (DJLPE)
0.581
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Based on latest grid data available at the time of uploading the PDD for
validation. Calculated as per the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor of
an Electricity System.
Purpose of data
Calculation of the Grid Emissions Factor and thus baseline emissions
Additional comment
Data / Parameter:
64
EFOM,y
Page 28, Section 3.3.2 of SD33_INCEPTION_REPORT
Data unit:
Description:
Source of data used:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
tCO2/MWh
Operating Margin Emission factor for Sumatera Grid
Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT) and approved by the
Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Utilization (DJLPE)
0.906
Based on latest grid data available at the time of uploading the PDD for
validation. Calculated as per the Tool to Calculate the Emission Factor of an
Electricity System.
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Calculation of the Grid Emissions Factor and thus baseline emissions
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
EGX
MWh/yr
Historical net electricity generation by the power plant in open cycle mode
Annual operational reports 65
525,248
Yearly plant operation report: The last month plant report which has the
accumulation of all the 12 months of power generation
Year 2008
554,330,500 kWh/yr
Year 2009
579,449,200 kWh/yr
Year 2010
441,965,200 kWh/yr
Average
525,248,300 kWh/yr
Calculation of baseline electricity generation and thus baseline emissions
The annual reports prepared by the direct measurement done by the plant
operator.
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
FCi, X
m3/yr
Historical fuel (Natural Gas) consumption by the power plant in open cycle
mode
Annual operational reports 66
131,912,025
Yearly plant operation report: The last month plant report which has the
accumulation of all the 12 months of fuel consumption
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Calculation of baseline gas consumption and thus baseline emissions

The annual reports prepared by the direct measurement done by the plant
operator. Refer Annex 3 for 3 years historical data
Data / Parameter:
NCVi,x
65
66
SD7a, b,& c_Annual_Operational_Report_2008, 2009 & 2010

Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data
GJ/m3
Net calorific value of Natural Gas used in open cycle mode
Gas invoices from supplier 67
0.0379 (refer worksheet Historical Data of
revised_SD48_CER_spreadsheet)
The value used is obtained from monthly gas invoices provided by gas
supplier.
Calculation of the emissions associated with gas consumption for baseline

(and project and leakage) emissions
Additional comment
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
EFCo2
tCO2/GJ
Emission Factor for the fuel used in open cycle mode
IPCC Default Values. Table 2.2 68 of the chapter 2 (Stationary Combustion)
in Volume 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories
0.0561
The other sources such as Value from supplier, Measured data and National
data are not available. Therefore, IPCC default value has been taken.
Calculation of the emissions associated with gas consumption for baseline

emissions
Since natural gas is the only fuel used there are no separate tables for
EFCO2,min and EFCO2,max as suggested in ACM0007 version 6.1.0
CAPMAX
MW
Maximum gross power generation capacity of the project power unit(s) prior
to the implementation of the project activity
Maximum Gross Generation Capacity determined by EPC contractor
83.18 69
This value is obtained from the EPC proposal provided to the project owner
before investment decision.
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Calculation of baseline emissions
Data / Parameter:
TMAX
67
SD54_MEDCO-Gas-Invoices
68
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_2_Ch2_Stationary_Combustion.pdf (or)
SD29_IPCC_2006_guidelines_V2-Energy_Ch2-Stationary_Combustion
69
SD32 (page 100/296); See Nominal Plant Net Efficiency under Simple Cycle
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Hours/yr
Maximum amount of time during a year in which the project power unit(s)
could
have operated at full power generation capacity prior to the implementation
of the project activity
Annual plant operational reports (For calculations, see worksheet Electricity
Generation of revised_SD48
The Annual operational reports have documented the shut-down hours for
the plant for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010. This data is used to compute the
annual average shut-down hours and this is subtracted from the 8,760 hours
available in a year. This gives us the maximum amount of time during a year
in which the project power unit could have operated at full power
generation.
HMRX
Hours/yr
Average number of hours during which the plant did not operate due to
maintenance or repair in year x (hours)
Annual plant operational reports (calculated value; For calculations, see
worksheet Historical Shut-Down of revised_SD48
620.21
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter:
Data unit:
Description:
GWPCH4
tCO2e/tCH4
Global warming potential of methane valid for the relevant commitment
period
IPCC
21
The data source is suggested by the methodology.

Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Calculation of leakage
Data / Parameter:
EFi,upstream,CH4
tCH4/GJ
Emission factor for upstream fugitive methane emissions from production,
transportation, distribution of fossil fuel i used by the project power unit(s)
in year y
Default emission factors (as per ACM007 version 6.1.0)
0.000296
This value is obtained ex-ante from the methodology and does not change
during the crediting period
Data unit:
Description:
Value applied:
Choice of data
or
Measurement methods
and procedures
Calculation of leakage
Purpose of data
Additional comment
B.6.3. Ex ante calculation of emission reductions

>>
The baseline emissions for year y (BEy) are calculated as follows:
As explained in section B.6.1, case 3 is selected to calculate Baseline Emissions.
y
EG
BL , AVR
EF CO 2 , BL , y ( EG
( EG
PJ , adj , y
EG
MAX
BE
) EF grid
MAX
EG
BL , AVR
) min( EF CO 2 , BL ; EF grid
,y
,y
Where,
EG MAX CAPmax Tmax

