Devoll Hydro Power (DHP), Albania

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM Executive Board
page 1
CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD) Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006 CONTENTS A. B. C. D. E. General description of project activity Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology Duration of the project activity / crediting period Environmental impacts Stakeholders comments Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information Annex 4: Monitoring plan Annex 5: Information regarding stakeholders Annex 6: Notification letter to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat/CDM prior consideration
page 2
SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity:
Devoll Hydropower (DHP), Albania Document version: PDD, version 01 Completion date: 22 July 2011
A.2.
Description of the project activity:
Devoll Hydropower (DHP), Albania (hereinafter referred to as the proposed project activity or the project) involves the installation of 3 accumulation reservoir hydro power plants (HPP Moglice HPP Kokel HPP Banja) in a cascade development utilizing the hydropower potential of the Devoll river, Albania. The planned total installed capacity of the project is 272 MW1. The project is expected to generate around 789 GWh2 electricity per annum which will be supplied to the Albanian grid. The generated electricity will be supplied to the national grid via newly constructed transmission lines. HPP Moglice will be connected to Elbastan, the main hub in the southern primary grid, via 48.2 km long 220 kV3 double circuit line via HPP Kokel. HPP Kokel will be connected via the 220 kV4 transmission line from HPP Moglic to Elbasan. HPP Banja will be connected to Cerrik sub-station in the secondary grid by a 12.5 km long 110 kV5 single circuit line.
1
*Note: The main technical and financial data of Devoll Hydropower (DHP) Project used in the PDD are from the Feasibility Study Report (FSR), Revision November 2010, based on which the investment decision was taken as well as from the Devoll Hydropower Project Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011 which indicates the most recent technical data. There are small differences between the technical data of DHP at the time of the investment decision and the most recent ones, however, those have no impact on the project concept and additionality. Therefore, it can be accepted that the most recent technical data are also valid and applicable at time of the investment decision. In order to demonstrate that the input values used in the PDD have not materially changed from the investment decision (as per paragraph 54 of the EB38 report), the differences between the data are outlined in the PDD. The FSR of DHP project and all other cited technical documents in the PDD are prepared by Norconsult, a leading Norwegian engineering company having proven experience in developing power plants worldwide. 1 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13. For clarity, there are two small turbines with installed capacity of 1.2 MW at HPP Moglice and HPP Banja which utilize the environmental flow. They are not productive but emergency release turbines for the night for the environmental flow of the river. They will not be operated at the same time as the big turbines but only used when the main turbines are out of operation (too little water or maintenance) in order to keep the minimum flow rate in the river of 1 (-2) m3/s. 2 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13 3 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 3 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13 4 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 3 and Devoll Hydropower Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 13 5 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 3 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 13
page 3
Under the existing scenario the electricity in Albania is delivered by the national grid which is dominated by old HPPs which currently cannot cover the increasing electricity demand. The share of electricity import is around 40%6 of overall power generation. Black-outs and cut-offs in the grid are frequently observed, thus a considerable number of consumers rely on the service of stand-by generators which are operated during the time when the grid cannot supply electricity in the required amount and/or quality. This fact is taken into account as per the option to include off-grid power plants defined in the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system. Since in recent years in Albania load shedding, which refers to the existence of suppressed demand was widely observed, the condition of suppressed demand was taken into consideration for the weights to calculate the CM Emission factor. The project activity will generate renewable power with negligible GHG emissions which will displace electricity otherwise supplied by the Albanian grid and fossil fuel fired stand-by generators. The baseline scenario of the project activity is the same as the scenario existing prior to the start of the implementation of the project activity. The project includes the creation of 3 new reservoirs. For HPP Mglice the reservoir surface area7 is 7,210,000 m2 and the power density is 23.745 W/m2, for HPP Kokel the reservoir surface area8 is 710,000 m2 and the power density is 50.986 W/m2, and for HPP Banja the reservoir surface area9 is 14,110,000 m2 and the power density is 4.578 W/m2. As the power density of HPP Banja is below 10 W/m, greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs are accounted in the project activity. With an expected grid emission factor of 0.4631 tCO2/MWh and a yearly production of 789 GWh10, the project is expected to achieve annual CO2 emission reductions of about 339,052 tCO2 and total reduction of 3,390,520 tCO2 over the 10 years crediting period. The project will contribute to sustainable development of the local area and Albania as following: Balance the electricity supply and demand gap (suppressed demand) thus reducing the reliance on off-grid power generators and imports. Creates new employment and infrastructure, especially in the commune of Gramsh, thus contributing to economic growth, improved standard of live of the local people and poverty alleviation. Around 2,000 people will be employed during the construction and operational phases.
See information in Annex 3 provided by KESH j.s.c. the Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation and OST j.s.c the Albanian Transmission System Operator 7 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94, table 5.3.1 Reservoir 8 DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 85, table 5.2.1 Reservoir. At time of the investment decision, the reservoir surface area of HPP Kokel was 850,000 m2 - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2. The difference in the values of the reservoir surface area have no impact of the power density of HPP Kokel, as in both cases the value is above 10 W/m, hence no greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs have to be considered according to ACM0002. 9 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74, table 5.1.1 Reservoir. 10 The net electricity generation is 781.1 GWh due to deduction of 1% for auxiliary services (as per the assumption made in the Business Plan at the time of the investment decision)
page 4
Applies modern and highly efficient turbines and generators. The power transmission will be at high voltage to ensure low loses. Know-how and personnel training on local level are also important benefits from the project. Sets an important benchmark by attracting foreign investments in the Albanian energy sector and improving the security and stability of the countrys power system. Compliance with all international standards and best available technologies and practices. The project will be granted to the Albanian Government after the expiry of the Concession Agreement. Project participants:
A.3.
Name of Party involved (host)
Private and/or public entity(ies) project participants (as applicable) Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. (DHP) EVN AG Statkraft AS
Albania (host Party) Austria Norway
Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project participant (Yes/No) No No No
Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. (DHP) is an Albanian Joint Stock company owned by EVN AG 50% (Austria) and Statkraft AS 50% (Norway). It has been established for the purpose of implementing a hydropower scheme on the Devoll River (South Albania) within a Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT) concession (CA) from Government of Albania. More information about DHP is available on its website: www.dhp.al. EVN Group is an international energy and environmental services company, with headquarters in Lower Austria. It operates in 19 countries and has more than 8,500 employees. EVN supplies more than 3 million direct customers with electricity, gas, heat, water, waste water treatment, waste incineration and related services. More information about EVN is available on its website: www.evn.at. Statkraft is Europe's leader in renewable energy. The company develops and generates hydropower, wind power, gas power and district heating and is a major player on the European energy exchanges. Statkraft has more than 3,400 employees in more than 20 countries. More information about Statkraft is available on its website: www.statkraft.com. A.4. Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: A.4.1.1. Albania A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Host Party(ies):
page 5
Prefectures of Elbasan and Kor A.4.1.3. Gramsh Commune A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): The proposed project activity is situated in the central-eastern part of Albania, south of Shkumbin River and within 50-70 km southern from Tirana. It includes the mountainous region of the Devoll Valley with utilisation of the head of Devoll River, including tributaries between Maliq at elevation +810 m a.s.l. and elevation +95 m a.s.l. downstream of Banja Dam. Table 1: Geographical coordinates of the dams and power houses of DHP project Name Moglice dam Moglice power house Kokel dam Kokel power house Banja dam Banja power house X 452701.52311 444228.91712 440589.38613 440460.73814 42139815 42096116 Y 4504843.628 4510076.444 4514001.183 4514015.262 4535213 4535417 Lon 20 26' 24.692" E 20 20' 22.033" E 20 17' 45.519" E 20 17' 40.027" E 20 3' 57.245" E 20 3' 38.458" E Lat 40 41' 35.284" N 40 44' 23.072" N 40 46' 29.429" N 40 46' 29.852" N 40 57' 51.444" N 40 57' 57.907" N City/Town/Community etc.:
11 12
HPP 3, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Moglice, ACC Dam, Dam and Intake Area Plan, NOR 351002 HPP 3, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Moglice, Powerhouse, NOR 366002 13 HPP 2, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Kokel Dam, General Dam Area Plan, NOR 251001 14 HPP 2, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Kokel Dam, General Dam Area Plan, NOR 251001 15 HPP 1, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Banja/HEC Banja, Dam and HPP Banja/Diga DHE HEC BANJA, 2011/06/08, MUL 1000 16 HPP 1, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Banja/HEC Banja, Dam and HPP Banja/Diga DHE HEC BANJA, 2011/06/08, MUL 1000
page 6
Figure 1: Map of Albania
page 7
Figure 2: Layout of cascade HPP Moglice- HPP Kokel- HPP Banja (Devoll Hydropower Project)
page 8
A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity: Sectoral scope1: Energy industries (renewable sources) A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity: (a) The scenario existing prior to the start of the implementation of the project activity Under the existing scenario the electricity in Albania is delivered by the national grid which is dominated by old HPPs which currently cannot cover the increasing electricity demand. The share of electricity import amounts to almost 40%17 of overall power generation. Black-outs and cut-offs in the grid are frequently observed, thus a considerable number of consumers rely on the service of stand-by generators which are operated during the time when the grid cannot supply electricity in the required amount and/or quality. This fact is taken into account as per the option to include off-grid power plants defined in the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system. Since in recent years in Albania load shedding, which refers to the existence of suppressed demand was widely observed, the condition of suppressed demand was taken into consideration for the weights to calculate the CM Emission factor. (b) The scope of activities/measures that are being implemented within the project activity The proposed project activity involves the installation of 3 accumulation reservoir hydro power plants (HPP Moglice HPP Kokel HPP Banja) in a cascade development utilizing the hydropower potential of the Devoll river, Albania. The Devoll hydropower development comprises: Upper Plant (HPP3) - HPP Moglic18
HPP Moglic utilises a head of 300 m along an about 22 km long stretch of Devoll River. The intake is situated in the Moglic reservoir created by the approximately 150 m high Moglic Dam, planned as an asphalt core rockfill dam. The reservoir surface area19 is 7,210,000 m2 and the power density is 23.745 W/m2. A headrace tunnel of length 10.7 km conveys the water to the powerhouse located underground on the north bank of Devoll River. The tailrace tunnel is approximately 900 m long leading to the Kokel reservoir created by the Kokel Dam. HPP Moglic is equipped with two Francis units with a total combined capacity of 171.2 MW and an average annual energy production of 445 GWh. An additional small unit of 1.2 MW for minimum release has been planned to at the toe of the HPP Moglice dam which utilizes the environmental flow. HPP Moglic will be connected to Elbasan, the main hub in the southern primary grid, by a 48.2 km long 220 kV double circuit line via HPP Kokel.
17
See information in Annex 3 provided by KESH j.s.c. the Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation and OST j.s.c the Albanian Transmission System Operator 18 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2-3 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 12 19 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94, table 5.3.1 Reservoir
page 9
Middle Plant (HPP2) HPP Kokel20
HPP Kokel utilises different heads from the Kokel reservoir created by the approximately 50 m high Kokel Dam. The reservoir surface area21 is 710,000 m2 and the power density is 50.986 W/m2. The powerhouse is located at surface at the toe of Kokel Dam. A 300 m long headrace tunnel conveys the water from the reservoir via an embedded penstock to two Francis units with a total combined capacity of 36.2 MW. The estimated average annual energy production is 92 GWh. The middle plant is connected via the 220 kV transmission line from HPP Moglic to Elbasan. Lower Plant (HPP1) - HPP Banja22
The lower plant, HPP Banja, utilises the head of 80 m along an approximately 16 km long stretch of Devoll River. The intake is situated in the Banja reservoir next to the south bank abutment of Banja Dam, designed as a clay core embankment dam (approximately 80 m high). The reservoir surface area23 is 14,110,000 m2 and the power density is 4.578 W/m2. The powerhouse and the tailrace outlet are situated on the south bank. The layout is the same as the original Albanian plans for the project. The dam and headrace tunnel was left half completed after the site was abandoned in the 1980s. The plant is equipped with two Francis units with a combined capacity of 64.6 MW and an additional small unit of 1.2 MW for minimum release. The estimated average annual energy production is 252 GWh. HPP Banja will be connected to Cerrik sub-station in the secondary grid by a 12.5 km long 110 kV single circuit line. The planned total installed capacity of the project is 27224. The project is expected to generate around 78925 GWh electricity per annum, of which approximately 99% (781.1 GWh) will be supplied to the Albanian grid, and the rest 1% will be used for auxiliary services. As the power density of HPP Banja is below 10 W/m, greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs are accounted in the project activity. With an expected grid emission factor of 0.4631 tCO2/MWh and a yearly production of 789 GWh26, the project is expected to achieve annual CO2 emission reductions of about 339,052 tCO2 and total reduction of 3,390,520 tCO2 over the 10 years crediting period.
20
DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2-3 and Devoll Hydropower Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13 21 DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 85, table 5.2.1 Reservoir 22 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2-3 and Devoll Hydropower Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 13 23 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74, Table 5.1.1 Reservoir. 24 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13. For clarity, there are two small turbines with installed capacity of 1.2 MW at HPP Moglice and HPP Banja which utilize the environmental flow. They are not productive but emergency release turbines for the night for the environmental flow of the river. They will not be operated at the same time as the big turbines but only used when the main turbines are out of operation (too little water or maintenance) in order to keep the minimum flow rate in the river of 1 (-2) m3/s. 25 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13 26 The net electricity generation is 781.1 GWh due to deduction of 1% for auxiliary services (as per the assumption made in the Business Plan at the time of the investment decision)
page 10
The project activity will generate renewable power with negligible GHG emissions which will displace electricity otherwise supplied by the Albanian grid and fossil fuel fired stand-by generators. The main technical parameters of DHP are shown in the table below. Table 2: Manufacture and technical indicators of the main equipment of the proposed project activity Equipment/ Technical Parameters Turbine27 Type Number turbines Orientation Maximum turbine output (one unit in operation) Maximum turbine output (two units in operation) Speed MW MW rpm years Hz MW MVA Francis 2 Vertical 90.2 171.2 428.5728 50 Vertical 2 50 88.8 104.531 Units HPP Moglice Values
Expected lifetime29 Generator30 Orientation No of generators Nominal frequency Nominal generator output per unit Maximum generator output per unit
27
DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 41, Table 10.6-3 Main data for turbines and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 117, Table 5.3.19 Mechanical Works. For clarity, the additional small unit of 1.2 MW at HPP Moglice has not been considered in the FSR from November 2010 but subsequently planned in the most recent Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011. 28 At time of the investment decision, the Turbine speed has been assumed at 428.7 rpm - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 41, Table 10.6-3 Main data for turbines 29 The expected lifetime of the components of the project equipment is based on experience of Norconsult with similar HPPs already constructed 30 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 46, Table 10.6-9 Main data for generators and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 118, Table 5.3.20 Electrical Works 31 At time of the investment decision, the Maximum generator power output has been assumed at 101 MVA - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 46, Table 10.6-9 Main data for generators
page 11
Speed Expected lifetime Main transformers33 Nominal power per unit Ratio Expected lifetime High voltage switchgear35 System voltage Frequency Expected lifetime Dam36 Type Height Reservoir38 HRWL surface area Plant Load Factor (PLF)39 Turbine40
rpm years MVA kV years kV Hz years (m) km2 HPP Kokel
42832 50 104.534 220/gen Voltage +/-5% 40 220 50 40 Embankment dam with a centrally placed asphalt concrete core 15037 7.21 30
32
At time of the investment decision, the Generator speed has been assumed at 428.7 rpm - DHP Project, Engineering Services - Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 46, Table 10.6-9 Main data for generators 33 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 48, Table 10.6-10 Main data for transformers and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 118, Table 5.3.20 Electrical Works 34 At time of the investment decision the Nominal power has been assumed at 101 MVA - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 48, Table 10.6-10 Main data for transformers 35 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 49, Table 10.6-7 Main data High voltage switchgear and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 118, Table 5.3.20 Electrical Works 36 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 1 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94-95 37 At time of the investment decision, the Dam height has been assumed at 147 m - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 1 38 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94, Table 5.3.1 Reservoir 39 The PLF of HPP Moglice is determined as the annual electricity output / (installed capacity*8760)*100%). The total operating hours per year are 8760. Thus, the PLF = 445,000/(171.2*8760)*100%) = 30%. The PLF of HPP Moglice is confirmed by Norconsult, the engineering company responsible for development of the FSR of DHP project with issuance of a Confirmation letter, dated 05/07/2011 and is in compliance with the Guidelines for the reporting and validation of plant load factors, EB48, Annex 11 40 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 22, Table 11.6-3 Main data for turbines and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 90, Table 5.2.8 Mechanical Works
page 12
Type Number turbines Orientation Maximum turbine output (one unit in operation) Maximum turbine output (two units in operation) Speed Expected lifetime Generator41 Number of units Orientation Nominal frequency Nominal generator output per unit Maximum generator output per unit Speed Expected lifetime Main transformers43 Nominal power per unit Ratio Expected lifetime High voltage switchgear45 System voltage Frequency Expected lifetime Dam46
MW MW rpm years Hz MW MVA rpm years MVA kV years kV Hz years
Francis 2 Vertical 17.9 36.2 300 50 2 Vertical 50 17.6 20.842 300 50 20.844 220/gen Voltage +/-5% 40 220 50 40
41
DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 27, Table 11.6-7 Main data for generators and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 91, Table 5.2.9 Electrical Works 42 At time of the investment decision, the Maximum generator power output has been assumed at 21.4 MVA - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 28, Table 11.6-8 Main data for transformers 43 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 27, Table 11.6-7 Main data for generators and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 91, Table 5.2.9 Electrical Works 44 At time of the investment decision, the Nominal power output has been assumed at 21.4 MVA - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 28, Table 11.6-8 Main data for transformers 45 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 29, Table 11.6-9 Main data High voltage switchgear and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 91, Table 5.2.9 Electrical Works
page 13
Type Height Reservoir48 HRWL surface area Plant Load Factor49 Turbine50 km2 % HPP Banja MW MW rpm years MW rpm years
Half concrete gravity dam and half asphalt faced rockfill dam and 5047 0.71 29

46
Type Number turbines Turbine unit 1&2 Orientation Maximum turbine output (one unit in operation) Maximum turbine output (two units in operation) Speed Expected lifetime Turbine unit 3 Type Orientation Maximum turbine output Speed Expected lifetime
Francis 3 Vertical 32.851 64.6 300 50 Francis Horizontal 1.252 1000 50
DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 86 47 At time of the investment decision, the Dam height has been assumed at 55 m - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 48 DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 85, Table 5.2.1 Reservoir. At time of the investment decision, the Reservoir surface area of HPP Kokel was 850,000 m2 - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2. The difference in the values of the reservoir surface area have no impact of the power density of HPP Kokel, as in both cases the value is above 10 W/m, hence no greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs have to be considered according to ACM0002. 49 The PLF of HPP Kokel = 92,000/(36.2*8760)*100%) = 29%. The PLF of HPP Kokel is confirmed by Norconsult, the engineering company responsible for development of the FSR of DHP project with issuance of a Confirmation letter, dated 05/07/2011 and is in compliance with the Guidelines for the reporting and validation of plant load factors, EB48, Annex 11 50 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 23, Table 13.9-2 Main data for turbines and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 81, Table 5.1.8 Mechanical Works. 51 At time of the investment decision, the Maximum turbine power output (one unit in operation) was assumed at 32.1 MW - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 23, Table 13.9-2 Main data for turbines 52 The 1.2 MW turbine is not a productive but an emergency release turbine for the night for the environmental flow of the river. It will not be operated at the same time as the big turbines but only used when the main turbines are out of operation (too little water or maintenance) in order to keep the minimum flow rate in the river of 1 (-2) m3/s.
page 14