CAPmax = 83.18 MW70;
3
TMAX 8,760
HMR
x 1
HMRx = 620.21 hours/year

Hence, EGMax = 677,051 MWh/year. These calculations are demonstrated in revised_SD48.
EGMAX
CAPmax
TMAX
70
Maximum annual quantity of electricity that could be

generated by all project power units in the baseline
scenario (MWh/yr)
Maximum gross power generation capacity of the
project power unit(s) prior to the implementation of
the project activity (MW)
Maximum amount of time during a year in which the
project power unit(s) could have operated at full
power generation capacity prior to the
implementation of the project activity (hours/yr)
677,051
MW
83.18
MW
3
TMAX 8,760
HMR
x 1
hours
SD32 (page100/296) See under Nominal Plant Gross Output for Simple Cycle. (83.178 is rounded to 83.18)
HMRx
Average number of hours during which the plant did

not operate due to maintenance or repair in year x
(hours/yr)
620.21
Each year during the three years operational history
2010, 2009, 2008
EGBL , AVR
EG
x 1
EGBL,AVR
Average annual quantity of electricity supplied by all

project power units to the electricity grid during the
three year operational history (MWh/yr)
EGx
Quantity of electricity supplied by the project power

unit(s) with three years operational history and no
retrofit in this period, to the electricity grid in year x
(MWh/yr)71
EG PJ ,adj , y EG PJ , y
525,248
MWh/yr
X1
554,330,500
X2
579,449,200
X3
441,965,200
kWh/yr
X1= 2010, X2=2009 &

X3=2008
PJ ,min, y
PJ , y
EGPJ,adj,y
Quantity of electricity supplied by all project power

units to the electricity grid in year y, adjusted for
changes to project power plant efficiency (MWh/yr)
819,060
MWh/yr
EGPJ,y
Total amount of electricity supplied to the electricity

grid by the project power units in year y (MWh/yr)
= 819,060
MWh/yr
Minimum of the yearly average energy efficiency of

the project power unit(s) monitored during the
previous years (1 to y) after the implementation of
the project activity for year y
42.2472
Average energy efficiency of the project power

unit(s) in years 1 to y of the crediting period (refer to
in the monitoring tables)
PJ,y
42.2473
PJ,min,y
PJ,i
PJ,y
Emission Factor Calculation:

3
EFCO 2, BL
FC
x 1
72
73
NCVi , x
EG
x 1
71
i,x
EFCO 2,min

The EPC value is obtained/ assumed from "SD3_EPC_latest" as the proposed project is not started yet.
The EPC value assumed for the calculation. Anyhow this would be a monitoring parameter.
EFCO2,BL
CO2 emission factor for electricity generated in single

0.53374
cycle mode in the baseline (tCO2/MWh)
FCi,x
Quantity of fuel type i used by the project power

unit(s) in year x (mass or volume unit/yr)75
Net calorific value of the fuel type i used by the

project power unit(s) in year x (GJ/mass or volume
unit)76
NCVi,x
EFCO2,min
CO2 emission factor of the least carbon intensive fuel

type used by the project power unit(s) during the
three years operational history (tCO2/GJ)
EGx
Quantity of electricity supplied by the project power

unit(s) with three years operational history and no
retrofit in this period, to the electricity grid in year x
(MWh/yr)78
BE
tCO2/GJ
X1
139,232,260
X2
146,286,880
X3
110,216,934
X1
0.0379
X2
0.0379
X3
0.0379
0.056177
m3/yr
GJ/m3
tCO2/GJ
X1
554,330,500
X2
579,449,200
X3
441,965,200
MWh/yr
EG BL , AVR EF CO 2 , BL , y ( EG MAX EG BL , AVR ) min( EF CO 2 , BL ; EF grid , y )
( EG PJ , adj , y EG MAX ) EF grid , y

BEy
EGPJ,adj,y
EGBL,AVR
EGMAX
EFCO2,BL
EFgrid,y
Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr)

Quantity of electricity supplied by all project power
units to the electricity grid in year y, adjusted for
changes to efficiency (MWh/yr)
Average annual quantity of electricity supplied by all
project power units to the electricity grid during the
defined operational history (MWh/yr)
Maximum annual quantity of electricity that could be
generated by all project power units in the baseline
scenario (MWh/yr)
Baseline emission factor of all project power units
operated in single cycle mode (tCO2/MWh)
Emission factor of the electricity grid to which the
project power unit is connected (tCO2/MWh)
466,635
tCO2/yr
819,060
MWh/yr
525,248
MWh/yr
677,051
MWh/yr
0.533
tCO2/GJ
0.74379
tCO2/MWh
The project emissions for year y (PEy) are calculated as follows:
PE FC , j , y FC i , j , x NCVi , y EFCO 2,i , y

i
74
Revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet; worksheet Baseline Emission

76
77
Default value of Natural Gas emission factor from table 2.2 in SD29_IPCC_2006_guidelines_V2-Energy_Ch2Stationary_Combustion
78
79
SD4b_Emission_factor_of_Sumatera_and_Jamali_Power_System (or)
http://pasarkarbon.dnpi.go.id/web/index.php/komnasmpb/cat/6/informasi-lainnya.html
75
COEFi,y = NCVi,y . EFco2i,y

The values of NCVi,y and EFco2i,y are also shown in the work-sheet Project Emission of the Emission Reduction
calculations presented in revised_SD48 along with the data sources.
PEFC,j,y
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process

352,452
j during the year y (tCO2/yr)
FCi,j,y
Quantity of fuel type i combusted in process j during

the year y (mass or volume unit/yr)
COEFi,y
CO2 emission coefficient of fuel type i in year y

(tCO2/mass or volume unit)
NCVi,y
Net calorific value of the fuel type i in year y

(GJ/mass or volume unit)81
Weighted average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i
in year y (tCO2/GJ)
EFCO2,i,y
165,953,633
0.002123880
0.0379
X2
0.0379
X3
0.0379
0.056182
PE FC , j , y
m3/yr
tCO2/ m3
X1
CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in process

352,452
j during the year y (tCO2/yr)
PEy is referred to as PEFC,j,y in the "Tool to calculate
project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
352,452
combustion"
PE y
tCO2/ yr
GJ/ m3
tCO2/GJ
tCO2/yr
tCO2/yr
Leakage Emission:
1 3
FC i, x NCV i , x

3 x =1 i
LE upstream, y max 0, FC i, y NCVi, y EFi, upstream,CH4 GWPCH4 1

i

i FC i, y NCVi, y
LEupstream,y
FCi,y
NCVi,y
EFi,upstream,CH4
GWPCH4
Leakage emissions associated with the upstream

emissions of an increase in fossil fuel use in the
project activity in the year y (tCO2e/yr)
unit(s) in year y (mass or volume unit/yr)
Average net calorific value of the fuel type i used
by the project power unit(s) in year y (GJ/mass or
volume unit)
Emission factor for upstream fugitive methane
emissions from production, transportation,
distribution of fossil fuel i used by the project
power unit(s) in year y (tCH4/GJ)
Global warming potential of methane valid for the
80
8,011
tCO2/yr
165,953,633
m3/yr
0.037983
GJ/ m3
29684
tCH4/GJ
2185
tCO2e/tCH4
Calculated value: revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet; worksheet Project Emission

82
Default value of Natural Gas emission factor from table 2.2 in SD29_IPCC_2006_guidelines_V2-Energy_Ch2Stationary_Combustion
81
83
84
Page 20 of SD14_ACM0007_ver5.0.0
relevant commitment period (tCO2e/tCH4)

unit(s) in year x (mass or volume unit/yr) 86
FCi,x
X1
139,232,260
X2
146,286,880
X3
110,216,934
Net calorific value of fuel type i used by the

project power unit(s) in year x (GJ/mass or volume 0.037987
unit)
-
NCVi,x
x
m3/yr
GJ/ m3
-
Emission Reduction:
ER y BE y PE y LE y
ER y
Emissions Reductions in year y (tCO2)
106,172
tCO2/yr
BE y
Baseline Emissions in year y (tCO2)
466,635
tCO2/yr
PE y
Project Emissions in year y (tCO2)
352,452
tCO2/yr
LE y
Leakage Emissions in year y (tCO2)
8,011
tCO2/yr
B.6.4. Summary of ex ante estimates of emission reductions

The following table shows emissions from the project, from the baseline and the resulting emission
reductions.
Years
Baseline
Emission
(tCO2/yr)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
466,635
Total88
4,666,353
Total number of
crediting years
Annual
average over the
crediting period
85
86
87
88
Project Emission
(tCO2/yr)
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
352,452
3,524,523
Leakage Emission
(tCO2/yr)
Emission Reduction
(tCO2/yr)
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
8,011
80,107
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
106,172
1,061,722
10
466,635
352,452
Page 17 of SD14_ACM0007_ver5.0.0
Totals do not tally exactly due to rounding
8,011
106,172
B.7. Monitoring plan

B.7.1. Data and parameters to be monitored
The project proponent will monitor:
Electricity generation from the project activity;
Fuel consumption associated with the project activity
Average energy efficiency of the project activity
Net Calorific Value of Natural Gas used in the project
The other parameters mentioned in the methodology such as waste heat recovered (used in the leakage calculation
only) and emission factor of natural gas (IPCC default value used) are not relevant to the emission reduction
calculation.
Data / Parameter
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
Monitoring frequency
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
EGPJ, y (1)
MWh
Net quantity of electricity generated by the combined cycle power plant
Measured by electricity meter at the project activity site.
819,060
The data will be logged by the operators with half hour frequency. The data
gathered will be stored in the control panel room of the plant.
A monthly report will be prepared by the project owner which contains the
average of daily or weekly data.
At least daily
PLN has its sub-station inside the project site area. The electricity exported
will be monitored from their station as well. The data will finally be cross
checked by both parties.
The measuring device will be frequently checked by the plant owner and
grid operator according to the manual provided by the supplier. The manual
will be strictly followed by the project owner and grid operator.
Calculation of project emissions
This data will be archived up to 2 years after the completion of crediting
period or last issuance whichever is later.
Data / Parameter
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
Data / Parameter
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
89
SD3_EPC_latest
FCi, y (2)
m3/year
Quantity of natural gas consumed by the project activity.
Measured by gas flow meter at the project activity site.
165,953,633
The data will be logged by the operators with every half hour frequency.
The data gathered will be stored in the control panel room of the plant.
Archival of data: A monthly report will be prepared by the project owner
which contains the average of daily or weekly data.
At least daily
The measuring device will be frequently checked and calibrated by the
plant owner or third party according to the manual provided by the
supplier. The manual will be strictly followed by the project owner.
Calculation of project emissions and leakage
PJ, y (3)
%
Efficiency of the combined cycle power plant
Project activity site
42.24 89
To calculate this value: Use the direct method (dividing the net electricity
generation by the energy content of the fuels fired during a representative
time period).
Archival of data: A yearly report will be prepared by the project owner
which contains efficiency of the plant.
This data will be calculated on a yearly basis.
The parameters used to calculate this parameter will be cross-checked as
above
Data / Parameter
Unit
Description
Source of data
Value(s) applied
Measurement methods
and procedures
QA/QC procedures
Purpose of data
Additional comment
NCVi,y (4)
BTU/SCF
Net Calorific Value of Natural Gas used in the project
Invoices from gas supplier
1,128.9 90
The monthly invoices will be used to calculate this value. Weighted
average annual values of Net Calorific Value will be obtained and applied.
Monthly
The values will be checked against previous values and plant efficiency
results for consistency
Calculation of project emissions and leakage
B.7.2. Sampling plan