53
Generator53 Number of units Generator unit 1&2 Orientation Nominal frequency Nominal generator output per unit Maximum generator output per unit Speed Expected lifetime Generator unit 3 Orientation Nominal frequency Nominal generator output Maximum generator output Speed Expected lifetime Main transformers56 Number of units Main transformers units 1&2 Nominal power per unit Ratio Expected lifetime Main transformer unit 3 Nominal power Ratio Expected lifetime
Hz MW MVA rpm years Hz MW MVA rpm years MVA kV years MVA kV years
3 Vertical 50 32.454 38.3 300 50 Horizontal 50 1.255 1.4 1000 50 3 38.357 110/gen Voltage +/- 5% 40 1.3 Distr. voltage/gen Voltage +/- 5% 40
DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 29, Table 13.9-6 Main data for generators and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 82, Table 5.1.9 Electrical Works 54 At time of the investment decision, the Nominal generator power output was assumed at 31.7 MW - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 29, Table 13.9-6 Main data for generators 55 At time of the investment decision, the Nominal generator power output was assumed at 1.1 MW - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 29, Table 13.9-6 Main data for generators 56 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 30, Table 13.9-7 Main data for transformers and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 82, Table 5.1.9 Electrical Works 57 At time of the investment decision, the Nominal power was assumed at 37.3 MW - DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 30, Table 13.9-7 Main data for transformers
page 15
High voltage switchgear58 System voltage Frequency Expected lifetime Dam59 Type Height Reservoir60 HRWL surface area Plant Load Factor61
kV years m km2 %
110 50 40 Clay core embankment dam 80 14.11 44
The tender documentation for selection of the supplier of the equipment is under elaboration and will be based on Statkraft standard. The main equipment of Devoll Hydropower project will be imported. The country from which the equipment will be imported will be known after the selection of the supplier. In order to ensure appropriate collection and archiving of the data during the monitoring, the project owner and the supplier of the equipment will provide training to the project operators of Devoll Hydropower plant. (c) The baseline scenario The baseline scenario of the project activity is the same as the scenario existing prior to the start of the implementation of the project activity. A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: The project applies 10 years crediting period. The crediting period is expected to start on 01/07/2020. The expected amount of emission reductions to be achieved by the project over the 10 years crediting period are indicated in the table below: Table 3: Estimation of emission reductions over the crediting period
58
DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 31, Table 13.9-8 Main data high voltage switchgear and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 82, Table 5.1.9 Electrical Works 59 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74. 60 DHP Project, Engineering Services Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74, Table 5.1.1 Reservoir. 61 The PLF of HPP Banja = 252,000/(64.6*8760)*100%) = 44%. The PLF of HPP Banja is confirmed by Norconsult, the engineering company responsible for development of the FSR of DHP project with issuance of a Confirmation letter, dated 05/07/2011 and is in compliance with the Guidelines for the reporting and validation of plant load factors, EB48, Annex 11
page 16
Years 01/07/2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 30/06/2030 Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 ) Total number of crediting years Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)
Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes of CO2 e 169,526 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 169,526 3,390,520 10 339,052
Three HPP units will be put into operation in a phased manner, as following: HPP Banja on 01/07/2015, HPP Moglice on 01/12/2017 and HPP Kokel on 01/10/2018. All three power plants will be in operation most likely in middle of 2019. Taking into consideration that it needs time to fill the storage, the commercial operation of all three hydro power plants is envisaged for the middle of 2020. A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity: No public funding from parties included in Annex I of the UNFCCC has been involved in the proposed project activity62 SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: Applied methodology: ACM0002: Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources, ver. 12.1.0
Related Tools:
62
The project owner presented declarations to the DOE that no public funding from parties included in Annex I has been involved in DHP
page 17
Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, ver. 02.1.0 Tool for the demonstration and assessment of the additionality, ver. 05.2
B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: The applicability of the methodology ACM0002: Consolidated baseline methodology for gridconnected electricity generation from renewable sources, ver. 12.1.0 to the proposed project activity is demonstrated in the table below: Table 4: Justification of the applicability of the methodology ACM0002
Characteristics of the project activity This methodology is applicable to The proposed project activity grid-connected renewable power consists of the installation of generation project activities that: new grid connected renewable (a) install a new power plant at a site power plants at a site where no where no renewable power plant was renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation operated prior to the of the project activity (greenfield implementation of the project plant); activity (greenfield plant). (b) involve a capacity addition; (c) involve a retrofit of (an) existing plant(s); or (d) involve a replacement of (an) existing plant(s). The project activity is the installation, The proposed project activity is capacity addition, retrofit or the installation of new replacement of a power plant/unit of hydropower plants. one of the following types: hydro power plant/unit (either with a run-ofriver reservoir or an accumulation reservoir), wind power plant/unit, geothermal power plant/unit, solar power plant/unit, wave power plant/unit or tidal power plant/unit; In the case of capacity additions, The proposed project activity is retrofits or replacements (except for the installation of new wind, solar, wave or tidal power hydropower plants. capacity addition projects which use Option 2: on page 11 to calculate the parameter EGPJ,y): the existing plant started commercial operation prior to
Aplicability conditions of ACM0002
Fulfilment of applicability criterion
Yes
Yes
page 18
the start of a minimum historical reference period of five years, used for the calculation of baseline emissions and defined in the baseline emission section, and no capacity expansion or retrofit of the plant has been undertaken between the start of this minimum historical reference period and the implementation of the project activity; In case of hydro power plants, one of the following conditions must apply: The project activity is implemented in an existing reservoir, with no change in the volume of reservoir; or The project activity is implemented in an existing reservoir, where the volume of reservoir is increased and the power density of the project activity, as per definitions given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4 W/m2; or The project activity results in new reservoirs and the power density of the power plant, as per definitions given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4 W/m2.
Yes
The project activity includes the creation of new reservoirs and the power density of the power plants is higher than 4 W/m2, as following: HPP Mglice - 23.745 W/m2 HPP Kokel - 50.986 W/m2 HPP Banja - 4.578 W/m2
Yes
The methodology is not applicable to the following: Project activities that involve switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources at the site of the project activity, since in this case the baseline may be the continued use of fossil fuels at the site; Biomass fired power plants;
The proposed project activity is the installation of new hydropower plants and does not involve switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources at the site of the project.
Yes
The proposed project activity is
Yes
page 19
the development and installation of a hydropower plant.
Hydro power plants that result in new reservoirs or in the increase in existing reservoirs where the power density of the power plant is less than 4 W/m2.
The project activity includes the creation of new reservoirs and the power density of the power plants is higher than 4 W/m2, as following: HPP Mglice - 23.745 W/m2 HPP Kokel - 50.986 W/m2 HPP Banja - 4.578 W/m2
Yes
All applicability criteria of ACM0002, ver.12.1.0 have been fulfilled, hence the methodology is applicable to the proposed project activity. B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:
According to ACM0002, ver. 12.1.0, the spatial extent of the project boundary includes the DHP plants and all power plants connected physically to the Albanian electricity grid to which the proposed project is also connected. In Albania, the national electricity grid is the unique transmission and distribution line, to which all power plants in Albania are physically connected to. Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) 63, following the split of OST j.s.c and OSSH j.s.c., carries out only functions in the field of generation and Public Wholesale Supplier. Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) 64, has been established in December 2003, and carries out the function of management and operation of the transmission system, including also the role of the electricity market operator as a state owned company. Distribution System Operator65 (OSSH j.s.c) has been established with a DCM No.862, on 20/12/2006 on Establishment of the company Distribution System Operator j.s.c Tirane and carries out the functions of the Distribution Operator and that of Public retail supplier. The majority stake of OSSH was taken over by CEZ in March 2009 and was renamed to CEZ SHPRNDARJE66 in October 2010.
63 64
http://www.kesh.com.al/ http://www.ost.al/ 65 The company has been renamed to CEZ SHPRNDARJE 66 www.cez.al
page 20
Figure 3: DHP project boundary The GHGs and emission sources included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in the table below: Table 5: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary Source Gas Grid electricity CO2 production including offgrid generators CH4 N2O Hydro electric CO2 electricity CH4 production N2O Included? Included Justification/Explanation According to ACM0002 only CO2 emissions from electricity generation shall be accounted. According to ACM0002 According to ACM0002 As the power density of the HPP Banja is below 10 W/m, greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs have to be considered according to ACM0002.
Baseline
B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario:
According to ACM0002, Version 12.1.0, the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit, therefore the plausible baseline scenarios are the following:
Project Activity
Excluded Excluded Included Excluded Excluded
page 21
Alternative 1: The proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity. Alternative 2: Construction of a fossil fuel fired power plant providing the same annual electricity output. Alternative 3: Construction of a renewable power plant other than hydropower providing the same annual electricity output. Alternative 4: Continuation of the current situation providing the same amount of electricity by the Albanian grid. Alternative 1: The proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity. Financial analysis of this alternative is presented in section B.5. The results show that the internal rate of return of the proposed project without CDM revenue is 8.9% which is below the WACC benchmark of 10.9%, demonstrating that the project is not financially attractive, therefore Alternative 1 is not plausible baseline scenario. Alternative 2: Construction of a fossil fuel fired power plant providing the same annual electricity output. There are only two fossil fuel fired power plants serving the Albanian grid TPP Fier with installed capacity of 75 MW and TPP Vlora with installed capacity of 97 MW. TPP Fier was shut down in the year 2008. TPP Vlora constructed in year 2009 has not been operational67 over the last two years due to high prices of oil. Electricity production by TPP Vlora is not economically attractive and the power plant serves as a cold reserve in the Albanian power system. Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be considered as a baseline scenario to the proposed project activity. Alternative 3: Construction of a renewable power plant other than hydropower providing the same annual electricity output. Currently there are no other existing large scale renewable power plants in the Albanian power system beside hydropower. Generation of annual electricity output by solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy sources as high as the proposed project activity is not realistic. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not considered as a baseline scenario to the project activity. Alternative 4: Continuation of the current situation providing the same amount of electricity by the Albanian grid. This scenario is financially feasible, therefore the baseline scenario of the proposed project is the delivery of the equivalent amount of annual power output from the Albanian national grid to which the project will also be connected.
67
See Annex 3, Tables Net Electricity Production based on information from the Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/
page 22
In conclusion, the only realistic and reasonable baseline scenario to the project activity is Alternative 4, providing the same amount of electricity by the Albanian grid. The data used for calculating the baseline emissions is provided in Annex 3. B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality): According to ACM0002, ver. 12.1.0, the additionality of the proposed project activity is demonstrated as per the latest version of the Tool for the demonstration and assessment of the additionality, 05.2. Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations Sub-Step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity: In absence of the proposed project, reasonable and credible alternatives that are in accordance with laws and regulations include: Alternative 1: The proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity. Alternative 2: Construction of a fossil fuel fired power plant providing the same annual electricity output. Alternative 3: Construction of a renewable power plant other than hydropower providing the same annual electricity output. Alternative 4: Continuation of the current situation providing the same amount of electricity by the Albanian grid. Sub-Step 1b. Consistency with appropriate laws and regulations: Analysis of the identified alternatives which are in compliance with mandatory legislation and regulations is presented below: Alternative 1: The proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity. Financial analysis of this alternative is presented below. The results show that the internal rate of return of the proposed project without CDM revenue is 8.9% which is below the WACC benchmark of 10.9%, demonstrating that the project is not financially attractive, therefore not plausible baseline scenario. Alternative 2: Construction of a fossil fuel fired power plant providing the same annual electricity output. There are only two fossil fuel fired power plants serving the Albanian grid TPP Fier with installed capacity of 75 MW and TPP Vlora with installed capacity of 97 MW. TPP Fier was shut down in the
page 23
year 2008. TPP Vlora constructed in year 2009 has not been operational68 over the last two years due to high prices of oil. Electricity production by TPP Vlora is not economically attractive and the power plant serves as a cold reserve in the Albanian power system. Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be considered as a baseline scenario to the proposed project activity. Alternative 3: Construction of a renewable power plant other than hydropower providing the same annual electricity output. Currently there are no other existing large scale renewable power plants in the Albanian power system beside hydropower. Generation of annual electricity output by solar, wind, biomass and geothermal energy sources as high as by the proposed project activity is not realistic. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not considered a reasonable and credible alternative. Alternative 4: Continuation of the current situation providing the same amount of electricity by the Albanian grid. This scenario is in compliance with current laws and regulations of Albania, therefore the baseline scenario of the proposed project is the delivery of the equivalent amount of annual power output from the Albanian national grid to which the project will also be connected. Hence, Alternatives 4 is considered reasonable and credible alternative to the project which is in line with relevant rules and regulations. Step 2: Investment Analysis Sub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method The CDM project activity and the alternatives identified in step 1 generate financial benefits other than CDM related income, therefore the simple cost analysis (Option I) is not applicable. The investment comparison analysis (Option II) is not used because the alternative to the CDM project is delivery of electricity from the Albanian grid, which is outside the control of the project developers. Thus, Option III, benchmark analysis is chosen as it represents the most appropriate option for assessing the financial attractiveness of the project activity. Sub-step 2b: Option III. Apply benchmark analysis The financial analysis for the CDM DHP69 project fulfills all requirements set out in the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 5.0) and is in accordance with the following issues: General issues in calculation and presentation
68
See Annex 3, Tables Net Electricity Production based on information from the Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/
69
The Excel spreadsheets of CDM DHP investment analyses are presented to the DOE for assessment
page 24
The model reflects the period of expected operation of the underlying project activity (technical lifetime). Depreciations and other non-cash items relating to the project activity, which have been deducted in estimating gross profits on which tax is calculated, have been added back to net profits for the purpose of calculating the financial indicator (e.g. IRR, NPV) Taxation has been included in the cash flows due to the fact that the benchmark is intended for post-tax comparisons. All input values used in the investment analyses are valid and applicable at time of the investment decision which was taken on 22/12/2010 with the approval of the FSR and the Business Plan by DHP Administration Council at its 4th Meeting. The Minutes of Meeting from DHP Administration Council is presented to the DOE as evidence supporting the time of the investment decision. All expenditures which occurred prior to the date of the investment decision 22/12/2010 were considered as sunk cost. The residual value for DHP is zero as the ownership of the plant will be transferred for a price of zero to the Albanian Government in 2091, as stipulated by the Concession Agreement.
Specific Guidance on the Calculation of Project IRR and Equity IRR The cost of financing expenditures (i.e. loan repayments and interest) has not been included in the calculation of the project IRR. Seeing that the WACC is applied as a post- tax benchmark, the EBIT (earnings before interest and tax) is used as a base for the calculation of income tax.
Selection and Validation of Appropriate Benchmarks The financial model applies the weighted average costs of capital (WACC) as an appropriate benchmark for the project IRR. The applied benchmark is based on parameters that are standard in the market, considering specific characteristics of the project type but not linked to subjective profitability expectations or risk profiles of particular project developers. The costs of equity are based on the Albanian values provided in Appendix A: Default values for the expected return on investment of the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis, ver.05. The applicable value for the correct Group 1: Energy Industries is 13%. Please note that this value is given in real terms, while the financial model uses nominal values in EUR. Therefore, the 13% are corrected to 15.3% in nominal terms, assuming EUR inflation of 2% which was the value used in the FSR of DHP. Seeing that the debt financing structure for the project was not available (no letter of intent by any bank was made available), the cost of debt was assumed as the commercial lending rate in Albania. o The investment decision was taken on 22/12/2010 with the approval of the FSR and the Business Plan by DHP Administration Council at its 4th Meeting FSR. The latest available credit rate value to this date was the November 2010 value
page 25
of the Average monthly credit rates in EUR for the banking system for maturity over 5 years was 6.77%70 as published by the National Bank of Albania. o The financial analysis in the FSR was done in EUR currency as the projects main influencing factors (investment costs, debt/equity financing of the project, etc.) are in EUR as well. The above mentioned Albanian credit rates in EUR are therefore considered appropriate. Based on the FSR71, a 50% debt and 50% equity financing has been assumed for the WACC calculation. This is also the default value provided by the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis, ver. 05 Based on the cost of equity and debt mentioned above and an income tax rate of 10%, the benchmark WACC is calculated as 10.9%.72
Sub-step 2c: Calculation and comparison of financial indicators The financial model calculates the project IRR using the inputs set out below. The inputs were valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision which was taken with the approval of the FSR on 22/12/2010. Traceable information for the sources of the input parameters is given in the table below as well as in the investment analysis Excel spreadsheet. The main source is the Feasibility Study report (FSR). Some input parameters are not explicitly mentioned in the FSR. In these cases, the source is the Financial Excel model of the Business Plan, dated 17/12/2010 which was approved along with the FSR on 22/12/2010. Table 6: Key assumptions for investment analysis Input Investment cost Unit EUR Value 855,300,000 Source Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet CAPEX Comment In the FSR only the investment cost in real value (base year 2010) is given (791 million EUR). For the CDM financial analysis,
70
The November 2010 value is lower than any comparable average value (e.g. average for 3 months (SeptemberNovember 2010) or 6 months (June-November 2010)). Hence, the November 2010 value is used as it is the most conservative in terms of CDM. http://www.bankofalbania.org/web/Time_series_22_2.php?crd=0,3,4,0,0,22&uni=201104291652492011429165213 04088&mode=alone&format=3&ln=2&id=146&p_id=1&agr_shfaq=tab&shfaq=0&periudha_nga=1172&periudha_ deri=1192&cregfld_bashkesi=167095,3487 71 FSR, Chapter 25 Financial Analysis, Figure 25.2-1, Page 5 72 The WACC calculation used the formula given in the Information Note Default values for the expected return on equity, published by the CDM Meth Panel as Annex 14 to its 49 th meeting report. The hurdle rate can be calculated as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which is the weighted average cost of obtaining finance in the form of equity and debt. Mathematically, this is denoted as follows: WACC = ke x re + kd x rd x (1 T), where T is the applicable tax rate, ke and kd are respectively the proportion of equity and debt, and re and rd are the cost of equity and debt respectively.
page 26
Project life-time (years of operation)
Years
77
Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet FCF
Start of operational generation
Date
01/07/2015 01/12/2017 01/10/2018
Installed capacity Annual gross generation Losses (for auxiliary services
MW GWh %
272 789 1
Concession fee
% 2% 4% From 93.6 (in year 2015) to 124.2 (year 2030), after 2030 increased by
Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet Alternatives, cells U62, U92 and U122 FSR, Executive Summary, Page 2 FSR, Executive Summary, Page 9 Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet Project Assumptions, cell D15 FSR, Executive Summary, Page 9
the annual distribution of the nominal investment cost (considering a EUR inflation rate of 2%) was taken from the financial model. The terms and conditions for the length of the operation period are defined in the Concession Agreement, Paragraph 10.1.73 HPP Banje HPP Moglice HPP Kokel
When all 3 plants are operational Base: gross generation
Wholesale Power Price (Base Load)
EUR/MWh
Percentage of annual generation 2015-2051 After 2051 Financial model Nominal values from of the Business Pyry market report Plan, Spreadsheet (wholesale price FCF, line 18 forecast)
73
Paragraph 10.1 of the Concession Agreement defines the minimum concession period of 35 years. After that, it will be checked annually if either the Production Achievement Event (Definition on Page 18) or the IRR Achievement Event (Page 14) has been fulfilled. These events refer to the definition of the Required minimum IRR(10%, Page 19) and the Contracted Production Volume(59 TWh, Page 10). Only the 59 TWh net generations can be reached in 2091 (operation period 2015-2091).
page 27
Optional value
EUR/MWh
Administration costs
EUR/MW
EUR inflation 2.25 in 2008, increased by EUR inflation rate 3,000
FSR, Executive Summary, Page 9
OPEX
EUR/MW
6,000
Income tax
10
Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet Project assumptions, cell D32 Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet Project assumptions, cell D35/36 FSR, Executive Summary, Page 9
Additional price due to flexibility of hydro power generation Value in year 2010, then increased by EUR inflation rate
Value in year 2010, then increased by EUR inflation rate
Depreciation EUR inflation rate
% %
5 1.8
FSR, Executive Summary, Page 9 IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2011
The FSR increases the tax rate to 18% in 2016 which is not based on any official document. Therefore, for the CDM financial analysis the 10% has been used for the whole project period. This is conservative as it overestimates the profits. 20 years of depreciation Based on Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 5.0) this source has to be used for calculating the expected return on equity in nominal terms. As the start of project activity is planned for 2011, the average value of the period 2012-2016 has been calculated. This value is very
page 28
similar to the FSR where 2.0% is used. Further detailed reference to the source and calculation of the input variables is given in the spreadsheet Input of the Excel file of the financial analysis. The resulting project IRR is below the WACC benchmark for a project of this type in Albania. The contribution of the CER revenues improves the financial attractiveness of DHP project. Table 7: Project IRR without CER revenues and the WACC benchmark Project IRR without CER revenues WACC benchmark Sub-Step 2d: Sensitivity analysis A sensitivity analysis of the project activity has been performed in order to test the robustness of the calculations. The variables investment cost, electricity price and annual generation constitute more than 20% of either total project costs or total project revenues. Hence, they are subjected to variations of +/-10% and +/ 5% in the sensitivity analysis. All other variables (e.g. O&M cost equals less than 5% of revenues) are significantly below the 20% threshold and are therefore not considered in the sensitivity analysis. The results of the variation are presented in this PDD and are reproduced in the associated spreadsheet. Table 8: Variations of input parameters IRR Sensitivity Analysis Investment costs Generation volume Electricity price 8.9% 10.9%
90% 9,6% 8,2% 8,2%
95% 9,2% 8,5% 8,5%
100% 8,9% 8,9% 8,9%
105% 8,6% 9,2% 9,2%
110% 8,3% 9,5% 9,5%
The following table indicates which change would be necessary to surpass the benchmark of 10.9%. Table 9: Changes which would be necessary to surpass the benchmark
NPV=0 w ith WACC= Investm ent Generation volum e Electricity price 10,9% 75% 131% 131% is fulfilled if the follow ing param eters are changed from the original values
In order to be above the benchmark, a reduction of the investment cost by 25% or an increase of the revenues (either by generation volume or electricity price) by 31% would be necessary.
page 29
All these scenarios are highly unrealistic to happen. The project owners (Statkraft and EVN) as well as the engineering company Norconsult (which prepared the FSR) have senior expertise to adequately estimate the investment cost as well as annual generation for new hydro power plants. The projected prices in the FSR have been derived from the Albanian market report prepared by Pyry Energy Consulting. Pyry market forecast is based on a complex model using the fundamentals of the electricity market for all European countries and is widely used and well-known among potential investors and authorities in the SEE region. The sensitivity analysis shows that in each sensitivity case examined it is very unlikely the change of the parameters to surpass the benchmark. Therefore, the project activity is unlikely to become financially attractive without the incentive from CDM. According to the Guidance on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM 74, CDM DHP project falls under the hypothesis of section II. Proposed project activities with a start date from 2 August 2008. Following the definition for a starting date of a CDM project activity as defined in the Glossary of CDM terms75, the starting date of DHP will be in the future since no real action as financial closure, ordering of major equipment, construction permit or start of construction has yet begun. Nevertheless, on 29/09/2009 the project owner has sent a notification letter 76 to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat informing about the intention to implement Devoll Hydropower project in Albania under CDM/Prior consideration of CDM. With the notification letter the project owner intended securing the CDM status of DHP project by demonstrating that the incentive from CDM was considered at the earliest stage of the project implementation. For the purpose of demonstrating the serious consideration of the incentive from CDM in the decision to implement CDM DHP, implementation timeline of the project activity is presented below, based on official, legal and other relevant documentation77 available prior the start of the project activity. Date when the investment decision was made The project participants made the investment decision to build CDM DHP on 22/12/2010 with the approval of the FSR by DHP Administration Council at its 4th Meeting. The incentive from CDM was seriously considered and indicated in the FSR78. Date when construction works started
74 75
Version 04, EB 62 http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/glos_CDM.pdf 76 The Notification letter to the to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat/Prior consideration of CDM is presented in Annex 8 77 All official reliable evidences demonstrating that the incentive from CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement CDM DHP project and indicating that continuing and real actions were taken to secure the CDM status of the project in parallel with its implementation have been compiled and presented to the DOE as supplementary documentation to the PDD 78 FSR, Chapter 25 Financial Analysis, page 9, 25.6.1. CDM income
page 30
Construction of the project activity has not yet started. The planned construction works commencement date is in Q3 of 2012 Date of start-up (e.g. date when commercial production started) Three HPP units will be put into operation in a phased manner, as following: HPP Banja on 01/07/2015, HPP Moglice on 01/12/2017 and HPP Kokel on 01/10/2018. All three power plants will be in operation most likely in middle of 2019. Taking into consideration that it needs time to fill the storage the commercial operation of all three hydro power plants is envisaged for the middle of 2020. Table 10: Timeline of events and actions supported by reliable evidences indicating that the incentive from CDM was seriously considered in the Devoll Hydropower project as well as that continuing and real actions have been undertaken by the project participants to achieve CDM registration. 1. 2. Date 29/05/2007 06/09/2007 Evidences Contract between EVN AG and ALLPLAN GmbH for development of PIN for the potential CDM project HPP Devoll river, Albania Minutes of Meeting of EVN AG representatives regarding the implementation of Devoll Hydropower in Albania reporting the consideration of the incentive from CDM. PIN HPP Devoll elaborated for EVN AG by ALLPLAN GmbH Minutes of Meeting of EVN AG representatives reporting on a discussion regarding possibility for obtaining additional financing for Devoll Hydropower project from CDM. Minutes of Meeting of EVN AG representatives reporting that the Letter of No Objection for the PIN of CDM Devoll Hydropower project is still pending to be issued by the Albanian DNA. Letter of No Objection for PIN Devoll Hydropower issued by the Albanian DNA Concession Agreement relating to the design, financing, construction, ownership, operation, maintenance and transfer of the Devoll river hydropower project in the Republic of Albania between the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy as Contracting Authority and EVN AG, Statkraft AS and Devoll Hydropower S.h.a. as Co-concessionairs Framework Agreement 46004121, dated 23/12/2008/12776 between EVN AG and ALLPLAN GmbH for development of CDM PDD for HPP Devoll project. Assignment and Assumption Agreement to the Framework Agreement 46004121 Position 50/dated 23/12/2008 and to the Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung79, dated 01/04/2008 the CDM Project Agreement between EVN AG, ALLPLAN GmbH and Devoll Hydropower Sh.A (DHP) Notification letter to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat for realization of CDM Hydro Power Plant Devoll project in Albania under Clean Development