>>
No sampling is required in the monitoring plan
B.7.3. Other elements of monitoring plan
>>
1. Monitoring Data
Data parameters to be monitored are as in section B.7.1. of the PDD.
2. Operational and Management Organization of Monitoring Plan
The operational responsibilities for monitoring are shown in the table below.
Table 8: CDM Monitoring team and responsibilities
Person
Responsibility
General Manager
Responsible for the implementation of the monitoring plan. Manages and makes
decisions.
CDM Data Supervisor
Collection and recording of data as per the monitoring plan. Calculation and
processing of raw data (if required) to arrive at parameter values as required by the
monitoring plan. Calibration and maintenance of equipment as required by the
monitoring plan.
Equipment Operator
Reads and records meter readings. Records equipment status and events in plant
log book.
A CDM Data Supervisor will supervise individual Equipment Operators in the recording and archival of the
readings of the required data. He/she will be responsible for verifying the data collected and recorded on a day to
day basis and archiving of the data. The CDM Data Supervisor will ensure the metering equipment is calibrated
and maintained in the working order as stipulated in the monitoring report. The CDM Data Supervisor will
provide the relevant data to the General Manager periodically.
The General Manager will review and approve the data/calculation acquired/performed by the CDM Data
Supervisor. The General Manager will also review calibration reports submitted by the CDM Data Supervisor.
90
revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet; worksheet Historical Data
The CDM Data Supervisor and the General Manager will be responsible for the overall implementation and
administration of the monitoring plan. Conflicts, discrepancies, errors etc in relation to the monitoring plan of the
CDM project activity shall be referred to the General Manager.
3. Installation and Maintenance of Monitoring Equipment

All monitoring equipment will be installed as per national law and guidelines with respect to metering.
4. Calibration, QA/QC of Monitoring Plan
The detailed calibration, testing and maintenance procedure for the measurement equipments used to monitor data
of the project activity shall be prepared by the CDM Data Supervisor based on the equipment manufacturers
recommendations and the industry and national standards as applicable.
5. Data Recording and Reporting
The frequency of data recorded for each parameter is as stated in section B.7.1 of the PDD. All electronic data
will be locally monitored at the meter and/or remotely on the plant Distributive Control System (DCS). The
CDM Data Supervisor is responsible for the monitoring of each parameter in a timely and correct manner. He/she
will submit a report of all the parameters being monitored at the end of every month to the General Manager.
6. Measuring Instrument Failure / Emergency Procedures
Once a meter in fault, it shall be replaced immediately. The electricity generated during the period of erroneous
measurement and replacement of the faulty meter shall not be counted towards the emissions reductions. The
faulty meter shall be repaired and calibrated by appropriately qualified institutions.
7. Data Recording and Archiving Procedures
The CDM Data Supervisor shall ensure that all monitored data, recorded events, calibration/maintenance reports
and other relevant documentation as stipulated the monitoring plan are stored appropriately in electronic archives
at the end of every month. In addition, all cross-check documents such as copies of electricity sales and fuel
purchase invoices will be kept. Paper documents will also be compiled and stored in the appropriate condition
monthly. All data shall be archived for 2 years after the end of the crediting period.
8. Monitoring Report
The CDM Data Supervisor will submit a monthly report to the General Manager. This report shall contain all
parameters and activities mentioned in the monitoring report (raw data, calculations, invoices and receipts,
maintenance, calibration, special events etc) that occur during the month. The monthly reports will be reviewed
and approved by the General Manager. A final yearly consolidated report that combines the monthly reports will
be produced that will be reviewed and approved by the General Manager.
This final yearly report is the official CDM monitoring report that will be submitted to the DOE (along with
relevant data and evidence) every year for verification and issuance of CERs.
9. Additional Monitoring Details

Additional monitoring details of the important parameters such as Net Electricity Generation (EGPJ, y), Natural
Gas Consumption (FC f, NG) and Net Calorific Value of Natural Gas (NCV f, NG), are further explained in
Appendix 5 of the PDD.
SECTION C. Duration and crediting period

C.1. Duration of project activity
C.1.1. Start date of project activity
>>
The start date of the project activity is 18/03/201191.
This is the date when the first real action and commitment on the project activity occurred, namely the date on
which the steam turbine contract was signed.
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of project activity
>>
The project activity is expected to have an operational lifetime of 14 years and zero months.
As described in section A.4.3, the lifetime of the project activity depends on the remaining lifetime of the host
power plant.
C.2. Crediting period of project activity
C.2.1. Type of crediting period
>>
Fixed crediting period.
C.2.2. Start date of crediting period
>>
01/01/2014 or the date of registration, whichever is earlier.
C.2.3. Length of crediting period
10 years and 0 months
SECTION D. .Environmental impacts
D.1. Analysis of environmental impacts
>>
As noted in Section D.1, this project was originally considered as part of a larger package of projects and all
environmental requirements of the host country were complied with before the operating permits and
environmental license were granted. The environmental impacts of the group of projects are not considered
significant to both the project participants and the host country. Regular monitoring of the environmental impacts
will be done based on the management92 and monitoring93 plan.
D.2. Environmental impact assessment
>>
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 94 has been undertaken for the project. The original OCGT plant has
an installed capacity less than 100 MW and therefore did not need to undertake a full EIA process, as per the
ministerial decree 17/2001, which was subsequently updated with another ministerial degree 11/2006 on 2nd
91
92
93
94
Date of steam turbine contract signed - SD9_ST_Spec_Sheet

SD30_Environment_Management_Plan
SD31_Environment_Monitoring_Plan
SD25_Environmental_Impact_Analysis
October 200695. Therefore, the EIA process was not undertaken for the open cycle power plant. After the
conversion, the total installed capacity is 114.417 MW which requires the EIA process. The EIA approval letter
has been granted for this project96. The EIA Approval Letter is dated 28th January 2010.
SECTION E. Local stakeholder consultation
E.1. Solicitation of comments from local stakeholders
>>
In order to communicate with the relevant shareholders and receive their comments for consideration, PTMeppogen conducted a stakeholder consultation meeting on the 27th of September 2011 at the Meeting Room, PT
Meppo-Gen, Gunung Megang, Muara Enim.
The stakeholders were informed about the meeting through printed invitations97.
The agenda of this meeting included98:
a. To explain the existing plant design, proposed modification and its impacts on greenhouse gas emission
from the project
b. Brief explanation of CDM and its objective
c. Local impact of the project
d. Question and comments from stakeholders
The list of attendees99 was prepared at the meeting. The comments made by the stakeholders have also been
documented on paper100, accompanied by their signatures. Photographs of the event are also available101.
E.2. Summary of comments received
>>
A summary of the comments received at the Stakeholder meeting is presented below:
Table 9: Summary of comments received at Stakeholder Consultation Meeting
S.No Comment made by
Comment
1
2
3
5
95
Mr. Marsito, Local

Legislative Body
(DPRD)
Mr. Jony, Journalist,
Sumsel Post
Mr.Edi,
Local Government
of Panang Jaya
- The project owner is expected to provide jobs for people living in surrounding
areas of the project.
- Waste that is mentioned in AMDAL report should be managed carefully.
The company received debt from BII of USD 75.3 million and IDR 10 billion.
When will be the Break Even Point?
What are the negative aspects of the project?
Mr. Nopian, Head of

Village of Ulak
Bandung
- The project owner is expected to give training to local people to develop their
skill, this will also increase skilled-labour supply to the company
- It is expected that the landslide problem that has now been addressed will not
happen in the future
- The villagers in Lais Jaya and Panang Jaya villages expect to receive CSR
benefit from Meppo-Gen
Head of Sub-District - PT Meppo-Gen is expected to prioritize to recruit labours from local people
Page 28 of SD37_AMDAL_Regulation_2006 (or) http://www.menlh.go.id/Peraturan/PERMEN/PermenLH112006.pdf

96
SD27_Feasibility_Enviromental_Impact_Analysis
97
SD66_Meeting Invitation Letters
98
SD43c_SHM_Presentation
99
Pages 2, 3 of SD43a_SHM_Documentation
100
Pages 4-16 of SD43a_SHM_Documentation
101
SD43b_SHM_Photographs
Ujan Mas
Press Council State
Information
- The Government (environmental impact agency/BLH) has been slow to react to

environmental impact assessment problems in Muara Enim
Feedback on the consultation meeting received from stakeholders has also been documented with their signatures.
E.3. Report on consideration of comments received
>>
Table 10: Responses to comments from stakeholders
S.No
Response
1
2
3
4
5
6
The project requires a lot of manpower during construction, and local residents will be prioritized. Skilled
labour that is not available in Muara Enim will be recruited from outside.
It is not yet clear when the Break Even Point will be reached, but it is expected to be as per the plan. Care
will be taken that there is no effect on the local people.
The expected impacts of the gas power plant include wastewater, solid waste and flue gas. While noise
may be a problem, it is still lower than the threshold allowed, and a facility has been built to reduce noise.
The plant monitors and reports environmental impacts once in three months as planned in the
Environmental Monitoring Effort/ Environmental Management Effort (UKL/UPL).
Local people can give inputs. If there is negative impact of the project, a solution will be sought to
overcome it.
The company is committed to CSR and the money can be used for mosque construction, training, etc.
The company is also obliged to build traffic lights/signs and this has already been done by Meppo-Gen.
Especially during the construction phase, the project requires a lot of manpower, and local residents will
be prioritized.
BLH receives reports from companies, and takes action accordingly. But due to limited budget, it cannot
inspect all companies.
Meppo-Gen will conduct further public consultation and will carry out AMDAL procedures.
SECTION F. Approval and authorization

>>
The Letter of Approval from the host party, the Republic of Indonesia and also from The Netherlands have both
been issued and are both available.
-----
Appendix 1: Contact information of project participants

Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
PT Metaepsi Pejebe Power Generation

JI. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav. B-9
Menara Duta Building, 3rd floor
Jakarta
12910
Indonesia
+6221 252 2950
+6221 5290 1974
www.meppo-gen.com
Mr. Tim Smith
Mr.
Smith
Timothy
+62 812 100 70 892
tsmith@meppo-gen.co.id

Vlklinger Str. 4
Organization name
Street/P.O. Box
Building
City
State/Region
Postcode
Country
Telephone
Fax
E-mail
Website
Contact person
Title
Salutation
Last name
Middle name
First name
Department
Mobile
Direct fax
Direct tel.
Personal e-mail
Dsseldorf
40219
Germany
+49 211 4579 3723
http://www.eon.com/renewables
Eliano Russo
Mr.
Russo
Eliano
+49 211 4579 6078

Eliano.Russo@eon.com
Appendix 2: Affirmation regarding public funding

There is no public funding provided for the proposed project.
Appendix 3: Applicability of selected methodology
[This section is left intentionally blank]
Appendix 4: Further background information on ex ante calculation of emission reductions
Calorific value of Natural Gas
1SCF
EFCO2,GAS
Emission Factor of the grid to
which the project power unit is
connected
1128.9
0.02832
BTU/SCF
m3
0.0561
tCO2/GJ
0.743
tCO2/MWh
The above calorific value and unit conversion are used to find the fuel consumption in m3.
S.No
Month
Fuel Consumption
(MMBTU @ 1.000
BTU/SCF)
Fuel Consumption
(m3)
Net Electricity generation