3. 4.
18/12/2007 14/04/2008
5.
26/05/2008
6. 7.
08/09/2008 19/12/2008
8. 9.
23/12/2008
No date indicated in the document 10. 29/09/2009
79
English translation: Confidentiality agreement
page 31
11. 20/10/2009 12. 01/02/2010
13. 11/2010 14. 22/12/2010
15. July 2011
Mechanism according to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC CDM Prior Consideration Minutes of CDM Kick-Off Meeting for Devoll Hydropower project E-mail from DHP informing the project participants about a personal meeting with the Albanian DNA and the willingness of the DNA to support the realisation of DHP project under CDM in Albania. FSR of Devoll Hydropower, developed by Norconsult Minutes of Meeting of the 4th Meeting Administration Council (AC), Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. on which the FSR of DHP were approved Investment decision to proceed with DHP project. Contract with the DNV for validation of CDM DHP project
Step 3: Barrier analysis This step is not applied Step 4. Common Practice Analysis Sub-step 4a. Analyse other activities similar to the proposed project The Albanian grid is dominated by just few large hydro power plants located at the Drin river in the North of Albania. However, the last built big hydro power plant - 600 MW HPP Koman dates back to 1986 when the former political system was still in place. HPP Koman was built and is still owned by the state the Albanian Power Corporation (KESH) and thus cannot be compared to the implementation of a new HPP of similar size to be built by an international private consortium after having won a tendering process and facing market uncertainties. Furthermore, the Devoll Hydropower plant is located on the Devoll River in the South of Tirana. Table 11: HPPs serving the Albanian grid80
Power Plant 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
80
HPP Bistrica 1 HPP Lanabregas HPP Bistrica 2 HPP Ulez HPP Shkopet HPP Vau Dejes HPP Fierza HPP Koman HPP Smokhtine
Installed Capacity (MW) 22.5 5 5 25 24 250 500 600 9.2
Year of Commissioning 1948 1951 1952 1954 1963 1975 1978 1986 2004
Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/
page 32
10. 11.
HPP Gjanc HPP Bogove
3.7 2.5
2005 2006
Currently another international investor plans to build a 52.9 MW HPP at the Drin river, which is also developed as a CDM project activity. Due to new support from the Albanian Government and the entry into force of the law no. 9663 of date 18.12.2006 on concessions, during 2007 and concessionary licenses have been granted for the construction of a considerable number of hydropower plants with small or medium size capacities. This new law is considered to be the main reason that some small HPPs were built or rehabilitated recently, like Gjanc (3.7 MW; 2005); Bogove (2.5 MW; 2006) Smokthine (9.2 MW; 2004); Tervol (12 MW; 2009)81 etc. As it can be seen from the table above, all recently built HPPs are small or medium sized with a maximum capacity of 12 MW and thus not comparable with the 272 MW HPP Devoll Hydropower project. Sub-step 4b Discuss any similar options that are occurring Since no similar project activities could be observed in Albania under Sub-step 4a this Sub-step is not applicable and it can be concluded from this analysis that the proposed project is not a common practice. It is therefore concluded that the proposed project activity is additional. B.6. Emission reductions: B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: The emission reductions are calculated in accordance with the approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0002, Version 12.1.0. The necessary data for calculating baseline, project and leakage emissions was provided by the following official sources of Albania (see also Annex 3 of the PDD): Korporata Elektroenergjetike Shiqiptare (KESH) and The Transmission System Operator (OST)
Baseline emissions Baseline emissions include only CO2 emissions from electricity generation in fossil fuel fired power plants that are displaced due to the project activity. The methodology assumes that all project electricity generation above baseline levels would have been generated by existing grid-connected power plants and the addition of new grid-connected power plants. The baseline emissions are to be calculated as follows:
81
www.akbn.gov.al
page 33
BEy = EGPJ,y x EFgrid,CM,y Where: BEy = EGPJ,y = EFgrid,CM,y =
(6)
Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr) Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y calculated using the latest version of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (tCO2/MWh)
Calculation of EGPJ,y The calculation of EGPJ,y is different for (a) greenfield plants, (b) retrofits and replacements, and (c) capacity additions. These cases are described next: (a) Greenfield renewable energy power plants If the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation of the project activity, then: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y Where: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y = (7)
Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr) Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y (MWh/yr)
Since the Devoll HPP is a Greenfield renewable energy project the equation under (a) of above is applied.
Project Emissions (PEy): For most renewable power generation project activities, PEy = 0. However, some project activities may involve project emissions that can be significant. These emissions shall be accounted for as project emissions by using the following equation:
(1) Where: PEy = PEFF,y = PEGP,y = PEHP,y =
Project emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr) Project emissions from fossil fuel consumption in year y (tCO2e/yr) Project emissions from the operation of geothermal power plants due to the release of non-condensable gases in year y (tCO2e/yr) Project emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power plants in year y (tCO2e/yr)
page 34
The procedure to calculate the project emissions from each of these sources is presented next. Under the underlying project activity the project emissions PEFF,y and PEGP,y are not applicable and thus 0. The only source of project emissions might be from water reservoirs of hydro power plants (PE HP,y). The equations for this kind of project emissions are described as follows: Emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power plants (PHHP,y) For hydro power project activities that result in new reservoirs and hydro power project activities that result in the increase of existing reservoirs, project proponents shall account for CH 4 and CO2 emissions from the reservoir, estimated as follows: (a) If the power density of the project activity (PD) is greater than 4 W/m2 and less than or equal to 10 W/m2:
(3) Where: PEHP,y = EFRes = TEGy = Project emissions from water reservoirs (tCO2e/yr) Default emission factor for emissions from reservoirs of hydro power plants in year y (kgCO2e/MWh) Total electricity produced by the project activity, including the electricity supplied to the grid and the electricity supplied to internal loads, in year y (MWh)
(b) If the power density of the project activity (PD) is greater than 10 W/m2:
PEHP,y = 0
The power density of the project activity (PD) is calculated as follows:
(4)
(5) Where: PD = CapPJ = CapBL = APJ = Power density of the project activity (W/m2) Installed capacity of the hydro power plant after the implementation of the project activity (W) Installed capacity of the hydro power plant before the implementation of the project activity (W). For new hydro power plants, this value is zero. Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, after the implementation of the project activity, when the reservoir is full (m2)
page 35
ABL =
Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, before the implementation of the project activity, when the reservoir is full (m2). For new reservoirs, this value is zero.
The ex-ante calculations of the power densities (PD) (see section B.2.) of the different power plants of the underlying project activity are summarized in the following table: Table 12: Calculation of the power densities Banja HRWL surface area [km] see Design Basis Report 14 1,000,000 Installed capacity (see FSR) [MW] HRWL surface area [m] W installed [W] Power density calculated [W/m] 64.6 14,110,000 Kokel 0.71 1,000,000 36.2 710,000 Moglice 7.21 1,000,000 171.2 7,210,000
64,600,000 36,200,000 171,200,000 4.578 50.986 23.745
According to the applied methodology only project emissions for the HPP Banja have to be taken into account. These project emissions are to be calculated with the formula described under (a) of above. In the underlying PDD these project emissions for the HPP Banja are considered in the ex-ante calculation of the estimated emission reductions. For the HPPs Kokel and Moglice power densities of 50.986 and 23.745 W/m were calculated. If the power density is higher than 10 W/m no project emissions have to be considered (see point (b) of above). For the ex-ante calculation of the emission reductions it is assumed that from these HPPs no project emissions will occur under this project activity. All the parameters (capacities and surface areas) to recalculate the power densities annually throughout the operational phase are monitored. Leakage (Ly) According to the methodology, no leakage emissions are considered. The main emissions potentially giving rise to leakage in the context of electric sector projects are emissions arising due to activities such as power plant construction and upstream emissions from fossil fuel use (e.g. extraction, processing, transport). These emissions sources are neglected. Emission reductions (ERy) Emission reductions are calculated as follows:
page 36
ERy = BEy PEy Where: ERy BEy PEy
(11)
= = =
Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e/yr) Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr) Project emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)
A Combined Margin (CM) (see also the explanation under Baseline Emissions) consists of the combination of Operating Margin (OM) and Build Margin (BM) according to the procedures prescribed in the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0), which in the following is named the Tool. The developers are aware of the fact that the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0) was amended in the EB meeting 61 but we refer to the point 24. of the Sixty-first meeting report which stipulates: 24. For all revised methodologies and tools that were approved by the Board at this meeting, the DOEs may upload not later than 3 February 2012 (24:00 GMT) for registration the project design documents (PDDs) of project activities in which the previous version of an approved methodology or an approved tool has been applied, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the Procedure for the submission and consideration of requests for revision of approved baseline and monitoring methodologies and tools for large scale CDM project activities. Since we intend to get registered to project activity immediately after validation and are seeking to get the Letter for Approval (LoA) in parallel from the DNA of Albania till the end of the year 2011 we apply point 24 regarding the transition period for using previous versions of the Tools and Methodologies. Sections taken from the Tool for explanation reasons are illustrated in italic letters. The operating margin is the emission factor that refers to the group of existing power plants whose current electricity generation would be affected by the proposed CDM project activity. The build margin is the emission factor that refers to the group of prospective power plants whose construction and future operation would be affected by the proposed CDM project activity. This tool may be applied to estimate the OM, BM and/or CM when calculating baseline emissions for a project activity that substitutes grid electricity, i.e. where a project activity supplies electricity to a grid or a project activity that results in savings of electricity that would have been provided by the grid (e.g. demand-side energy efficiency projects). Under this tool, the emission factor for the project electricity system can be calculated either for grid power plants only or, as an option, can include off-grid power plants. In the latter case, the conditions specified in Annex 2 - Procedures related to off-grid power generation should be met. Namely, the total capacity of off-grid power plants (in MW) should be at least 10% of the total capacity of grid power plants in the electricity system; or the total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) should be at least 10% of the total power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system; and that
page 37
factors which negatively affect the reliability and stability of the grid is primarily due to constraints in generation and not to other aspects such as transmission capacity. In the underlying calculation of the GEF for the national grid of Albania off- grid power plants are included. Under Step 4 of the Annex 2 of the Tool (see also Step 2 of the Tool and Annex 3 respectively) it is required that the total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) amounts to more than 10% of the total power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system for the year the off- grid study was done. The off-grid study was done for the year 2007. Note that this tool is also referred to in the Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity consumption for the purpose of calculating project and leakage emissions in case where a project activity consumes electricity from the grid or results in increase of consumption of electricity from the grid outside the project boundary. If during operation of the hydropower project a situation will occur, where electricity is taken from the Albanian grid Scenario A; Option A1 of the Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage emissions from electricity consumption (Version 01) will be applied. However, this is currently considered unlikely. Project participants shall apply the following seven steps: STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system. STEP 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional) STEP 3. Select an operating margin (OM) method. STEP 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method. STEP 5. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM). STEP 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor. STEP 7. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor. STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system. For determining the electricity emission factors, a project electricity system is defined by the spatial extent of the power plants that are physically connected through transmission and distribution lines to the project activity (e.g. the renewable power plant location or the consumers where electricity is being saved) and that can be dispatched without significant transmission constraints. If the project electricity system is located partially or totally in Annex-I countries, then the tool is not applicable. The project electricity system is the national grid of Albania. The geographical boundary for the determination of the baseline emissions is therefore defined as the national grid of Albania and direct emissions from all generation sources serving the grid with inclusion of off-grid plants. Similarly, a connected electricity system, e.g. national or international, is defined as an electricity system that is connected by transmission lines to the project electricity system. Power plants within the connected electricity system can be dispatched without significant transmission constraints but transmission to the project electricity system has significant transmission constraint. If a connected
page 38
electricity system is located partially or totally in Annex-I countries, then the emission factor of that connected electricity system should be considered zero. Electricity transfers from connected electricity systems to the project electricity system are defined as electricity imports and electricity transfers to connected electricity systems are defined as electricity exports. Electricity is imported to the project electricity system (national grid of Albania) from connected electricity systems (national grid of Greece, Kosovo/Serbia and Montenegro)82. According to the source ENTSOE.EU83 (see also attached baseline data in Annex 3 of the PDD) there are also exports from the national grid to the above mentioned connected electricity systems. For the purpose of determining the build margin (BM) emission factor, the spatial extent is limited to the project electricity system, except where recent or likely future additions to transmission capacity enable significant increases in imported electricity. In such cases, the transmission capacity may be considered a build margin source. For the purpose of determining the operating margin (OM) emission factor, one of the following options should be used to determine the CO2 emission factor(s) for net electricity imports (EFgrid,import,y) from a connected electricity system within the same host country(ies): (a) 0 tCO2/MWh, or (b) The weighted average operating margin (OM) emission rate of the exporting grid, determined as described in step 3 (d) below; or (c) The simple operating margin emission rate of the exporting grid, determined as described in step 3 (a), if the conditions for this method, as described in step 2 below, apply to the exporting grid; or (d) The simple adjusted operating margin emission rate of the exporting grid, determined as described in step 3 (b) below. For imports from connected electricity systems located in Annex-I country(ies), the emission factor is 0 tons CO2 per MWh. For both, electricity imports from the Annex I country Greece and non Annex I countries Kosovo/Serbia and Montenegro the emission factors are considered 0 tCO2/MWh (see Option (a) from above). Electricity exports should not be subtracted from electricity generation data used for calculating and monitoring the electricity emission factors. Exports were not subtracted from the electricity generation for calculation of the Combined Margin (CM) Grid Emission Factor. Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional)
82 83
https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/ https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/
page 39
Project participants may choose between the following two options to calculate the operating margin and build margin emission factor: Option I: Only grid power plants are included in the calculation. Option II: Both grid power plants and off-grid power plants are included in the calculation. Option I corresponds to the procedure contained in earlier versions of this tool. Option II allows the inclusion of off-grid power generation in the grid emission factor. Option II aims to reflect that in some countries off-grid power generation is significant and can partially be displaced by CDM project activities, e.g. if off-grid power plants are operated due to an unreliable and unstable electricity grid. Option II requires collecting data on off-grid power generation as per Annex 2 and can only be used if the conditions outlined therein are met. Option II may be chosen only for the operating margin emission factor or for both the build margin and the operating margin emission factor but not only for the build margin emission factor. Option II is chosen and the off- grid electricity generation is taken into account for both the calculation of the build margin (BM) and the operating margin (OM) emission factor. If Option II is chosen, off-grid power plants should be classified as per the guidance in Annex 2 in different classes of off-grid power plants. Each off-grid power plant class should be considered as one power plant j, k, m or n in the following steps, as applicable. The classification as per the guidance in Annex 2 is applied accordingly. Each off-grid power plant class is considered as one power plant. In total 23 UNFCCC classes were identified during the off-grid survey (see guidance in Step 1.2 of the Annex 2 of the Tool in Annex 3 of the PDD). In the following table the determined (during the off-grid survey) UNFCCC classes are summarized. Table 13: Identified UNFCCC off -grid classes
Nominal capacity of off grid power plants in [kW] CAP < 10 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000
Diesel Age (0-5) Age (6-10) Age (11-20) Gasoline Age (0-5) Age (6-10) Age (11-20)
The only generation technology applied by the surveyed off-grid plants is the reciprocant engine system fuelled either by diesel or by gasoline (see also Annex 1 of the Tool). The diesel fuelled off- grid plants covered all the seven capacity classes. The gasoline fuelled off-grid plants just covered the first capacity class smaller than 10 kW. According to Step 4 of Annex 2 of the Tool the following prerequisites for the inclusion of the offgrid power plants have to be fulfilled:
page 40
Step 4 of Annex 2: Assess the extent of off-grid power The effects of feeding additional electricity to the grid or saving electricity demand on off-grid power plants connected to the system are associated with significant uncertainty. For this reason, a significant amount of off-grid power should exist to include these plants in the grid emission factor. The inclusion of off-grid power plants in the grid emission factor is only allowed if one of the following two conditions are met: The total capacity of off-grid power plants (in MW) is at least 10% of the total capacity of grid power plants in the electricity system; or The total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) is at least 10% of the total power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system.
If one of these conditions is not met, then off-grid power plants cannot be included in the calculation of the grid emission factor of the electricity system. Otherwise, proceed to next step. There is an inconsistence in the underlined sections above, which has not been solved so far in the revised Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0) and (Version 02.2.0.). The off- grid study for Albania was done for the year 2007. According to Step 3 of the Tool a single calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission of the CDM-PDD for validation has to be used. By choosing the year 2007 this requirement is fulfilled. The extrapolated off grid generation for the year 2007 (lower level of the 95% confidence interval) amounted to 472,708 MWh. This is equal to 16.3% of the total power generation by grid power plants of the Albanian grid in the year 2007. The total power generation for the year 2007 amounted to 2,892,974 MWh (including hydro power (2,829,512 MWh) and thermal power (63,462 MWh); without imports) (see also Annex 3 of the PDD). Since the installed capacity of all (sampled) off-grid power plants in operation amounts to 239 MW, which is equal to 15.7 % of the total installed capacity of 1,523 MW both above mentioned requirements are met. Step 3. Select an operating margin (OM) method The calculation of the operating margin emission factor (EFgrid,OM,y) is based on one of the following methods: (a) Simple OM, or (b) Simple adjusted OM, or (c) Dispatch data analysis OM, or (d) Average OM. Each method is described under Step 4.
page 41
The simple OM method (option a) can only be used if low-cost/must-run resources84 constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in: 1) average of the five most recent years, or 2) based on long-term averages for hydroelectricity production. The dispatch data analysis (Option d) cannot be used if off-grid power plants are included in the project electricity system as per Step 2 above. Since hourly electricity generation data are not available neither option (b) nor option (c) are applicable. Since low-cost/must run resources constitute more than 50% of total grid generation in average of the five most recent years (see following table below) the Average Operating Margin (OM) method (option (d)) is used. The following table gives an overview about the electricity generation over the last 5 years were data were available. Table 14: Electricity generation of Albania for the most recent 5 years, where data were available
Sum of electricity generation in [MWh] Electricity Generation in MWh Sum Hydros / low cost-must run Percentage Sum Import Percentage Sum Thermal Percentage Percentage Low cost - must run 6,398,476 2005 5,072,489 0.79 1,249,000 0.20 76,987 0.01 0.99 6,684,154 2006 5,363,873 0.80 1,240,000 0.19 80,281 0.01 0.99 6,245,682 2007 2,829,512 0.45 2,880,000 0.46 536,170 0.09 0.91 6,921,539 2008 3,832,831 0.55 2,616,000 0.38 472,708 0.07 0.93 7,451,723 2009 5,201,015 0.70 1,778,000 0.24 472,708 0.06 0.94
For the years 2007 to 2009 the electricity generation from the off- grid plants is taken into consideration. The table shows that the low cost must run resources constitute by far more than 50% for all the 5 years. In Albania there was just on thermal power plant (TPP FIER) based on the fossil fuel Residual Fuel Oil in operation until 2007. All the off-grid power plants are either based on the fossil fuel diesel or gasoline. For the Net Caloric Values (NCV) and the Emission Factors default values from IPCC 2006 V2 were used. In order to stay conservative the lower values within the 95% confidence interval were taken into account. For the simple OM, the simple adjusted OM and the average OM, the emissions factor can be calculated using either of the two following data vintages: Ex ante option: If the ex ante option is chosen, the emission factor is determined once at the validation stage, thus no monitoring and recalculation of the emissions factor during the crediting period is required. For grid power plants, use 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. For off-grid power plants, use a single calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission of the CDM-PDD for validation.
84
Low-cost/must-run resources are defined as power plants with low marginal generation costs or power plants that are dispatched independently of the daily or seasonal load of the grid. They typically include hydro, geothermal, wind, low-cost biomass, nuclear and solar generation. If coal is obviously used as must-run, it should also be included in this list, i.e. excluded from the set of plants.
page 42
Ex post option: The year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate the emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of year y, alternatively the emission factor of the previous year (y-1) may be used. If the data is usually only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year proceeding the previous year (y-2) may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used throughout all crediting periods.
For the calculation of the Average operating margin (OM) the ex ante option is chosen. The most recent data, which were available from KESH and OST respectively, are from 2007 to 2009 (see also data included in Annex 3 of the PDD). These data fit appropriately with the 2007 data of the off- grid study. Step 4: Calculate the Operating Margin emission factor (EFOM,y) according to the selected method In the following section at first the procedure for the calculation of the (a) Simple OM is described, since the applied calculation of the (d) Average OM follows the same procedure. The only difference is the inclusion of low cost/must run power plants under (d) Average OM. (a) Simple OM The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants/units. The simple OM may be calculated: Option A: Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit;85 or Option B: Based on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system.
Option B can only be used if: (a) The necessary data for Option A is not available; and (b) Only nuclear and renewable power generation are considered as low-cost/must-run power sources and the quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known; and (c) Off-grid power plants are not included in the calculation (i.e., if Option I has been chosen in Step 2). Option A - Calculation based on average efficiency and electricity generation of each plant Under this option, the simple OM emission factor is calculated based on the net electricity generation of each power unit and an emission factor for each power unit, as follows:
85
Power units should be considered if some of the power units at the site of the power plant are low-cost/must-run units and some are not. Power plants can be considered if all power units at the site of the power plant belong to the group of low-cost/must-run units or if all power units at the site of the power plant do not belong to the group of low-cost/must-run units.
page 43
(1) Where: EF grid,OMsimple,y = EG m,y = EF EL,m,y = m= y=
Simple operating 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) All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost / must-run power units The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3
Determination of EFEL,m,y Since for the power units m NO accurate data of fuel consumption and electricity generation was available, the emission factor (EFEL,m,y) was determined according to Option A2 of the Tool. Option A2. If for a power unit m only data on electricity generation and the fuel types used is available, the emission factor should be determined based on the CO2 emission factor of the fuel type used and the efficiency of the power unit, as follows:
(3) Where: EFEL,m,y = EFCO2,m,i,y = m,y = m= y=
CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) Average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i used in power unit m in year y (tCO2/GJ) Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m in year y (ratio) All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost/must-run power units The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3
Where several fuel types are used in the power unit, use the fuel type with the lowest CO 2 emission factor for EFCO2,m,i,y.. Each off-grid power plant is operated just by one fossil fuel source (diesel or gasoline). Determination of EGm,y For grid power plants, EGm,y should be determined as per the provisions in the monitoring tables. For off-grid power plants, EGm,y can be determined using one of the following options:86
86
Note that different options can be applied to different classes of off-grid power plants; however, the same option should be applied to all (sampled) off-grid power plants within one class.
page 44
Option 1. EGm,y is determined based on (sampled) data on the electricity generation of off-grid power plants, as per the guidance in Annex 2. Option 2. EGm,y is determined based on (sampled) data on the quantity of fossil fuels combusted in the class of off-grid power plants m, as per the guidance in Annex 2, and the default efficiencies provided in Annex 1, as follows:
(4) Where: EGm,y = FCi,m,y = NCV i,y = m,y = m= y= i=
Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y (MWh) Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plants included in off-grid power plant class m 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) Default net energy conversion efficiency of off-grid power plant class m in year y (ratio), as per the default values provided in Annex 1 Off-grid power plant class considered as one power unit (as per the provisions in Annex 2 to this tool) The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3 Fossil fuel types used
The project participants provide the following clarification to the formula of above: If all input parameters are applied according the formula above (taken from the valid Tool) with their relevant units the following is obtained: [MWh] = [tons] x [GJ/tons] x [ ] [MWh] = [GJ] Thus, in our point of view the right side of the formula has to be divided by 3.6 in order the transform [GJ] into [MWh]. To clarify this issue ALLPLAN/denkstatt sent a letter to the CDM Executive Board on 30th November 2010. ALLPLAN/denkstatt received a notification from the CDM Executive Board that the submitted Letter regarding the minor technical errors in the Methodological Tool will be considered at EB 59. At the EB 60 meeting the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system was revised. The revised Tool (Version 02.1.0) was amended to allow the use of an operating margin emission factor different form zero in case of connected electricity systems located in countries other than the project host country. However, the technical errors and the inconsistency in Step 4 of Annex 2 of the Tool notified by ALLPLAN/denkstatt have not been considered. Since no off- grid power plants could be identified, where electricity generated is measured directly with electricity meters, Option 1 could not be applied for the off-grid study.
page 45
All sampled companies operating off-grid power plants provided the required data for calculation of EGm,y according to the corrected Option 2 above. Thus this option was applied for the calculation of the generated electricity by each off- grid power plant.