(kWh)
S.No
2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2008
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Month
Fuel Consumption
(MMBTU @ 1.000
BTU/SCF)
Fuel Consumption
(m3)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
410555.67
385155.55
384312.48
307040.02
416955.89
422141.43
348862.05
395362.88
354054.39
389141.71
326005.15
254626.02
10,297,677
9,660,583
9,639,437
7,701,267
10,458,209
10,588,274
8,750,259
9,916,607
8,880,495
9,760,566
8,176,956
6,386,604
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
462952.84
422452.33
478482.76
527231.4
512492.25
474916.33
531659.18
526224.57
495372.68
526585.66
446086.76
427820.76
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
431384.75
438959.61
423347.61
393825.25
513782.64
425652.25
540838.41
500985.04
431804.59
482286.06
456695.65
511456.64
Total
110,216,934
11,611,918
10,596,072
12,001,444
13,224,171
12,854,480
11,911,989
13,335,230
13,198,918
12,425,082
13,207,975
11,188,878
10,730,725
Total
146,286,880
10,820,118
11,010,113
10,618,528
9,878,039
12,886,846
10,676,333
13,565,466
12,565,852
10,830,648
12,096,839
11,454,973
12,828,504
Total
139,232,260
Net Electricity generation

(kWh)
38,672,400
36,338,000
38,291,800
31,473,000
42,798,400
43,975,900
36,050,700
40,735,500
36,294,300
38,188,100
32,636,200
26,510,900
441,965,200
45,689,100
41,463,800
48,438,900
53,626,600
51,447,900
46,937,100
53,644,100
52,663,600
49,862,600
52,138,800
42,260,900
41,275,800
579,449,200
39,978,300
42,452,800
39,026,200
35,805,900
52,511,300
44,571,500
56,674,400
51,959,800
45,167,500
48,671,700
45,541,700
51,969,400
554,330,500
PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03

CDM Executive Board
page 49
Grid Emission Factor

All grid emission factor calculations are taken from the calculations done by Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi (BPPT) and approved by the
Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Utilization (DJLPE). The Indonesian DNA uses this calculation as their official grid emission factor for the
Sumatera grid. The original source of all the data was obtained by BPPT from PT PLN Pembangkitan Sumbagut, PT PLN Pembangkitan Sumbagsel
Statistics from 2005 to 2007 and PT PLN P3B Sumatera (IPP data).
1. Calculation of Simple OM
Fuel
Unit
Sumbagsel (including IPP)
Sumbagut
Total
EF
(tCO2/TJ)
Oxidatio
n
NCV
NCV
Unit
CO2 emission (tCO2)
40,767
37,219
36,542
27,444
MJ/kl
MJ/kl
MJ/kl
MJ/ton
1,021,834
43,177
3,209,402
4,288,852
2005 Fuel Emissions in Sumatera Grid

MFO
IDO
HSD
Coal
kiloliter
kiloliter
kiloliter
ton
510
15,662
176,692
1,651,943
323,472
0
1,009,112
0
323,982
15,662
1,185,804
1,651,943
21.1
20.2
20.2
25.8
100%
100%
100%
100%
Natural Gas
MMBTU
20,792,324
14,299,034
35,091,358
15.3
100%
2,076,978
Total
10,640,243

MFO
IDO
HSD
Coal
kiloliter
kiloliter
kiloliter
ton
0
17,137
188,208
1,530,391
256,020
0
1,150,461
0
256,020
17,137
1,338,668
1,530,391
21.1
20.2
20.2
25.8
100%
100%
100%
100%
Natural Gas
MMBTU
27,980,333
7,994,188
35,974,521
15.3
100%
40,767
37,219
36,542
27,444
MJ/kl
MJ/kl
MJ/kl
MJ/ton
807,483
47,243
3,623,133
3,973,273
2,129,251
Total
10,580,383

MFO
IDO
kiloliter
kiloliter
0
7,989
281,427
0
281,427
7,989
21.1
20.2
100%
100%
40,767
37,219
HSD
Coal
Natural
kiloliter
108,594
1,250,672
1,359,267
20.2
100%
ton
1,706,554
1,706,554
25.8
100%
MMBTU
32,399,087
10,131,294
42,530,382
15.3
100%
Total
MJ/kl
MJ/kl
887,616
22,025
36,542
MJ/kl
3,678,883
27,444
MJ/ton
4,430,637
2,517,277
11,536,438

CDM Executive Board
page 50
2. 2005 to 2007 Total Generation Low Cost / Must Run Calculations

Type of Power Plant
Hydro
Geothermal
Steam - Oil
Steam - Gas
Steam - Coal
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Combustion Turbine - Oil
Combustion Turbine - Gas
Combustion Cycle - Oil
Combined Cycle - Gas
Total
Total Low Cost Must Run
Total Generation excl. Low Cost/Must
Run
Internal Use Rate
Net Electricity
Fuel Type
MFO
Natural
Gas
Coal
HSD
IDO
PPO
HSD
Natural
Gas
HSD
Natural
Gas
2005
2006
2007
MWh
2,505,314
0
1,060,814
MWh
2,948,239
0
837,664
MWh
3,593,005
0
949,438
125,254
2,932,330
529,384
66,887
0
451,084
113,808
2,868,414
567,470
73,971
5,108
517,802
119,821
3,257,691
498,576
34,026
0
417,080
1,154,204
0
974,046
0
1,206,994
0
5,672,687
6,221,137
6,259,426
14,497,958
15,127,659
16,336,057
2,505,314
2,953,347
2,953,347
11,992,644
3.98%
11,514,899
12,174,312
3.47%
11,751,548
13,382,710
3.52%
12,911,406

CDM Executive Board
page 51
3. Operating Margin - Total Emissions Divided by Total Generation

Parameter
Total Emissions
Total Generation
EF_OM,y
Unit
tCO2
MWh
tCO2/MWh
EF_OM - 2006
tCO2/MWh
2005
10,640,243
11,514,899
0.924041366
2006
10,580,383
11,751,548
0.900339513
0.906
2007
11,536,438
12,911,406
0.893507493

CDM Executive Board
page 52
3. Build Margin Calculation

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Installed
capacity
(kW)
Year of
Commission
Fuel Type
--
--
--
--
--
100,000
100,000
20,000
15,000
80,000
30,000
41,000
71,825
71,825
71,825
1,010
1,010
1,010
41,000
40,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
3,450
3,450
3,450
150,000
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005
2005
2005
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
2004
coal & HSD

coal & HSD
Gas
HSD
Gas
HSD
Hydro
Hydro
Hydro
Hydro
HSD
HSD
HSD
Hydro
Gas & HSD
Gas
Gas
Gas
HSD
HSD
HSD
Gas
47,926
98,072
PLTU Tarahan 1
PLTU Tarahan 2
PLTG Riau Power (rental)
PLTD Sewa Arti Duta AU (rental)
PLTG Meppo Gen (IPP)
PLTG Apung
PLTA 1 Renun
PLTA Musi 1
PLTA Musi 2
PLTA Musi 3
PLTD-12 Gunung Sitoli
PLTD-13 Gunung Sitoli
PLTD-1 Teluk Dalam
PLTA-2 Renun
PLTG Inderalaya II
PLTG Truck Mounted 1
PLTG Truck Mounted 2
PLTG Rental Tl. Duku #1
PLTD 12 LUENG BATA*
PLTD 13 LUENG BATA*
PLTD 14 LUENG BATA*
PLTGU Borang (IPP)
Total
Fuel
Station
Coal (ton)
Gas
(MMBTU)
Electricity Generation
HSD (kl)
1,284
2,903
1,119,896
20,270
5,292,873
2,816
866
866
871
2,492,620
1,463,191
0
365,123
1,451
1,451
1,451
13,156,205
145,998
23,889,909
34,230
2007
(Gross)
Parasitic
load (ave)
2007 (Net)
MWh
MWh
105,450
204,410
74,994
77,297
297,674
9,817
163,003
183,105
183,499
197,278
3,176
3,176
3,176
163,003
227,141
125,434
0
16,040
5,017
5,017
5,017
1,247,034
3.52%
3.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
0.00%
3.52%
3.52%
3.52%
0.00%
101,736
197,212
74,994
77,297
297,674
9,471
157,262
176,657
177,036
190,330
3,064
3,064
3,064
157,262
219,141
125,434
0
16,040
4,841
4,841
4,841
1,247,034
3,299,757
3,248,295

CDM Executive Board
page 53
Total Generation of the 22 Plants Above in 2007 is 20% of the electricity system
SETsample = AEGSET- 20% as AEGSET- 20% > AEGSET-5-units
'power plant capacity additions in the elc. System that comprise 20% of the system generation'
AEGTotal
AEGSET-5-units
AEGSET- 20%
AEGSET- 20% / AEGSET-5-units
Parameter
Total Power Generated (net)
Fuel Consumption (HSD)
EF
Oxidation
Emissions from HSD
Fuel Consumption (Gas)
EF
Oxidation
Emissions from Natural Gas
Fuel Consumption (Coal)
EF
Oxidation
Emissions from Coal
Total Emissions
EFBM2007
MWh
MWh
MWh
%
Unit
MWh
kl
TJ
tC/TJ
tCO2e
MMBTU
TJ
tC/TJ
tCO2e
ton
TJ
tC/TJ
tCO2e
tCO2e
tCO2e/MWh
4. Combined Margin Calculation
16,336,057
759,825
3,299,757
20.2
2007
3,248,295
34,230
1,251
20.20
100%
92,644
23,889,909
25,205
15.30
100%
1,413,990
145,998
4,007
25.8
100%
379,047
1,885,681
0.581

CDM Executive Board
EFy
0.743
The EF of the Sumatera Electricity

Grid for 2007 is
page 54
WOM
0.5
EF2006
WOM
0.5
(Default value)
WBM
0.5
(Default value)
EFOM2006
0.906
0.743
tCO2e/MWh
WBM
0.5
EFBM2006
0.581
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 55
Appendix 4: Further background information on monitoring plan