(d) Average OM The average OM emission factor (EFgrid,OM-ave,y) is calculated as the average emission rate of all power plants serving the grid, using the methodological guidance as described under (a) above for the simple OM, but including in all equations also low-cost/must-run power plants. For the project activity the Average OM calculation is applied. The following table below summarizes the results of the calculation of the Average operating margin (OM) for the years 2007 to 2009 including off-grid plants. Table 15: Calculation of the (OM) Operating Margin emission factor for the years 2007 to 2009
Prepared by denkstatt GmbH Emission factors for the National Grid of Albania
Baseline (including imports) 2007 2008 2009 EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] 0.0631 0.0503 0.0467 Total (2007-2009) = EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] Load [MWh] 6,245,682 6,921,539 7,451,723 20,618,944 LCMR [MWh] Imports [MWh] 5,709,512 6,448,831 6,979,015 19,137,358 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000 7,274,000
0.0529
The generation-weighted average OM for the years 2007 to 2009 amounts to 0.0529 tonsCO2/MWh. Step 5. Identify the group of power units to be included in the build margin The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin consists of either87: (a) The set of five power units that have been built most recently, or (b) The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently88.
87
If this approach does not reasonably reflect the power plants that would likely be built in the absence of the project activity, project participants are encouraged to submit alternative proposals for consideration by the CDM Executive Board. 88 If 20% falls on part capacity of a unit, that unit is fully included in the calculation.
page 46
Project participants should use the set of power units that comprises the larger annual generation. As a general guidance, a power unit is considered to have been built at the date when it started to supply electricity to the grid. Power plant registered as CDM project activities should be excluded from the sample group m. However, If the group of power units, not registered as CDM project activity, identified for estimating the build margin emission factor includes power unit(s) that is(are) built more than 10 years ago then: (i) Exclude power unit(s) that is (are) built more than 10 years ago from the group; and (ii) Include grid connected power projects registered as CDM project activities, which are dispatched by dispatching authority to the electricity system.89 Capacity additions from retrofits of power plants should not be included in the calculation of the build margin emission factor. The three small Hydro Power Plants (HPPs) Bogove 2.5 MW (2006); Gjanc 3.7 MW (2005) and Smokthine 9.2 MW (2004) were the only power plants built within the last ten years, where individual net electricity generation data was available and thus taken into account for the Build Margin (BM) calculation. In Small HPPs (39,062 MWh) see table 16 below) a huge amount of very small HPPs are subsumed, where no individual net electricity generation data was available. Some of those small HPPs have been rehabilitated recently and others are older ones. In order to stay conservative in the calculation of the BM emission factor all the small HPPs subsumed under Small HPPs are treated as newly built ones and thus taken into account in the calculation of the BM. Thus, applying Step 5 (a) of above the set of five power units that have been built most recently amount to 39,062 MWh at maximum. Applying Step 5 (b) of above, the set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently amount to 2,603,000 MWh which is 46% of the system generation (including Small HPP; all the off- grid units and HPP KOMAN). This set of power plants also includes power plants that are older than 10 years like some off grid power units and the HPP KOMAN (start of operation 1986). According to the Tool the following procedure applies: Power plants registered as CDM project activities should be excluded from the sample group m. If the group of power units, not registered as CDM project activity, identified for estimating the build margin emission factor includes power unit(s) that is (are) built more than 10 years ago then: (i) Exclude power unit(s) that is (are) built more than 10 years ago from the group; and (ii) Include grid connected power projects registered as CDM project activities, which are dispatched by dispatching authority to the electricity system. Following (ii) of above:
89
This information shall be provided by the host country.
page 47
Since Albania so far does not have any existing grid connected power plant registered as CDM project activity, not such a power plant could be included for the calculation of the BM emission factor. Following (i) of above thermal and hydro power plants built before 1999 were excluded. The excluded power plants are all off grid units (data vintages 2 and 3) (see also clarification below) and the HPP Koman. According to Step 1.2. of Annex 2 of the Tool the off-grid power plants were sub-divided into three data vintages: plants with 0 to 5 years of operation, plants with 6 to 10 years of operation and plants with 11 to 20 years of operation (the oldest off grid power plant surveyed started operation in 1987). Thus the second data vintage of the off-grid classes refers to a start of operation between 1998 and 2002, which means that the off- grid power plants of these classes are partly younger and partly older than 10 years since the reference year for the Build Margin (BM) calculation is 2009. Following the guidelines of the Tool only the off- grid plants only for the first data vintage were taken into account for the calculation of the Build Margin (BM) emission factor. The following table 16 summarizes the electricity generation of the finally considered set of power plants for the calculation of the Build Margin (BM) emission factor 2009 according to the procedure from Step 5 of the Tool (see also Annex 3 of the PDD).
page 48
Table 16: List of power plants taken into consideration for the BM calculation
Electricity generation in [MWh] Small HPP Gjanc, Bogove, Smoktine Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 3) Koman (HPP) Fierza (HPP) Vau dejes (HPP) Shkopet (HPP) Ulez (HPP) Bistrice 2 (HPP) Lanabregas (HPP) Bistrice 1 (HPP) *IMPORTS Vlora (TPP) Fier (TPP) Sum of electricity generation in [GWh] Sum of electricity generation of the sample group for the BM [GWh] Percentage of the electricity generation of most recently built 5 Power Plants 2009 39,062 50,248 32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811 2,040,982 1,556,248 1,084,358 100,787 124,631 35,100 34,235 135,364 1,778,000 0 0 5,673,723 458,867 Time of Comissioning 2009 2004,2005,2006 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1986 1978 1975 1963 1954 1952 1951 1948
*without Imports
8%
In terms of vintage of data, project participants can choose between one of the following two options:
page 49
Option 1. For the first crediting period, calculate the build margin emission factor 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. For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor should be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period. Option 2. For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor shall be updated annually, expost, including those units built up to the year of registration of the project activity or, if information up to the year of registration is not yet available, including those units built up to the latest year for which information is available. For the second crediting period, the build margin emissions factor shall be calculated ex-ante, as described in option 1 above. For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used.
The Build Margin (BM) Emission factor was calculated ex-ante by choosing Option 1 from above. Step 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated as follows:
(13) 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 power generation data is available
The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) should be determined as per the guidance in Step 4 (a) for the simple OM, using options A1, A2 or A3, using for y the most recent historical year for which power generation data is available, and using for m the power units included in the build margin. For off-grid power plants, EGm,y should be determined as per the guidance in Step 4.The calculation of the CO2 -emission factor of the thermal power and the off-grid power plants required for the calculation of the build margin (BM) was conducted by using option A2 of the step 4 (a) of the applied Tool according to the formula as follows:
(3)
page 50
The following table summarizes in detail the calculation of CO2 emissions taken into account for the calculation of the Build Margin (BM) emission factor. The only fossil fuelled power plants in operation in the year 2009 are off- grid power plants identified during the off- grid survey. Table 17: Calculation of CO2- emissions of fossil power plants (including off- grid plants) taken into account for the BM emission factor calculation
Relevant year 2009 m i Fuel Type CO2 emissions from Power Plants B C D E F G FCi,m NCVi EFCO2,i m EFEL,m Fuel Net Calorific CO2 Emission Average Net CO2 CO2 Consumption Value Energy Factor Emission Emissions (Lower Value) (Lower Value) Conversion Factor Efficiency (MWh) (t) (GJ/t) (tCO2/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh) (t-CO2) Default values from Annex 1 of the "Electricity Tool" F=Dx3.6/E G=AxF 32,527 41.4 0.0726 0.28 0.933 30,362 13,131 42.5 0.0675 0.28 0.868 11,396 171,478 41.4 0.0726 0.33 0.792 135,811 3,419 41.4 0.0726 0.35 0.747 2,553 25,247 41.4 0.0726 0.37 0.706 17,834 29,349 41.4 0.0726 0.39 0.670 19,668 67,940 41.4 0.0726 0.42 0.622 42,278 26,466 41.4 0.0726 0.45 0.581 15,371 275,273
A EGm Net Electricity Generation
No.
Name of Power Plant
1 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 1) 2 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 1) 3 Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 1) 4 Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 1) 5 Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 1) 6 Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 1) 7 Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 1) 8 Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 1)
Diesel Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel
The column A of the table above shows the extrapolated electricity generation from the off-grid classes (vintage 1). Column C shows the lower value of the Net Caloric Values (NCV) according to IPCC 2006. Column D contains the lower value of the CO2 Emission Factors of different fossil fuels according to IPCC 2006. The CO2 Emission Factor of each power plant (EFEL,m) is calculated in column F by application of the formula described under Step 6 of the Tool above. The CO2 Emissions (tonsCO2) are calculated in column G by multiplication of F and A. The summarized value of 275,273 tonsCO2 has to be divided by the electricity generation (MWh) of the group of power plants determined under Step 5 of the Tool of above. The electricity generation of these power plants amounts to 458,867 MWh. Thus the calculated Build Margin (BM) emission factor amounts to 0.600 tonsCO2/MWh. Step 7. Calculate the combined margin emissions factor The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as follows: (14) Where: EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)
page 51
EFgrid,OM,y = wOM = wBM =
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: Wind and solar power generation project activities: wOM = 0.75 and wBM = 0.25 (owing to their intermittent and non-dispatchable nature) for the first crediting period and for subsequent crediting periods. All other projects: 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,90 unless otherwise specified in the approved methodology which refers to this tool.
Alternative weights can be proposed, as long as wOM + wBM = 1, for consideration by the Executive Board, taking into account the guidance as described below. The values for wOM + wBM applied by project participants should be fixed for a crediting period and may be revised at the renewal of the crediting period. The Tool also gives Guidance on selecting alternative weights: The following guidance provides a number of project-specific and context-specific factors for developing alternative operating and build margin weights to the above defaults. It does not, however, provide specific algorithms to translate these factors into quantified weights, nor does it address all factors that might conceivably affect these weights. In this case, project participants are suggested to propose specific quantification methods with justifications that are consistent with the guidance provided below. Given that it is unlikely that a project will impact either the OM or BM exclusively during the first crediting period, it is suggested that neither weight exceed 75% during the first crediting period.
Summary Impact on weights Project size (absolute or No change in weight relative to the grid size of the on basis of absolute system or the size of other or relative size alone system capacity additions) Factor
Further Explanation Alternative weights on the basis of absolute or relative project size alone do not appear to be justified.
90
Project participants can submit alternative proposal, for revision of tool or the methodology or deviation from its use, if weightage does not reflect their situation with an explanation for the alternative weights.
page 52
Timing of project output
Projects with output is mainly off-peak can have a greater OM weight (e.g. solar PV projects in evening peak regions, seasonal biomass generation during off-peak seasons), whereas projects with disproportionately high output during onpeak periods (e.g. air conditioning efficiency projects in some grids) can have greater BM weight. Predictability of project output Can increase OM for Projects with output of an intermittent nature intermittent (e.g. wind or solar projects) may have resources in some limited capacity value, depending on the contexts. nature of the (wind/solar) resource and the grid in question, and to the extent that a projects capacity value is lower than that of a typical grid resource its BM weight can be reduced. Potential adjustments to the OM/BM margin should take into account available methods (in technical literature) for estimating capacity value.10 Suppressed demand Can increase BM Under conditions of suppressed demand that weight for the 1st are expected to persist through over half of crediting period. the first crediting period across a significant number of hours per year, available power plants are likely to be operated fully regardless of the CDM project, and thus the OM weight can be reduced. For system management (nature of local electricity markets, planning, and actors) and other considerations no guidance is available at present. EFgrid,CM,y is calculated according to formula explained above taking weights wOM and wBM as 0.25 and 0.75 respectively due to the suppressed demand situation in Albania. The proof of suppressed demand can be substantiated by the following documents (see http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/ALBANIAEXTN/0,,contentM DK:22037104~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:301412,00.html or Annual report Situation of Energy Sector and activity of ERE for 2008, Table 1.5 page 28).
Can increase OM weight for highly offpeak projects; increase BM for highly on-peak projects.
page 53
The following table summarizes the calculation of the combined margin (CM) emission factor for the electricity grid of Albania including off-grid power plants. Additional baseline information can be found in Annex 3 of the PDD. Table 188 Calculation of the Combined Margin (CM) emission factor for the years 2007 to 2009
Baseline (including imports) 2007 2008 2009 EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] 0.0631 0.0503 0.0467 Total (2007-2009) = EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] 0.0529 Alternative weights w OM = 0.25 w BM = 0.75 Alternative (CM) EF y [tCO2/MWh] Load [MWh] 6,245,682 6,921,539 7,451,723 20,618,944 EF BM,2009 0.5999 LCMR [MWh] Imports [MWh] 5,709,512 6,448,831 6,979,015 19,137,358 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000 7,274,000
0.4631
The ex-ante calculated combined margin (CM) emission factor amounts to 0.4631 tonsCO2/MWh.
page 54
B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: CapBL W Installed capacity of the hydro power plant before the implementation of the project activity. For new hydro power plants, this value is zero. Project site 0 The project is newly built hydropower station. Therefore, based on the methodology, for new hydro power plants, this value is zero.
Since the project activity is a new hydro power plant this value is 0. ABL m Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, before the implementation of the project activity, when the reservoir is full (m2). For new reservoirs, this value is zero. Section 1.3 (Project components Water-flow: structures and changes) of the WCD document 0 m (Banja) 0 m (Kokel) 0 m (Moglice) Measured from topographical surveys, maps, satellite pictures, etc.
Source of data used: Value applied:
Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods
Since the all reservoirs are new ones, the applied values are 0. EFRes kgCO2e/MWh Default emission factor for emissions from reservoirs Decision by EB23 90 kgCO2e/MWh
page 55
and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used:
FCi,m,y, (FCi,y, FCi,j,y, FCi,k,y, FCi,n,y and FCi,n,h ) Mass or volume unit (tons) Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plant / unit m, j, k or n (or in the project electricity system in case of FCi,y) in year y or hour h Figures provided by companies with off-grid plants during off- grid survey See collected questionnaires during off- grid survey All the eligible questionnaires of the off-grid survey contain the amount of fossil fuel consumed by off-grid power plant in tons or the survey year 2007.
To calculate ex ante the OM and BM emission factor. NCVi,y GJ per mass or volume unit (e.g. GJ/m, GJ/ton) Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y The following data sources may be used if the relevant conditions apply: Conditions for using the data source Values provided by the fuel If data is collected from power plant supplier of the power plants in operators (e.g. utilities) invoices Regional or national average If values are reliable and documented default values in regional or national energy statistics / energy balances IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories Off grid power plants are either operated with diesel or gasoline. Data source
Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of
Provided in Annex 3 Application of IPCC default values.
page 56
measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used:
To calculate ex ante the OM and BM emission factor. EFCO2,i,y and (EFCO2,m,i,y) tCO2/GJ CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i used in power unit m in year y The following data sources may be used if the relevant conditions apply: Data source Values provided by the fuel supplier of the power plants in invoices Regional or national average default values Conditions for using the data source If data is collected from power plant operators (e.g. utilities) If values are reliable and documented in regional or national energy statistics / energy balances
Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures
IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval as provided in Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2 (Energy) of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories For the current project activity IPCC default values at the lower limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval were used. Provided in Annex 3 Application of IPCC default values.
To calculate ex ante the OM and BM emission factor. EGm,y, (EGy, EGj,y, EGk,y and EGn,h ) MWh Net electricity generated by power plant/unit m, k or n in year y KESH; OST Provided in Annex 3 Official data of OST and KESH
page 57
actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used:
To calculate ex ante the OM and BM emission factor. GENimported MWh Electricity imported from connected electricity systems ENTSOE Provided in Annex 3 Official data of ENTSOE! https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/
To calculate ex ante the OM emission factor. m,y and k,y Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m or k in year y Use either: Documented manufacturers specifications (if the efficiency of the plant is not significantly increased through retrofits or rehabilitations); or For grid power plants: data from the utility, the dispatch centre or official records if it can be deemed reliable; or The default values provided in the table below in Annex 1 (if available for the type of power plant) Since for the different off-grid power plants and other fossil fuelled thermal power plants no accurate figures could be obtained, the default values from Annex 1 of the underlying Electricity Tool are used. Provided in Annex 3 Default values determined in Annex 1 of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system
Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment:
Since no other data for efficiencies are available, IPCC default values were applied.
page 58
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data used: Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied: Any comment:
CAPm MW Total capacity of off-grid power plants included in off-grid power plant class m Survey on off-grid power plants, as per Annex 2 See collected questionnaires during off- grid survey All the eligible questionnaires of the off-grid survey contain the capacities of the surveyed off- grid plants.
Only applicable if Option II is chosen in Step 2 of this tool, which is the case in the underlying project activity
B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions: Ex-ante calculations of the envisaged Emission Reductions (ER) were made by using the DHP estimates of electricity generations for the power plants Kokel, Banja and Moglice (see feasibility study report or IRR calculation). For the ex-ante calculation of emission reductions the following electricity generation data are taken into account: HPP Moglice HPP Kokel HPP Banja Sum 171.2 MW 36.2 MW 64.6 MW 272 MW 445,000 MWh 92,000 MWh 252,000 MWh 789,000 MWh
In the DHP financial model, the annual generation of 789 GWh is reduced by 1% for losses (auxiliary services). The CDM model as well as the ex-ante calculation has been updated accordingly. DHP expects to deliver this net electricity generation to the national grid of Albania as soon as all three power plants are in full operation. This is planned for July of 2020. The start of commercial operation is envisaged with: 01/07/2015 01/12/2017 01/10/2018 for HPP Banja for HPP Moglice for HPP Kokel
Latest information of DHP to the start of operation are given as follows:
page 59
All three power plants will be in operation most likely in middle of 2019. Taking in consideration that it needs time to fill the storage the commercial operation of all three hydro power plants is envisaged for the middle of 2020. Since no leakage has to be considered according to the applied approved methodology ACM0002 (Version 12.1.0). Thus the emission reductions are calculated as follows: ERy = BEy PEy Where: ERy BEy PEy = = = Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e/yr) Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr) Project emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)
The Combined Margin (CM) emission factor (including off grid plants according to the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0)) for the national electricity grid of Albania was calculated as described in the section B.6.1 of this document (see also Annex 3 of the document). As soon as all HPPs are in full operation the Baseline Emissions (BEy) are calculated as follows: BEy = EGy x EFgrid,CM,y = 789,000 MWh x 0.99 x 0.4631 tonsCO2/MWh = 361,732 tonsCO2e/year The only project emissions which have to be considered are those of Banja due to the Emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power plants (PEHP,y) determined in the approved methodology ACM0002. The calculation is done according to the following equation:
According to the formula above the project emissions (PEHP,y) for Banja amount to 252,000 x 90 / 1000 = 22,680 tCO2e/year. Thus the ex-ante calculated emission reductions (ERy) amount to 361,732 22,680 = 339,052 tonsCO2e/year if the default emission factor for emissions from reservoirs of hydro power plants of 90 kgCO2e/MWh is applied. For the sake of completeness it is mentioned here that DHP assigned SINTEF Energy Research in doing a study with the title: Overview of potential net greenhouse gas emissions from creating reservoirs in the Devoll river, Albania. This survey was finished on 05th of January 2010. The net emissions from the reservoir of the hydro power plant of Banja in this study amount to 21.1 kgCO2e/MWh, which is by far lower as the default emission factor applied for the ex-ante calculation. Thus DHP intends to revise this study by application of the latest figures for the reservoir of Banja in the first year of crediting period at latest. If the revision of the study leads to a similar result and the correctness is proved by a DOE during verification the final project emissions are calculated ex-post by applying this value.
page 60
B.6.4
Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:
Table 19: Summary of ex-ante estimation of emission reductions Year Estimation of project activity emissions (tCO2eq) 11,340 22,680 22,680 22,680 22,680 22,680 22,680 22,680 22,680 22,680 11,340 226,800 Estimation of Estimation of baseline leakage (tCO2eq) emissions (tCO2eq) 180,866 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 361,732 0 180,866 0 3,617,320 0 Estimation of overall emissions reductions (tCO2eq) 169,526 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 339,052 169,526 3,390,520
01/07/2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 30/06/2030 Total (tonnes of CO2eq) (crediting period = 10 years)
B.7.
Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y MWh/yr Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y Measured by electricity meters and verified against balance bills The annual net electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity is estimated for the ex-ante calculation with: HPP Moglice 171.2 MW 440,550 MWh HPP Kokel 36.2 MW 91,080MWh
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:
HPP Banja 64.6 MW 249,480 MWh Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording
page 61
QA/QC procedures:
Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description:
The meters will be periodically checked according to the relevant national electric standards and regulations; power supplied to the grid will be double checked according to electricity sales invoices. Refer to B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan TEGy MWh/yr Total electricity produced by the HPP Banja considered having a power density between 4 and 10 W/m, including the electricity supplied to the grid and the electricity supplied to internal loads, in year y. Measured by electricity meters and verified against balance bills The annual net electricity delivered to the grid by the HPP Banja is estimated for the ex-ante calculation with 252,000 MWh.
Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures:
Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording
Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures:
The meters will be periodically checked according to the relevant national electric standards and regulations; power supplied to the grid will be double checked according to electricity sales invoices. EGimported MWh/yr Quantity of net electricity imported from the national grid in year y (in times when the power plant is not generating any electricity) Measured by electricity meters and verified against balance bills For the ex-ante calculation of the emission reductions the power supplied from the grid to the project activity is estimated to be 0 MWh.
Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording
Any comment:
The meters will be periodically checked according to the relevant national electric standards and regulations; power supplied to the grid will be double checked according to electricity sales invoices. Refer to B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan
page 62
Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description:
EFRes kgCO2e/MWh Emission factor for emissions from reservoirs SINTEF study to be updated at the first year of crediting period at latest To be calculated in the SINTEF study.
New calculation once at the first year of crediting period.
Proved by a DOE before or during first verification of the Monitoring Report. EFgrid,CM,y tCO2/MWh Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y calculated using the latest version of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0) Official data from KESH, OST and ENTSOE (imports) The ex-ante calculated Combined Margin (CM) grid emission factor (including off- grid power plants) amounts to 0.4631 tonsCO2/MWh.
Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in
The Combined Margin (CM) grid emission factor (including off- grid power plants) is calculated ex-ante for the first crediting period.
CapPJ W Installed capacity of the hydro power plant after the implementation of the project activity. Project site HPP Moglice HPP Kokel HPP Banja 171,200,000 W 36,200,000 W 64,600,000 W
page 63
section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures: Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description: Source of data to be used: Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied: QA/QC procedures: Any comment:
Check the generators nameplates annually.
Refer to B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan APJ m Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, after the implementation of the project activity, when the reservoir is full. Project activity site
Banja HRWL surface area [m] 14,110,000
Kokel 710,000
Moglice 7,210,000
Estimated for the ex-ante calculation of the power density. Annual measured from topographical surveys, maps, satellite pictures, etc.
B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan: According to the approved methodology ACM0002 monitoring shall consist of metering the electricity [kWh] generated by the project activity generating renewable energy. Emission reductions are calculated by multiplying the generated electricity with the ex ante fixed Combined Margin (CM) emission factor for the national grid of Albania (with the inclusion of fossil fuelled off-grid power plants) as determined in this Project Design Document (PDD). Since the monitoring of emission reduction will be achieved through the measurement of net electricity generation, no special operational and management structure is needed apart from normal electricity generation operational and management structure. For the ex-ante calculation no electricity import to the project sites from the Albanian grid was envisaged. If electricity imports occur under the project activity they will be monitored by an additional electricity meter and will be subtracted from the net electricity generation supplied to OST. The project emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power projects (PE HP,y) are calculated annually after monitoring the total electricity produced by the HPP Banja. The power density of Banja is envisaged to be between 4 and 10 W/m. Thus Project Emissions have to eb considered according to the approved methodology ACM0002 Version 12.1.0.
page 64
All measurements will be conducted with calibrated measurement equipment according to relevant industry standards and the Albanian metering code. The quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) of the metering is done as required in the above mentioned standards and codes.. Calibration of the energy meters will be carried out according to the same agreements.. The recorded data will be kept for at least two years after the end of the last crediting period. For further detail see also attached monitoring plan in Annex 4. B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies):
Contact information of the person(s)/entity(ies) responsible for the application of the baseline and monitoring methodology Nevena Alexandrova Climate Change Expert Project Manager of the CDM DHP project Energy and Environment Department
Indicate if the person/entity is also a project participant listed in Annex 1
No
ALLPLAN GmbH Schwindgasse 10, 1040 Wien Tel: +43 (1) 505 37 07 22 Mobile: +43 676 842 22 52 22 Fax: + 43 (1) 505 37 07 27 E-mail: nevena.alexandrova@allplan.at www.allplan.at Christian Praher Senior Consultant denkstatt GmbH denkstatt 1130 Wien, Hietzinger Hauptstrae 28 Tel.: +43 (0) 1 786 89 00 55, Mobile: +43 (0)664 164 62 05 Fax: +43 (0)1 786 89 00 15 E-mail: christian.praher@denkstatt.at www.denkstatt.at Christian Steinreiber Senior Consultant Pyry Management Consulting Laaer-Berg-Strasse 43, 1100 Vienna, Austria Mobile: +43 (0) 664 828 57 32 Fax: + 43 (0) 1 53605 165
No
No
page 65
Email: christian.steinreiber@poyry.com www.poyry.com SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1. Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: The starting date of DHP will be in the future since no real action as financial closure, ordering of major equipment, construction permit or start of construction has yet begun. Nevertheless, on 29/09/2009 the project owner has sent a notification letter91 to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat informing about the intention to implement Devoll Hydropower project in Albania under CDM/Prior consideration of CDM. With the notification letter the project owner intended securing the CDM status of DHP project by demonstrating that the incentive from CDM was considered at the earliest stage of the project implementation.
C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

The expected operational lifetime of the project activity is considered as 35 years corresponding to the minimum concession period as per the clauses in the Concession Agreement with the Albanian Government. The Agreement states that the Concession shall expire when the accumulated energy production has reached 59 TWh or the achieved IRR has reached 10%, whichever comes first92. C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period: C.2.1.1. Not applicable C.2.1.2. Not applicable C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: C.2.2.1. Starting date: Length of the first crediting period: Starting date of the first crediting period:
The crediting period is expected to start on 01/07/2020

91
The notification letter to the to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat/Prior consideration of CDM is presented in Annex 8 92 FSR, Chapter 25, Financial analyses, page 3, Concession Agreement
page 66
C.2.2.2. 10 years
Length:
SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: For the development phase of this project activity an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) was done. The last version of the report, used for this chapter, is dated June 2011. The Albanian Environmental legislation contains the requirements of Environmental Approval and the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for development projects, described in LAW No. 8990, dated 23/01/2003. Additionally to DHP meeting the required Albanian EIA requirements, the joint venture partners of DHP have CSR policies which demand that international ESIA standards and practices be applied. In tune with present trends towards establishing sustainability in development interventions and as required by DHP policy, the guideline principles developed by the International Hydropower Association (IHA) from August 2009 have been used to support and improve the ESIA process. The ESIA identifies and lists different categories of impacts: Impacts Caused by Changes in River Hydrology and Morphology Impacts Caused by Construction or Plant Location Roads and Transmission Lines Land and Geology Climate and Air Pollution Hydrology Water Quality Fish and Aquatic Ecosystems Terrestrial Fauna Terrestrial Vegetation Nature Protection
The Environmental (and Social) Management Plan, ESMP, identifies the different responsibilities of the parties involved: Devoll Hydropower Sh.A, the Central Government in particular represented by Ministry of Environment, Forests and Water Administration, Regional and local governmental representatives, Local (municipal and village) administration, Contractors and Sub-Contractors, and Independent experts and NGOs. D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:
page 67
The Draft ESIA from June 2011 identifies physical and biological impacts. The most important impacts of Devoll Hydropower Project are related to the changes in river flow in the different section of the river and the secondary impacts of such changes (impacts on water use and aquatic biodiversity). There are priority mitigation actions, which include: Minimum flow release on dams (Moglic Dam, Kokl Dam and Banja Dam) Waste and water management in the project area and adjacent villages Reforestation Measures to reduce sediment flushing and erosion Relocation of Lumaj and Nikollar villages with full compensation Replacement of roads and bridges Loss of local access Landscaping to repair scars to nature Measures against dust, noise and air pollution during construction phase Preventive excavation and removal of objects in cultural heritage sites, that will be flooded (prehistoric burial sites)
Water related mitigation measures will focus on the protection of biodiversity and integrity of the ecosystem in the impacted parts of the water system, and mitigate the potential damage to fisheries and other water related use (irrigation, water supply, transport, etc.). The most important mechanism for mitigation will be specific requirements for Minimum Flow Releases (for MFR). The ESIA has given recommendations for MFR in the relevant river reaches. The detailed ESMP to be developed when construction details and schedules are known will expand the framework ESMP contained within this ESIA and address issues defined under IFC Performance Standards relevant to environmental and social management planning including involuntary resettlement. It will produce an ESMP manual with clear priorities and procedures for DHP to implement to ensure compliance with international best practice. The Environmental Management Plan will be divided into potential sub-programmes: Reservoir Clearance and Filling Plan; Water Quality Monitoring; Fish Monitoring Plan; Re-forestation Plan; Construction Activities Environment Plan; Operation Activities Environment Plan; Transmission Line Environment Management Plan; Roads Environment Management Plan. Monitoring is one of the important elements of an ESMP and serves a number of functions including: a) Providing a check on the implementation of proposed mitigation measures and ESMP recommendations; and b) Identifying corrective measures or the redesign of mitigation measures, if the originally planned mitigation measures are not sufficiently effective.
page 68
The monitoring will take place at different stages of the project lifetime. a) Monitoring of construction work and construction facilities b) Resettlement and compensation monitoring, and c) Long term or operational monitoring SECTION E. Stakeholders comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:
Devoll Hydropower uses several different ways to invite Stakeholders comments: 1) Public Information Centre93 Since September 2010 DHP has operated a Public Information Centre (PIC) in Gramsh. Gramsh is the main city in the project area and also the location of our site office from where site works are coordinated (Land Access, ESIA, drilling works, field works). The Public Information Centre serves as a centre where local direct and indirect project affected people can inform themselves about all aspects related to hydropower in general, our project development as well as on the current works and the project status. We explain relevant topics according to poster we have composed for this purpose. We are also exhibiting a poster on CDM. The PIC is open 4 days in a week, covering different daytimes and is staffed by male and female DHP employee. Herewith we enable stakeholders to visit the PIC also in the evening hours and also ensure to have a gender balanced opportunity to access the PIC. Further the PIC serves as an accommodation for middle sized information meetings with local government representatives. 2) Mobile Information Service94 Since December 2010 DHP have operated the so called Mobile Information Service (MIS). With the same purpose as the PIC, the MIS is a mobile service where DHP serves the local communities that due to distance, bad infrastructure or missing (public) transport is not able to visit the PIC in Gramsh. Until February 2011 there have been approx. 10-15 sessions in distant villages in the project area. The MIS will be conducted regularly and adapted to requirement for disclosure of new project information and explanation purposes. Same as the PIC, the MIS is staffed by male and female DHP employee. 3) DHP website95
93 94
Photos of DHP Public Information Centre are presented in Annex 6 Photos from meetings held in different communities by the DHP Mobile Information Service 95 Screenshot of DHP project website is presented in Annex 6
page 69
A project website (http://www.dhp.al/) has been established, which give actual relevant information about the project to the public. Information about the CDM-project was also published e.g. via the website: http://www.dhp.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66%3Acdmproject&catid=46%3Acdm-project&Itemid=65&lang=en 4) Meetings with local authorities Continuously meetings with local and regional authorities are held, those were bilateral as well as multilateral. The purpose of the meetings is the provision of information about the project and the project progress, as well as provision of a platform for discussion of questions and concerns. The main topic and focus of each of them is concerned with the establishment of project design area, identification of the impacted land and commune or private property, local infrastructure and irrigation channels. 5) Informative Round Table Meeting DHP has introduced the Informative Round Table Meeting (IRTM) to have a platform for regular formal meetings. To these meeting the heads of (sub)-prefectures, districts, municipality and communes are invited. The IRTM takes place every 2nd or 3rd month. So far DHP has conducted 2 sessions, the format of those should be standardized. Herewith DHP ensures to inform and engage the local government and decision makers closely enabling them to fulfil their duties as elected representatives of the communities. Also we provide a platform where issues and concerns can be raised and discussed in an early stage in order to handle them without further complications. 6) Meeting central authorities Continuously meetings with central authorities are held. The purpose of those meetings is the provision of information about the project and the project progress, as well as provision of a platform for discussion of questions and concerns. For different issues, different platforms/working groups have been established. (PIU formal representation of the Contracting Authority/METE; working group on Replacement Infrastructure/representatives of a.o. MPW and METE. 7) Meetings (inter)national institutions, donor organisations and NGOs DHP is continuously consulting the international community representatives by informing them on the project and the conducted works.
page 70
EU, UNDP, EBRD, Austrian Development Corporation, Swiss Development Corporation, SNV, GTZ, KfW, OSCE, JICA, as well as approx. 20 others have been and will be regularly updated and cooperation will be sought. In September 2010 a local NGO called Devolli 2010 was established and purpose of this establishment is to replacement infrastructure between Banja dam and Gramsh was established. DHP sought immediate dialogue with this NGO and have conducted several bilateral meetings. Further DHP has contributed to a public hearing that was organised by this NGO. 8) Public Hearings On 25th March 2010, DHP participated in the public hearing on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) proposal for Energy Planning in the Devoll River. This event was organised in the Cultural House in Gramsh by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (METE) and it had numerous community representatives as attendants. Photo of the public hearing is presented in Annex 5. There will be a separate Public Hearing for the Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) most likely in June 2011. For this the ESIA will be translated into Albanian language for the interested public to prepare, comments will be collected and addressed properly. Following this Public Hearing the raised comments will be addressed, which might lead to the need of conducting some small additional studies and consultations. The results will be part of the final ESIA, which expected to be finished in the 3rd quarter of 2011. This will also include two important parts: the Environmental and Social Management plan and the Resettlement Action plan. E.2. Summary of the comments received:
During the numerous consultations with Stakeholders (local and central authorities, NGOs, residents) a lot of comments were received. Mostly the project was warmly welcomed and seen as a very positive opportunity for economic growth in the poor region. The requests and comments received until March 2011 were considering: Threat of losing accessibility (road from Banja dam to Gramsh, vehicle connection to Silare) Employment possibilities Expected pollution of the future lakeshore (since waste and wastewater in the area is thrown in the river) Fees for property inundation Potential influence on irrigation and the water systems Fear of traffic/noise/dust from the construction activities Losing of key livelihoods (agriculture, fodder, medicinal plants, grazing, honey-bees, forests, etc.).
These concerns will be included in the ESIA process, and treatment measures further elaborated in the Social Management Plan, the Environment Management Plan, and the Resettlement Action Plan.
page 71
E.3.
Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:
DHP takes into account each single comment. Most comments fall into those categories listed below: Replacement of the Road from Banja to Gramsh. The project will flood the road from Banja to Gramsh. Local residents, depending on the road have past negative experiences with relocation of this road, so there is doubt in the villages, what might happen with this road. The solution presented from DHP in cooperation with the Albanian government is following: According to the concessions agreement and as stated in various meetings and information letters, DHP will compensate the value of the existing road that will be inundated, but the responsibility for the decision and construction of the replacement infrastructure is with the Government of Albania. DHP endorses/favours to achieve an acceptable solution for the local community. Property inundation: the Albanian government defines the rates for property inundation. DHP is complying with Albanian and EU legislation in compensating the persons concerned. Further to that DHP is supporting various measures to improve regional development. Additional to that the project design has been changed resulting in the need of resettling only approx. 40-50 houses instead of approx. 100 houses according to the initial project design. Employment: DHP is aware of its important role of a major employer during construction time in the region. In order to qualify local untrained personnel for potential work at the construction site and the power project, DHP runs training courses prior to the start of the construction phase: English courses and first aid training is done for local people. Another program will skill workers as Welders, Brick layer, Driver until start of the construction phase.
Further to that DHP has received several requests for support from the communes, ranging from clearing of roads up to reconstruction of drinking water facilities. Each request is being treated by DHP separately depending on DHPs own requirements, current local impact, awaiting and respecting activities and official responsibilities by authorities for such matters.
page 72
Annex 1 CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: Street/P.O.Box: Building: City: State/Region: Postcode/ZIP: Country: Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Last name: Middle name: First name: Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal e-mail: Organization: Street/P.O.Box: Building: City: State/Region: Postcode/ZIP: Country: Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Last name: Middle name: First name: Department: Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. (DHP) Rruga Papa Gjon Pali II ABA Business Center, Office Nr. 1204 Tirana
Albania + 355 4 450 1 450 + 355 4 2400 734 http://www.dhp.al/ Mr. Mario Niederwolfsgruber Chief Financial Officer Mr. Niederwolfsgruber Mario + 355 69 408 2703 + 355 4 2400 734 + 355 4 450 1 450 mario.niederwolfsgruber@devollhydropower.al EVN AG 2344 Maria Enzersdorf EVN Platz Maria Enzersdorf Vienna Austria +43 (0) 2236 200-121 79 +43 (0)2236 200-821 79 Ulrike.Benda-Puchegger@evn.at www.evn.at Mr. Peter Layr Managing Director, Dr. Mr. Layr Peter Managing Board
page 73
Mobile: Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal e-mail: Organization: Street/P.O.Box: Building: City: State/Region: Postcode/ZIP: Country: Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Title: Salutation: Last name: Middle name: First name: Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal e-mail:
+43 (0) 2236 200 2030 +43 (0) 2236 200 12873 Peter.Layr@evn.at Statkraft AS Lilleakerveien 6, P.O. Box 200 Lilleaker Oslo 0216 Norway +47 24 06 78 91 +47 24 06 70 01 anne.bolle@statkraft.com www.statkraft.com President and Chief Executive Officer Mr. Rynning-Tnnesen Christian Corporate Management +47 24 06 70 01 +47 24 06 79 00 Christian.rynning-tonnesen@statkraft.com
page 74
Annex 2 INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING No public funding from parties included in Annex I of the UNFCCC has been involved in the proposed project activity96
96
The project owner presented declarations to the DOE that no public funding from parties included in Annex I has been involved in DHP
page 75
Annex 3 BASELINE INFORMATION Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0) Annex 1: Default efficiency factors for power plants
Used Electricity generation data for the years 2007 to 2009 Imports/Exports
page 76
Import GWh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Summe Export GWh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Summe
2005 98 106 77 47 20 62 88 79 91 145 170 266 1249
2006 173 136 94 24 8 50 113 103 88 130 111 210 1240
2007 275 312 289 213 174 179 188 233 220 265 258 274 2880
2008 278 258 285 175 157 193 140 204 213 202 257 254 2616
2009 274 43 197 6 42 134 141 223 224 251 142 101 1778
2005 78 112 102 63 89 64 44 25 55 48 31 15 726
2006 58 43 97 104 115 59 10 29 28 32 43 21 639
2007 16 1 0 2 7 0 2 0 0 2 8 12 50
2008 21 12 0 14 19 2 16 9 8 16 33 35 185
2009 40 81 36 162 79 17 6 4 9 23 39 37 533
Balance (pos=Import; neg=export) GWh 2005 2006 1 20 115 2 -6 93 3 -25 -3 4 -16 -80 5 -69 -107 6 -2 -9 7 44 103 8 54 74 9 36 60 10 97 98 11 139 68 12 251 189 Summe 523 601
2007 259 311 289 211 167 179 186 233 220 263 250 262 2830
2008 257 246 285 161 138 191 124 195 205 186 224 219 2431
2009 234 -38 161 -156 -37 117 135 219 215 228 103 64 1245
https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/
Electricity generation
page 77
Net electricity production 2006 Inst. Capacity Gross MWh MW Hydro Production Aux.Ser. MWh 6,710 5,097 2,698 1,087 1,312 1,210 501 709 362 266 96 41 41 Losses MWh 82,269 78,045 30,220 32,955 14,870 3,270 1,675 1,595 792 636 156 162 162
Net MWh 5,363,873 4,928,569 1,906,800 2,085,708 936,061 191,654 104,578 87,076 153,729 122,704 31,025 71,491 32,102 39,389 18,430 80,281 80,281 5,444,154
Drin River Cascade