MONITORING INFORMATION
The Approved Consolidated Methodology ACM0007 specified the following table for Project and
Baseline emission parameters.
How will
Measured
Recordin the data be
(m),
g
archived?
ID
Data
Source
Data Calculate
Comment
Frequenc (Electronic/
number
Variable
of data
Unit
d (c)
y
Paper/both
Estimated
)
(e)
The meter is placed
Metered
Net
in the project site and
by
electricity
PLN substation.
Continuou
electricit
generation
Hence, data will be
MWh
m
s by the
Both
1. EGPJ, y
y meter
by the
cross checked with
operator
at the
proposed
the electricity sold to
site
project
PLN.
The gas data needs to
be monitored to
Fuel
Metered
calculate project
(Natural
by gas
emission. The project
Gas)
Continuou
m3
emission will be
consumptio flow
m
s by the
Both
2. FCi, y
meter at
calculated by
n by the
operator
the site
calorific value and
proposed
emission factor of
project
natural gas.
The efficiency is
Calculat
Average
calculated from the
ed based
energy
data collected from
on the
efficiency
the PLN invoices.
Yearly
%
c
Both
monitor
of the
3. PJ, y
This will be directly
basis
ed data
combined
calculated by fuel
(ID 1
cycle
consumption and
power plant &3)
electricity generation.
Net
Calorific
Value of
Invoices
BTU/
natural gas
from gas
m
Monthly
Both
4. NCVi,y
SCF
consumed
supplier
by the
proposed
project
Monitoring for Net Electricity Generation (EGPJ, y)
Electricity supplied to PLN will be metered at the control room inside the PLN sub-station and is
therefore net of transmission losses. Electricity supply data will be recorded in a log book (manually) for
UNFCCC/CCNUCC
CDM Executive Board
Page 56
every four hour interval. In addition, PLN will supply monthly reports for the electricity delivered on a
monthly basis. This meter is not available with a direct feed into the DCS but meter reading inside the
plant will be stored in a Historical Data Storage and Retrieval (HDSR) system that will store the backup
process variables automatically and periodically and the stored data can be utilized for CDM verification.
An electricity meter (revenue meter) of accuracy class 0.2102 is used for metering input and output of
power at 150kV point of supply. This meter fixed in the plant shall be tested for accuracy at least once a
year against an accepted laboratory standard meter by an accredited third part in accordance with
electricity standards such as National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA), National Electric
Code (NEC), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) or other appropriate standards.
Electricity supply to the grid will also be monitored and recorded by the PLN meter already installed in
PLN substation control room located at the site. These records are used for invoicing PLN and will
provide the main meter measurements.
Monitoring for Natural Gas Consumption (FC f, NG)
Natural gas is supplied by MEDCO. There is a flow meter owned by MEDCO that measures natural gas
supply to the gas turbines. This meter is located on the gas pipeline at the project plant, and will be used
to monitor the natural gas consumption in the project. From this meter, the gas flows directly and only to
the gas turbines and HRSG ducts. The meter reading indicating the natural gas consumed for the month
are recorded and signed by project proponent and gas supplier at the end of each month.
The standard metering equipment will be made up of 316103 stainless steel, sharp edged and concentric
orifice plate or flow nozzle. The meter shall be maintained in accordance with relevant standards. The
natural gas meter shall be tested for accuracy once a year against an accepted laboratory standard meter in
accordance with prescribed standards. Calibration of the natural gas meters shall be done by an accredited
third party as per the equipment's supplier standard. All the calibration certificates shall be maintained by
the project participant.
If any of the meters are found to be not working, the meter will be removed and calibrated immediately.
Gas supply invoices from MEDCO will provide a main reference source for gas consumption data for the
plant.
Monitoring for Net Calorific Value of Natural Gas (NCV f, NG)
The calorific value of the gas will be provided fortnightly by the supplier and recorded/ archived
electronically/on paper by the project participant.
Efficiency of combined cycle power plant ( PJ, y )
Based on direct method, as per the methodology (dividing the net electricity generation by the energy
content of the fuels fired during a representative time period).
Appendix 5: Summary of post registration changes
[This section is left intentionally blank]
-----
102
103
SD32b_EPC_CONTRACT (pdf page 189/604)

SD32b_EPC_CONTRACT (pdf page 174/604)

Gunung Megang - Final PDD

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Gunung Megang - Final PDD

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM

FOR CDM PROJECT ACTIVITIES (F-CDM-PDD)

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT (PDD)

Title of the project activity

Gunung Megang Add-on Combined Cycle

Version number of the PDD

Completion date of the PDD

Estimated amount of annual average GHG

SECTION A. Description of project activity

SD5_Indonesia_Energy_67%_2010to2020 (or) http://www.theindonesiatoday.com/energy-headlines/7543-indonesiaelectricity-generation-to-increase-67-in-2010-2020-period.htm

A.3. Technologies and/or measures

Page 28, Section 3.3.2 of SD33_INCEPTION_REPORT

SD8_HRSG_spec_sheet & SD3_EPC_latest

165,953,633 m3/yr, GHG

Average Annual Allowance for

Actual shut-down days

Net Power supplied to grid29

Gross Generation Capacity

Total Gas consumption

Page 40 & 42, Section 4 of SD33_INCEPTION_REPORT

Predicted Annual Availability

Plant Load Factor (Total

Private and/or public

Indicate if the Party involved

PT Metaepsi Pejebe Power

E.ON Carbon Sourcing GmbH

A.5. Public funding of project activity

See worksheet Data Input - FC Calculation of revised_SD48_CER_Spreadsheet

Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment, Version 01

B.2. Applicability of methodology

This methodology applies to project activities that

The project activity will convert a grid connected

The unit(s) have an operational history of at least

The unit has an operational history of more than

In the case that a unit has less than three years

SD56_MEPPO-GEN PLANT HISTORY SHEET

Natural gas will be the fuel source used in the

Moreover, this methodology is applicable under the

The crediting period chosen is 10 years, without

Methodologies using this tool are only applicable if

The only available alternate scenario is to continue

B.3. Project boundary

Exhaust Gas: Co2

Independent Power Producers

Figure 4: Flow diagram of project boundary

Significant emission source

B.4. Establishment and description of baseline scenario

Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity

(1): Proposed project

(2): Continuation of current

SD15_Gas Contract Signed

Step 2. Barrier Analysis

SD20_Prior consideration note_06May2011

Contracted Capacity: Project

Draft new PPA48

Baseline plant PPA49

Load Factor (AFEA)

EPC Proposal, Bank Mandate

Quantity of Gas Consumption

Gas Price (for additional gas

Price under negotiation

O&M Expenses (additional

Bank mandate letter57

Bank mandate letter