Fierza Koman Vau Dejes
Mat River Cascade

Ulez Shkopet Bistrica River Cascade Bistrica I Bistrica II
Other HPP
Selita Gjanc+Bogove+Smokthine Small HPP Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) TPP Fieri Total Domestic Production
Net electricity production 2007
1447.9 1350 500 600 250 50 25 25 27.5 22.5 5 20.4 5 15.4 75 75 1522.9
5,452,852 5,011,712 1,939,718 2,119,750 952,244 196,134 106,754 89,380 154,883 123,606 31,277 71,693 32,304 39,389 18,430 92,630 92,630 5,545,482
10,960 10,960 17,670
1,389 1,389 83,658
Inst. Capacity Gross MWh MW Hydro Production
Aux.Ser. MWh 7,124 4,904 1,417 2,122 1,365 1,760 1,453 307 417 279 138 43 43
Losses MWh 31,728 28,195 7,058 13,854 7,283 1,589 812 777 1,471 1,399 72 473 473
Net MWh 2,829,512 2,499,404 685,987 1,188,744 624,673 134,797 68,309 66,488 125,993 119,968 6,025 66,594 33,435 33,159 2,724 63,462 63,462 2,892,974
Drin River Cascade

Fierza Koman Vau Dejes
Mat River Cascade

Ulez Shkopet
Bistrica River Cascade

Bistrica I Bistrica II Other HPP Selita Gjanc+Bogove+Smokthine
1447.9 1350 500 600 250 50 25 25 27.5 22.5 5 20.4 5 15.4 75 75 1522.9
Small HPP
Thermo Production (TPP Fieri)
TPP Fieri
Total Domestic Production
2,868,364 2,532,504 694,463 1,204,720 633,321 138,145 70,573 67,572 127,881 121,646 6,235 67,110 33,951 33,159 2,724 71,898 71,898 2,940,262
7,609 7,609 14,733
827 827 32,555
page 78

Installed Capacity (MW) 1447.9 1350 500 600 250 50 25 25 27.5 22.5 5 20.4 5 15.4 75 75 1522.9 Gross Auxiliary Losses in Net Production Production Services Production (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) 3,849,896 4,693 12,371 3,832,831 3,441,046 3,184 9,937 3,427,925 1,071,634 1,015 0 1,070,619 1,551,980 1,101 9,937 1,540,941 817,432 1,068 0 816,364 171,703 1,061 928 169,714 92,334 732 476 91,126 79,369 329 451 78,588 139,405 403 973 138,030 118,706 262 869 117,575 20,699 141 103 20,455 54,998 45 534 54,419 35,768 45 534 35,189 19,230 0 0 19,230 0 0 42,744 42,744 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,849,896 4,693 12,371 3,832,831
Hydro Production
Drini River Cascade

Fierze Koman Vau Dejes
Mat River Cascade

Ulez Shkopet

Bistrica I Bistrica II
Other HPP
Selita Gjanc, Bogove, Smokthine
Small HPP
Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) TPP Fieri Total Domestic Production

Installed Capacity (MW) 1447.9 1350 500 600 250 50 25 25 27.5 22.5 5 20.4 5 15.4 172 75 97 1619.9 Gross Auxiliary Losses in Net Production Production Services Production (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) (MWh) 5,229,618 4,822 23,782 5,201,014 4,704,738 3,120 20,031 4,681,587 1,557,357 1,110 0 1,556,248 2,062,050 1,037 20,031 2,040,982 1,085,330 973 0 1,084,358 228,638 1,212 2,009 225,418 126,116 389 1,096 124,631 102,522 822 913 100,787 172,128 440 1,224 170,464 136,742 256 1,123 135,364 35,385 184 101 35,100 85,052 51 519 84,483 34,804 51 519 34,235 50,248 0 0 50,248 0 0 39,062 39,062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,229,618 4,822 23,782 5,201,014
Hydro Production
Drini River Cascade

Fierze Koman Vau Dejes
Mat River Cascade

Ulez Shkopet

Bistrica I Bistrica II
Other HPP
Selita Gjanc, Bogove, Smokthine
Small HPP
Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) TPP Fieri TPP Vlora (New) Total Domestic Production
Source: Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/
j.s.c.)
http://www.kesh.com.al/
and
page 79
Selection of the method to determine the operating margin (OM): Electricity generation of the grid of Albania for the years 2005 to 2009 (with inclusion of off- grid generation in the years 2007 to 2009)
Sum of electricity generation in [MWh] Electricity Generation in MWh Sum Hydros / low cost-must run Percentage Sum Import Percentage Sum Thermal Percentage Percentage Low cost - must run 6,398,476 2005 5,072,489 0.79 1,249,000 0.20 76,987 0.01 0.99 6,684,154 2006 5,363,873 0.80 1,240,000 0.19 80,281 0.01 0.99 6,245,682 2007 2,829,512 0.45 2,880,000 0.46 536,170 0.09 0.91 6,921,539 2008 3,832,831 0.55 2,616,000 0.38 472,708 0.07 0.93 7,451,723 2009 5,201,015 0.70 1,778,000 0.24 472,708 0.06 0.94
Due to the fact that low-cost/must run resources amount to more than 50% for the most recent 5 years (2005 to 2009), where data was available the operating margin (OM) is calculated according to Option (d) of Step 3 of the Tool the Average OM. The calculation is provided for the years 2007 to 2009 as follows:
Electricity generation in [MWh] Gjanc,Bogovce, Smokthine off grid 1 off grid 2 off grid 3 off grid 4 off grid 5 off grid 6 off grid 7 off grid 8 off grid 9 off grid 10 off grid 11 off grid 12 off grid 13 off grid 14 off grid 15 off grid 16 off grid 17 off grid 18 off grid 19 off grid 20 off grid 21 off grid 22 off grid 23 Koman (HPP) Fierza (HPP) Vau dejes (HPP) Shkopet (HPP) Ulez (HPP) Bistrice 2 (HPP) Lanabregas (HPP) Bistrice 1 (HPP) Other HPPs Fier (TPP) Vlora (TPP) IMPORTS Sum of electricity generation in [MWh] Electricity Generation in MWh Sum Hydros / low cost-must run Percentage Sum Import Percentage Sum Thermal Percentage Percentage Low cost - must run 2005 2006 39,389 2007 33,159 32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811 1,188,744 685,987 624,673 66,488 68,309 6,025 33,435 119,968 2,724 63,462 0 2,880,000 6,245,682 2007 2,829,512 0.45 2,880,000 0.46 536,170 0.09 0.91 2008 19,230 32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811 1,540,941 1,070,619 816,364 78,588 91,126 20,455 35,189 117,575 42,744 0 0 2,616,000 6,921,539 2008 3,832,831 0.55 2,616,000 0.38 472,708 0.07 0.93 2009 50,248 32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811 2,040,982 1,556,248 1,084,358 100,787 124,631 35,100 34,235 135,364 39,062 0 0 1,778,000 7,451,723 2009 5,201,015 0.70 1,778,000 0.24 472,708 0.06 0.94 Date of comission
2004,2005,2006 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 2007-1987 1986 1978 1975 1963 1954 1952 1951 1948 1966/1983/2009
(Source: https://w w w .entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/)
2,186,860 1,870,021 927,319 58,200
30,089
76,987 1,249,000 6,398,476 2005 5,072,489 0.79 1,249,000 0.20 76,987 0.01 0.99
2,085,708 1,906,800 936,061 87,076 104,578 31,025 32,102 122,704 18,430 80,281 0 1,240,000 6,684,154 2006 5,363,873 0.80 1,240,000 0.19 80,281 0.01 0.99
page 80
Relevant year 2007 m i Fuel Type
CO2 emissions from Power Plants A B C D E EGm FCi,m NCVi EFCO2,i m Net Electricity Fuel Net Calorific CO2 Emission Factor Average Net Generation Consumption Value Energy (Lower Value) (Lower Conversion Value) Efficiency (MWh) (t) (GJ/t) (tCO2/GJ) (%)
F EFEL,m CO2 Emission Factor

(tCO2/MWh)
G CO2 Emissions
(t-CO2)
No.
Name of Power Plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 3) Fier Vlora (CCGT)
Diesel Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Residual Fuel Oil Natural Gas
32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811 63,462
41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 39.8 46.5
0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0755 0.0543
Default values from Annex 1 of the "Electricity F=Dx3.6/E Tool" 0.28 0.933 0.28 0.868 0.33 0.792 0.35 0.747 0.37 0.706 0.39 0.670 0.42 0.622 0.45 0.581 0.28 0.933 0.28 0.868 0.33 0.792 0.35 0.747 0.37 0.706 0.39 0.670 0.42 0.622 0.45 0.581 0.28 0.933 0.28 0.868 0.33 0.792 0.35 0.747 0.37 0.706 0.39 0.670 0.42 0.622 0.375 0.725 0.6 0.326
G=AxF 30,362 11,396 135,811 2,553 17,834 19,668 42,278 15,371 6,188 925 25,605 1,359 7,153 5,930 8,853 13,326 0 428 554 181 174 1,118 1,127 45,997 0 0.0631

(tCO2/MWh)
G CO2 Emissions
(t-CO2)
No.
Name of Power Plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811
41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 39.8 46.5
0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0755 0.0543
G=AxF 30,362 11,396 135,811 2,553 17,834 19,668 42,278 15,371 6,188 925 25,605 1,359 7,153 5,930 8,853 13,326 0 428 554 181 174 1,118 1,127 0 0 0.0503
page 81

(tCO2/MWh)
G CO2 Emissions
(t-CO2)
No.
Name of Power Plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811
41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 42.5 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 39.8 46.5
0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0675 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0726 0.0755 0.0543
G=AxF 30,362 11,396 135,811 2,553 17,834 19,668 42,278 15,371 6,188 925 25,605 1,359 7,153 5,930 8,853 13,326 0 428 554 181 174 1,118 1,127 0 0 0.0467
Baseline (including imports) 2007 2008 2009 EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] 0.0631 0.0503 0.0467 Total (2007-2009) = EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] Load [MWh] 6,245,682 6,921,539 7,451,723 20,618,944 LCMR [MWh] Imports [MWh] 5,709,512 6,448,831 6,979,015 19,137,358 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000 7,274,000
0.0529
page 82
Calculation of the Build Margin (BM) for the year 2009:

Electricity generation in [MWh] Small HPP Gjanc, Bogove, Smoktine Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 1) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap7, Fuel D; Age 2) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap2, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap3, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap4, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap5, Fuel D; Age 3) Off Grid (Cap6, Fuel D; Age 3) Koman (HPP) Fierza (HPP) Vau dejes (HPP) Shkopet (HPP) Ulez (HPP) Bistrice 2 (HPP) Lanabregas (HPP) Bistrice 1 (HPP) *IMPORTS Vlora (TPP) Fier (TPP) Sum of electricity generation in [GWh] Sum of electricity generation of the sample group for the BM [GWh] Percentage of the electricity generation of most recently built 5 Power Plants 2009 39,062 50,248 32,527 13,131 171,478 3,419 25,247 29,349 67,940 26,466 6,629 1,066 32,329 1,820 10,126 8,849 14,227 22,944 0 493 700 242 247 1,668 1,811 2,040,982 1,556,248 1,084,358 100,787 124,631 35,100 34,235 135,364 1,778,000 0 0 5,673,723 458,867 Time of Comissioning 2009 2004,2005,2006 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 2003-2007 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1998-2002 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1988-1997 1986 1978 1975 1963 1954 1952 1951 1948
*without Imports
8%
page 83
A EGm Net Electricity Generation
No.
Name of Power Plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Off Grid (Cap1, Off Grid (Cap1, Off Grid (Cap2, Off Grid (Cap3, Off Grid (Cap4, Off Grid (Cap5, Off Grid (Cap6, Off Grid (Cap7,
Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel
D; Age 1) G; Age 1) D; Age 1) D; Age 1) D; Age 1) D; Age 1) D; Age 1) D; Age 1)
Diesel Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel
CO2 emissions from Power Plants B C D E FCi,m NCVi EFCO2,i m Fuel Net Calorific CO2 Emission Average Net Consumption Value Energy Factor (Lower Value) (Lower Value) Conversion Efficiency (MWh) (t) (GJ/t) (tCO2/GJ) (%) Default values from Annex 1 of the "Electricity Tool" 32,527 41.4 0.0726 0.28 13,131 42.5 0.0675 0.28 171,478 41.4 0.0726 0.33 3,419 41.4 0.0726 0.35 25,247 41.4 0.0726 0.37 29,349 41.4 0.0726 0.39 67,940 41.4 0.0726 0.42 26,466 41.4 0.0726 0.45
F EFEL,m CO2 Emission Factor (tCO2/MWh)
G CO2 Emissions
(t-CO2)
F=Dx3.6/E 0.933 0.868 0.792 0.747 0.706 0.670 0.622 0.581
G=AxF 30,362 11,396 135,811 2,553 17,834 19,668 42,278 15,371 275,273
0.5999 tonsCO2/MWh
Calculation of the Combined Margin (CM):

Baseline (including imports) 2007 2008 2009 EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] 0.0631 0.0503 0.0467 Total (2007-2009) = EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] 0.0529 Alternative weights w OM = 0.25 w BM = 0.75 Alternative (CM) EF y [tCO2/MWh] Load [MWh] 6,245,682 6,921,539 7,451,723 20,618,944 EF BM,2009 0.5999 LCMR [MWh] Imports [MWh] 5,709,512 6,448,831 6,979,015 19,137,358 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000 7,274,000
0.4631
page 84
Procedures related to off-grid power generation (following Annex 2 of the Tool)

Excerpt from the Tool is marked in Italic. The procedures in this annex serve to (a) identify those off-grid power plants that are eligible for inclusion in the grid emission factor and to (b) collect the necessary data to include them in the calculations of the operating and build margin emission factors of this tool. Step 1: Obtain data on off-grid power generation Data on off-grid power generation is usually not readily available and has to be collected to include offgrid power generation in the grid emission factor. The collection of data on off-grid power generation has two purposes: data is required to determine whether an identified power plant qualifies as .off-grid power plant., as defined in the definitions section; and data is required to calculate the emissions and electricity generation from off-grid power plants. For this purpose, project proponents can conduct an own survey, or use existing data (if such data provides the necessary information as outlined further below and if the existing data has the vintage as required per this tool). The project developer Energji ASHTA the owner of another CDM HPP project activity in Albania assigned the VeVe Group, which is the Energji Ashtas local partner in Albania to conduct this off-grid survey. Additionally Energji ASHTA assigned DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG (CEO: Univ.Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec) with the Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC). Energji ASHTA and the project owners of Devoll share the costs for this off- grid study. The collected data can be used in the following two ways: (a) Direct use of data on a plant-by-plant basis: Include in the emission factor only those off-grid power plants for which the necessary data is available or is collected. Ensure that the plants selected for inclusion in the grid emission factor are reasonably representative for the overall off-grid power generation in the electricity system97; (b) Statistical evaluation of the data based on sampling: Collect the necessary data for a representative and appropriately stratified sample of off-grid power plants and infer the data to the entire electricity system. Document in the CDM-PDD which approach is followed. In the above mentioned off-grid survey approach (b) was chosen. The whole off-grid survey consists of a stratified sampling of off-grid power plants and a statistical extrapolation to the overall population.
97
For example, information on off-grid power generation could only be available for some sectors of the economy. In this case, only the plants from these sectors may be included in the grid emission factor. However, in including selected plants, no systematic bias should be introduced (e.g. by including only coal fired plants).
page 85
The documentation of the whole off-grid study conducted by VeVe is available to the DOE on request. As already mentioned above the whole statistical survey was accompanied for Quality Assurance (QA) reasons by the Austrian statistic expert Univ. Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec (DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG) in order to comply with international statistical standards and the UNFCCC requirements determined in Annex 2 of the Tool. Marcus Hudec is member of the Council of Statistics of Austria and head of the group responsible for statistical quality standards. Step 1.1: Choose the data to be collected Document which data is collected for each (sampled) off-grid power plant. Table 1 provides the minimum data that must be collected for each (sampled) off-grid power plant p. Table 1: Minimum data/information to be collected on each off-grid power plant p
In addition, other data may be collected, depending on how the requirements of this annex for inclusion of an off-grid power plant p in the grid emission factor are assessed and on which options are used in Step 3 of the tool to calculate the emission factor for a class of off-grid power plants m (Option A1, A2 or A3) and the electricity generation by a class of off-grid power plants m (Option 1, 2 or 3). This may include the following data: All the input parameters summarized in Table 1 above are collected for each sampled off-grid power plant during the field survey (see Questionnaire in English and Albanian language as Annexes to the documentation of the whole off- grid study of VeVe, which is provided to the DOE on request).
page 86
The design of the questionnaire has been developed in iterations of drafts and included extensive pretesting to assure a highest standard of data quality according to the data collection process. The questionnaire was utilized in personal interviews by a specially trained group of interviewers. Table 2: Additional data that may be collected on off-grid power generation
Note that the same data collection approach should be applied to all off-grid plants in one sector (e.g. industrial, commercial and residential sector). The following input parameters summarized in Table 2 above are collected for each sampled off- grid power plant during the field survey see Questionnaire in English and Albanian language as Annexes to the documentation of the whole off- grid study of VeVe, which is provided to the DOE on request) DATEstart,p since the off-grid power plants are also included in the build margin (see Step 1.2 of the Annex 2 of the Tool below) The conducted field survey showed that it was impossible for the respondents to provide the following data of the Table 2 of above. These data were asked for in the Questions 21d and 21b of the Questionnaire: Question Q21d teN calorific value of used fuel (NCVp,i,y). None of the respondents did know the exact value of the NCV. Thus, conservative default values (Source: IPCC 2006) were taken into account.
Question Q21b Energy produced from the off grid power plant (EGp,y). None of the respondents could provide this data since no electricity meter are installed in the offgrid power plans.
page 87
Thus, the value for this data question has been calculated as product of Net calorific value (NCVp,i,y) with the corresponding default efficiency factors for power plants m,y (see Annex 1 of above)) and with the value of question Q21c Fuel quantity used (FCp,i,y) divided by 3.6 in order to convert GJ into MWh (corrected Option 2 of Step 4 of the Tool)
EG m, y
FC
i
i ,m, y
NCVi , y m, y 3.6
[MWh]
Where: EGm,y = FCi,m,y= NCVi,y = m,y m= y= i= Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y (MWh) Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plants included in off-grid power plant class m in year y (mass or volume unit (tons)) Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or volume unit (GJ/ton)) Default net energy conversion efficiency of off-grid power plant class m in year y (ratio), as per the default values provided in Annex 1 Off-grid power plant class considered as one power unit (as per the provisions in Annex 2 to this tool) The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3 Fossil fuel types used
This approach was used as already mentioned above since no questionnaire provided the directly measured net quantity of generated electricity (EGm,y) requested for application of Option 1 of Step 4 of the Tool. All questionnaires provided the amounts of fossil fuel consumed (FCi,m,y) by each off-grid power plant during the year 2007. Thus EGm,y was calculated for all the UNFCCC off- grid classes according to the corrected Option 2 of Step 4 of the Tool.
OMCp,y:
This data set was not provided in the Questionnaire since for the 3 rd point of Step 2 of Annex 2 point (c) was applied. This data set was not provided in the Questionnaire since for the 3 rd point of Step 2 of Annex 2 point (c) was applied. During the survey every company provided the tariff class for the electricity purchased from the national grid of Albania (see also approach described under Step 2 of Annex 2 of the Tool).
TEL:
page 88
Step 1.2: Define the classification of off-grid power plants To facilitate data collection and calculations, off-grid power plants should be classified in different classes of off-grid power plants. All off-grid power plants included in one class are considered as one single power unit for the calculations in this tool. Off-grid power plants should be classified according to their capacity (CAPp), fuel type (FUELp), and type of technology (TECHp). This classification was applied in the conducted off-grid survey (see documentation of the whole off-grid study conducted by VeVe is available to the DOE on request). Referring to the collected data from the questionnaires a theoretical maximum of 42 (7 x 1 x 2 x 3 = 42) UNFCCC classes could be identified: CAPp (question Q13 in the questionnaire), 7 different categories TECHp (question Q8 in the questionnaire), 1 category FUELp (question Q10 in the questionnaire), 2 categories Age (question Q15 in the questionnaire), 3 categories
During the off grid survey just one technology was identified, namely the Reciprocating engines. The off- grid power plants were either fuelled by diesel or by gasoline (FUELp). Gasoline was just used in very small off- grid power plants (CAP < 10 kW). Since the off- grid power plants are included also for the calculation of the build margin (BM) emission factor the following age classes were defined based on the start date of operation (DATE start,p) according to Step 1.2 of Annex 2 of the Tool. 0 5 years 6 10 years 11 20 years of operation (reference year 2007) of operation (reference year 2007) of operation (reference year 2007)
The oldest off-grid power plant surveyed started operation in 1987. If off-grid power plants are also included in the build margin, their vintage needs to be determined based on the start date of operation (DATEstart,p). In this case, the classes have to be differentiated into three data vintages: plants with up to five years of operation, plants with up to 10 years of operation and plants with more than 10 years of operation. Finally the following 23 UNFCCC classes separated into the data vintages required in the Tool were identified:
page 89
Diesel Age (0-5) Age (6-10) Age (11-20) Gasoline Age (0-5) Age (6-10) Age (11-20)
Nominal capacity of off grid power plants in [kW] CAP < 10 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000
If default efficiencies, as provided in Annex 1 of this tool, are used to determine the emission factor for a power plant (see Option A2 in Step 4 of this tool), the power plant classification provided in Annex 1 should be used. If the Options A1 and/or A3 in Step 4 of this tool are applied to determine the emission factors for off-grid power plant classes, project participants may also use their own classification. Since default efficiencies, as provided in Annex 1 of the Tool, are used to determine the emission factor for each power plant (The sum of all off- grid power plants included in one UNFCCC class are considered as one single power unit.) (see Option A2 in Step 4 of the Tool), the same power plant classification provided in Annex 1 is used. Step 1.3: Define the sectors for which data is collected Define for which sectors (e.g. households, commercial sector) or industries data on off-grid electricity generation is collected or whether data is collected for the whole economy. The project participants may deliberately choose the sectors for which data is collected; however, the sectors should be clearly and unambiguously defined (e.g. which size of companies or households, the geographical area covered, etc) and the selection should include any systematic bias (e.g. by including only a sub-sector which uses only coal as fuel while less carbon intensive fuels are used in other sub-sectors). The survey was conducted as a probability survey, where the Business register of INSTAT was used as a sampling frame. To achieve a maximum quality of the results a stratified sampling approach has been chosen. The stratification is based on the economic activity and the size of the company which was considered to be most appropriate for the off- grid survey. As potential users of off-grid power plants private and state owned economic enterprises, public institutions and households were identified. So the target population in the conducted survey was determined to include all off-grid power plants used by enterprises, households and public institutions. According to NACE Rev 1.1, there are 12 sections of economic activities to be considered. The size of companies is divided in 4 groups: over 50 employees, 10 - 49 employees, 5 - 9 employees and 1 - 4 employees. In this way in total 48 strata are formed. The table below Active enterprises by Economic Activities and Size, 2007 (Section A, B and P not-included) summarizes for each stratum, the number of enterprises according to the economic activity and the size of companies. The specific conditions of Albania (high cost of producing electricity because of high fuel prices) lead to marginal use of off-grid power plants in households for non business purposes. Thus the household
page 90
sector (NACE section P) was neglected and off-grid power plants used by families are not considered in the off-grid survey. Off-grid power plants used by the enterprises, operating in economic activities such as agriculture, hunting and forestry (NACE section A) and fishing (NACE Section B) are excluded as well in the survey since the type of activity refers to marginal off- grid power use as well. The excluded enterprises represent less than 1% of the total number of enterprises. The enterprises cover all sizes of economy and all geographical sector of Albania in order to avoid any bias described in Step 1.3 of Annex 2 of the Tool above. The following table summarizes the number of companies within different sectors. The companies are located in all geographical areas of Albania. All the company data were provided by the official Statistic Authority of Albania INSTAT to VeVe.
Active enterprises by Economic Activities and Size, 2007 (Section A, B and P not-included)
Economic Activity (NACE Section) 50+ employees 9 233 32 107 48 16 41 28 55 72 100 52 793 Size of enterprises 10-49 4-9 1-4 employees employees employees 55 74 217 557 629 6,631 31 19 30 829 735 2,749 422 999 41,060 69 299 11,657 107 241 7,780 16 48 228 186 241 3,815 64 318 139 2,793 101 144 184 3,714 486 1,212 3,586 79,451 Total 355 8,050 112 4,420 42,529 12,041 8,169 320 4,297 723 1,774 3,961 86,751
C-Mining and quarrying D-Manufacturing E-Electricity, gas and water supply F-Construction G-Wholesale and retail trade H-Hotels and restaurants I-Transport, storage and communication J-Financial intermediation K-Real estate, renting and business activities M-Education N-Health and social work O-Other community, social and personal service Total Source INSTAT
The selected enterprises in the table above were considered to represent best the overall population of off- grid power plants in Albania, by application of the working assumption that each active enterprise at least possesses on off-grid power plant. Step 1.4: Establish the survey design and management scheme (applicable if a survey is used)
Document transparently the design and methodology of the survey, following best practices in survey design and statistics. In doing so, the following guidance shall be applied: The institution conducting the survey should have relevant experience with undertaking surveys;
page 91
The whole off-grid study was conducted by the local consultant VeVe Group and local statistic experts from the University of Tirana. For Quality Assurance (QA) reasons the whole statistical survey was accompanied by the Austrian statistic expert Univ. Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec (DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG) in order to comply with international statistical standards and UNFCCC requirements. Ensure a proper stratification within the geographical area of the electricity system and within the different users of off-grid power generation (e.g. considering relevant differences between sectors, household income, etc). To this end, it may be necessary to conduct a pre-survey to collect information which sectors, companies or households typically use off-grid power plants; See described stratification in Step 1.3 of above. Sampling frame and Sampling units Since the survey is a probability survey, for construction of the sample the existence of a sampling frame was required. The sampling frame is the list/population (sampling units) from which the samples will be drawn, it's (almost) never exactly equal to the target population. In order to get a representative sampling the Business Register is used as sampling frame, which is created and maintained by INSTAT (Institute of official statistics in Albania). The New Business Register constitutes all non-agricultural active enterprises (public and private enterprises and also public institutions) operating within the territory of Albania. For the underlying survey conducted, the Business Register was considered the best registry for economic enterprises in Albania. The Business Register contains required information regarding: Identification of enterprises as: identification code (NIPT), legal form, ownership, name, address, contact details (phone, fax etc.) Stratification variable as: main economic activity, size according number of employees, geographic location Demographic variable as: the date of foundation and the date of activity closure.
These variables are updated periodically by different INSTAT activities like: The activity status (active or non-active), main economic activity, size according to employees, addresses, contact details; phone, fax, mobile, e-mail). The economic activity of companies is based on the Economic Activity Nomenclature, NACE Rev 1.1. The sources for updating these variables are administrative registers or/and statistical survey. Among administrative source there are: QKR (National Registering Center), DPT (General Tax Office), file (card index) of VAT, annual account of enterprises, etc. Among the statistical sources the following can be mentioned: Newly Created Enterprises survey, Annual Structure Survey (ASN), quarterly survey (STS), Production Price survey (PPI), and other surveys.
page 92
The use of the Business Register was considered to be the most appropriate source for off-grid survey usage since it minimizes the coverage errors. Additionally, see also description of the stratification in Step 1.3 of above. The results of the survey should be used to derive global estimates adjusted for their uncertainty at a 95% confidence level in a conservative manner (using the upper or lower uncertainty bound whatever is conservative); In order to stay conservative the lower levels (according to the uncertainty at a 95% confidence level as required in Annex 2 of the Tool of the finally extrapolated amounts of the off-grid electricity generation of the identified UNFCCC classes were considered in the calculation of the Combined Margin (CM) emission factor. The methods used to collect data should strive to avoid any bias and should ensure random sampling in the various strata; By application of the sampling frame described above under Steps 1.3 and 1.4 any bias in data collection is avoided. The actual drawing of the random sample according to the details of the sampling scheme has been performed within INSTAT applying a systematic random sampling scheme within strata. Provide objective and transparent methods for data collection; The data collection was done according to the following procedure: Survey instrument A first draft questionnaire according to the requirements of Annex 2 of the Tool was prepared in October 2010. The VeVe team in collaboration with the Austrian experts have reviewed the drafts and provided comments on the selection of questions. So the final questionnaire was improved several times in order to correspond to the requirements of the UNFCCC. Questionnaire Content The questionnaire is organized in different sections: Identifying questions: This group is composed by Id Questionnaire, Response Indicator, Address of the enterprises and Characteristics of enterprises The characteristics of every off-grid power plants disposable at the enterprise The data regarding the usage of off-grid power plants in the years 2007 and 2008 Additionally the maintenance manner of off-grid-power plants was surveyed as well.
Pilot survey The first draft of the questionnaire was tested through a pilot survey in 10 enterprises, including a government institution (Ministry of Finance). The pilot test survey has been conducted from the
page 93
well trained and experienced interviewers (enumerators) and it was monitored by the VeVe team. The results of the pilot survey served for improvement of the questionnaires. Interviewer recruiting and training The field survey was conducted by 85 interviewers in total. 40 interviewers were employed in the Tirana district and 45 interviewers for the field work in all the other Albanian districts. The distribution was based on the number of the questionnaires per districts. (A training list of all the interviewers can be provided by VeVe on request). In total four supervisors for the supervising the field survey were hired. The interviewers and the supervisors have been selected in close collaboration with INSTAT. The supervisors previously have worked in other INSTAT surveys. The interviewers and supervisor recruitment was done by INSTAT based on the criteria normally applied for other enterprise surveys. As former INSTAT employees for the enterprises census all the interviewers have previous experience in doing statistical surveys. Thus, the interviewers know the enterprises (location; addresses...), which simplified the field survey and raised the amount of filled out questionnaires. In order to be familiar with the questionnaire and the manner it should be filled, the VeVe team has organized training sessions before start of the field work. The training has been organized in 2 different sessions, one day each. The interviewers were divided in 2 groups. The first group composed by the Tirana interviewers and the second session has included the rest of interviewers from other districts. The training session was realized by the project team in collaboration with INSTAT specialists. The training laid a focus on the following 3 issues: First issue: Gaining more knowledge regarding the survey and the questionnaire. During this period the interviewers got information regarding the reasons for the survey and every question in the questionnaire. Every interviewer got additional (explanatory) information to every single question of the questionnaire. Second issue: Role plays were done how to fill the questionnaire. After the interviewers were familiar with the questions, the second period was an interactive communication (under the supervision of VeVe staff), where the interviewers played the role of interviewers and the respondents. Third issue: The practice how to fill the questionnaires was discussed. Field work Collection of filled questionnaires has been done in every Albanian district. In average every interviewer had to fill approx. 40 questionnaires during a period of 3 weeks, so they had to fill in average 3 questionnaires per day. The field survey has started by training interviewers on 26th January 2011 and lasted approximately one month. Every Monday VeVe got in touch with the interviewers to get feedback regarding the progress of the survey and the occurred problems during the survey. The most frequent questions raised have been: Missing the data label on the off-grid power plant
page 94
Net Caloric Values figures of the fuels were not known by all the respondents. No info regarding the energy generated by the off grid power plants during a year could be provided.
There have been some cases where the interviewers had problems to collect the requested data, especially in the state institutions, because they have asked for an official letter from the company conducting the survey (VeVe), but these problems could be solved subsequently. Ensure that appropriate procedures for data verification are in place, including relevant quality assurance and quality control methods. All the survey data were collected first in paper format by filled questionnaires. Afterwards the data entry process on PC had to be conducted in order to be further elaborated by the statistical computer program SPSS. Before recording, a qualitative check of all the questionnaires was done in order to be sure that they were filled properly and also according to some other standard procedures to support the data entry. The data entry process was done in Excel because for some categorical data during the recording, the Excel gives the possibility for data validation. At a later stage the data have been transferred into SPSS (version 17) using the standard procedures offered by SPSS. Also in the SPSS software VeVe has done quality check, e.g. the data range control for categorical data. Both electronic data and the whole off- grid survey were provided to the Client (VERBUND/EVN) and to the Austrian statistic expert Univ. Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec (DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG) for Quality Assurance (QA) and further Quality Control (QC) in the following way: Transparent documentation of all procedures and methods applied during the whole process from the planning phase to the calculation of final results SPSS Syntax Files, which provide the documentation of all data transformation and calculation steps SPSS System Files, which contain all data necessary for the examination of the derived results and allows the reproduction of the results by an IE
DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG conducted parallel a calculation (extrapolation) of the provided SPSS data in and received the same results as VeVe. The DOE should carefully evaluate and confirm that the survey was conducted in accordance with these principles and best practices for conducting and evaluating surveys. Step 1.5: Collect the data or use existing data sources Collect the data or use relevant existing data sources. Exclude all plants for the sample for which not all necessary data (as identified in Step 1.1 of this annex) could be collected.
page 95
The following data were collected during the field survey: Sample size At the beginning of the survey a sample size of approx. 3,000 to 3,500 enterprises was considered sufficient. Sample allocation With the chosen stratification, a proportional allocation was not practicable because of the very different number of enterprises in the strata. Therefore for the sample allocation a disproportionate allocation was chosen. Thus the number of enterprises in the strata is different. The decision regarding the selection rate was: All the companies having over 50 employees were selected. 14% of the companies having between 10 to 49 employees were selected. 9% of the companies having between 4 to 9 employees were selected. 2% of the small companies having between 1 to 4 employees were selected. In practical terms not a strict proportion was applied but a minimum cell size in each stratum was determined. A minimum sample size of 7 enterprises in each stratum was determined. Assuming that the most important enterprises, so-called VIP enterprises, have been and still are important users of off- grid power plants in periods of power cuts, the establishment of a specific stratum for those enterprises was proposed. The stratum for the VIP enterprises includes enterprises that were randomly selected under the first selection process and those that remained unselected at the beginning and being selected after the first selection process subsequently. Based on the Business Register of INSTAT it was possible to identify all the VIP enterprises at a later stage of surveying. In total 274 VIP enterprises were sampled during the main sampling and 455 VIP companies were sampled in a second step of the field survey. Thus in total 729 VIP companies were surveyed (see also tables below). Sample selection The sample selection was conducted in two steps: (i) the selection of main sample (including the randomly sampled VIP companies and (ii) the sampling of the missing identified VIP companies. The process of sampling is shown graphically in Figure 1-1.
page 96
In a first step, a sample of 3,121 enterprises was selected in an independent manner for all strata, through usage of a systematic selection (see following table 1-2). This sampling is considered the main sampling structure. In each stratum the samples are sorted according to districts to avoid a possible bias due to non representative sampling-proportions from different regions.
Table 1-2. The structure of Main sampling (including VIP-enterprises and non-VIP-enterprises)
Economic Activity (NACE Section)

50+ employees
Size of company
10-49 employees 4-9 employees 1-4 employees Total
C-Mining and quarrying D-Manufacturing E-Electricity, gas and water supply F-Construction G-Wholesale and retail trade H-Hotels and restaurants I-Transport, storage and J-Financial intermediation communication K-Real estate, renting and business M-Education activities N-Health and social work O-Other community, social and personal service Total
9 233 32 107 48 16 41 28 55 72 100 52 793
8 77 7 116 59 9 14 7 26 9 44 19 395
7 56 7 66 89 26 21 7 21 9 12 16 337
7 132 7 54 821 233 155 7 76 9 24 71 1,596
31 498 53 343 1,017 284 231 49 178 99 180 158 3,121
At a second step, a new stratum (stratum 49) was created (inclusion of VIP companies from the main sampling and VIP enterprises, which remained unselected in the first step (see table 1-4).
page 97
Table 1-3: The distribution of VIP-enterprises to the strata within the main sample

50+ employees
Size of enterprises
C-Mining and quarrying D-Manufacturing E-Electricity, gas and water supply F-Construction G-Wholesale and retail trade H-Hotels and restaurants I-Transport, storage and communication J-Financial intermediation K-Real estate, renting and business activities M-Education N-Health and social work O-Other community, social and personal service Total
4 50 5 55 39 6 19 25 4 1 2 14 224
1 5 0 15 19 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 43
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 5
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
6 55 5 71 59 6 21 26 8 1 2 14 274
Table 1-4: The structure of Strata 49, composed only by VIP-enterprise, not selected in the main sample

50+ employees
Size of enterprises
C-Mining and quarrying D-Manufacturing E-Electricity, gas and water supply F-Construction G-Wholesale and retail trade H-Hotels and restaurants I-Transport, storage and communication J-Financial intermediation K-Real estate, renting and business activities M-Education N-Health and social work O-Other community, social and personal service Total
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 47 0 83 168 2 9 2 15 3 0 4 338
0 4 2 14 48 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 76
1 2 0 5 20 0 2 1 10 0 0 0 41
6 53 2 102 236 2 12 5 30 3 0 4 455
page 98
Note: Step 1 and 2 has been conducted by INSTAT according to technical specification of VeVe Group, because INSTAT doesnt make available to third parties any sampling frame. At a third step, VeVe has reallocated all VIP-enterprises in one unique stratum (Stratum 49). Thus, regarding the VIP-enterprises a census was reached with a selection probability of 1, independently of the structure of the stratum. In the main sampling 3,121 enterprises (including 274 VIP enterprises) were surveyed with the structure presented in the table 1-3. By analysis of the information provided in Tables 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 a reallocation was done for non-VIP enterprises in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5. The distribution of non-VIP-enterprises in Final sample (48 strata) Economic Activity (NACE Section) Size of enterprises 50+ 10-49 4-9 1-4 employees employees employees employees C-Mining and quarrying 5 7 6 7 D-Manufacturing 183 72 56 132 E-Electricity, gas and water supply 27 7 7 7 F-Construction 52 101 66 53 G-Wholesale and retail trade 9 40 89 820 H-Hotels and restaurants 10 9 26 233 I-Transport, storage and 22 13 20 155 communication J-Financial intermediation 3 6 7 7 K-Real estate, renting and business 51 25 18 76 activities M-Education 71 9 9 9 N-Health and social work 98 44 12 24 O-Other community, social and 38 19 16 71 personal service Total 569 352 332 1,594
Total 25 443 48 272 958 278 210 23 170 98 178 144 2,847
Table 1-6 shows the distribution of VIP enterprises according to size and activity (only for the stratum 49).
Table 1-6. The final distribution of VIP-enterprises by economic activity and size Economic Activity (NACE Section) Size of enterprises 50+ 10-49 4-9 1-4 employees employees employees employees C-Mining and quarrying 4 6 1 1 D-Manufacturing 50 52 4 2 E-Electricity, gas and water supply 5 0 2 0 F-Construction 55 98 14 6 G-Wholesale and retail trade 39 187 48 21 H-Hotels and restaurants 6 2 0 0 I-Transport, storage and 19 10 2 2 communication J-Financial intermediation 25 3 2 1
Total 12 108 7 173 295 8 33 31
page 99
K-Real estate, renting and business activities M-Education N-Health and social work O-Other community, social and personal service Total
4 1 2 14 224
16 3 0 4 381
8 0 0 0 81
10 0 0 0 43
38 4 2 18 729
In a further step of surveying additionally 60 off- grid power plants were surveyed within 50 enterprises (already covered during the survey. These off-grid power plants were taken into account subsequently. Thus in total 3,636 (2,847 + 729 + 60) questionnaires were collected and data were taken into account. For the extrapolation (determination of the extrapolation weights) the numbers of VIP companies were deducted from the numbers of companies of the different strata representing the overall population. By doing this the overall population is divided in a VIP and a non VIP part. Step 2: Exclude plants that do not qualify as off-grid power plants The exclusion of the enterprises, which do not possess an off- grid power plant, was done in the following manner. Referring to the question Q5 (Do you use an off grid power plant?) 1247 enterprises sampled do not use off- grid power plants (see following table below). These samples were considered in the extrapolation as follows: No reduction of the number of samples for the calculation of the weights No reduction of the size of the overall population (strata sizes remain unchanged) the corresponding electricity generation value of these off grid plants was determined with 0 MWh. The other non applicable samples (answering was refused at 97 companies; 274 companies surveyed in 2011 have already quit their activity; 147 companies were not found on the addresses provided by INSTAT (97 + 274 + 147 = 518)). These samples were considered in the extrapolation as follows: Reduction of the number of samples for the calculation of the weights No reduction of the size of the overall population (strata sizes remain unchanged) Distribution of enterprises using of off-grid power plants Q5. Do you use an off grid power Frequency plant? 1,247 No 1,811 (+ 60) = 1,871 Yes 518 NA (Refused 97; Closed Activity 274; Not found 147) 3,636 Total Exclusion of plants, not used during the year 2007
Percent 34.3 51.5 14.2 100.0
page 100
Referring to the question Q15 (When you have started to use the off grid power plant?) 109 plants have started the operation of the off- grid plant only in the year 2008. Thus these questionnaires were excluded in the database for the year 2007. After this exclusion 1,871- 109 = 1,762 questionnaires (= off- grid power plants) were eligible and delivered values for electricity generated in the year 2007. This step aims to exclude those power plants from the sample or other data source which cannot be considered as off-grid power plants according to the definition provided above. To this end, exclude those plants from the sample or other source of information for which one of the three following conditions is not met: GRIDp = true; SWITCHp = true; Whenever the grid is reliable and stable, the consumers purchase electricity only from the grid and the off-grid power plant is not operating. This can be demonstrated in one of the following ways: (a) OMCp,y > TEL,p,y; or (b) Log book data on the hours of operation of the off-grid power plant p and the quality and availability of grid supply clearly shows that the plant only operated when the grid was not reliable and stable; or (c) Demonstrate that OMC > TEL once for all off-grid power plants included in a class of offgrid power plants and a sector by showing that this condition generally applies to all plants in the class and sector, e.g. using the fuel costs (e.g. official statistics or projections on fuel prices), the efficiency of the plants in that class (e.g. using typical the default efficiencies provided in Annex 1) and relevant information on electricity purchase costs in the sector (e.g. statistics on electricity prices). Exclusion of the plants, which are supplying the equipments not connected to the grid power (GRIDp = true/false) Through the question Q22 (Are all parts (electricity consumer equipment) of your company supplied by the electricity grid?), it was possible to identify off- grid plants without a connection to the national grid power system. There were 4 cases, which have to be excluded from the database because they are supplying some equipment not connected to the grid power system. Thus 1758 questionnaires are eligible under the off- grid survey and are considered for determination of the extrapolation weights. Exclusion of plants which are not able to switch from grid to off- grid and from off- grid to grid (SWITCHp = true/false) The plants which are not able to switch from grid to off- grid and from off- grid to the grid are easily identified through the question Q23 (Can the company switch from grid to off-grid and from off-grid to grid?). Based on this condition, all the remaining off- grid plants were eligible. Thus, no other off- grid plant was excluded from the database.
page 101
Proof that whenever the grid power system will be stable and reliable the consumers switch to the grid power system because of lower cost. The proof was conducted according to approach (c) of Step 2 of Annex 2 of the Tool in the following manner: 1. In every questionnaire the tariff class (TEL) is given (/kWhel) from the grid (see table about tariffs in Albania below) (1 = 140 LEK; 11 LEK/ kWh = 7.9c/kWh). 2. default of the off- grid power plant (see default values for efficiencies according to Annex 1 of the Tool 3. 1/default (kWh(PEC)/kWhel generated) 4. Conversion from kWh Primary Energy Content (PEC) into liters of fuel (l) by use of NCV of the different fuels 5. Costs of Fuel in (/l) 6. Calculation of specific costs of off- grid electricity (OMC) by multiplication of 4. with 5. (/kWhel) 7. Comparison of OMC (6.) and TEL (1.): OMC has to be higher than TEL
page 102
CAP < 10
Nominal capacity of off grid power plants in [kW] 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000 0.33 3.03 41.4 0.83 34.362 9.55 0.32 0.9 0.29 0.35 2.86 41.4 0.83 34.362 9.55 0.30 0.9 0.27 0.37 2.70 41.4 0.83 34.362 9.55 0.28 0.9 0.25 0.39 2.56 41.4 0.83 34.362 9.55 0.27 0.9 0.24 0.42 2.38 41.4 0.83 34.362 9.55 0.25 0.9 0.22 0.45 2.22 kWh/kWhel 41.4 MJ/kg 0.83 kg/l 34.362 MJ/l 9.55 kWh/l 0.23 [l] 0.9 */l+ 0.21 */kWhel]
default 1/default
NCV Diesel (lower value) Density
0.28 3.57 41.4 0.83 34.362 9.55 0.37 0.9 0.34
needed Diesel for 1 kWhel Cost per l Diesel */l+ (2007) Costs per kWhel */kWhel]
page 103
CAP < 10
Nominal capacity of off grid power plants in [kW] 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000 0.33 3.03 44.3 0.35 2.86 44.3 0.37 2.70 44.3 0.39 2.56 44.3 0.42 2.38 44.3 0.45 2.22 kWh/kWhel 44.3 MJ/kg
default 1/default
NCV Gasoline
0.28 3.57 44.3
Density
0.72 31.896 8.86 0.40 0.9 0.36
0.72 31.896 8.86 0.34 0.9 0.31
0.72 31.896 8.86 0.32 0.9 0.29
0.72 31.896 8.86 0.31 0.9 0.27
0.72 31.896 8.86 0.29 0.9 0.26
0.72 31.896 8.86 0.27 0.9 0.24
0.72 kg/l 31.896 MJ/l 8.86 kWh/l 0.25 [l] 0.9 */l+ 0.23 */kWhel]
needed gasoline for 1 kWhel Cost per l gasoline */l+ (2007) Costs per kWhel */kWhel]
The calculations summarized in the tables above show that OMCp,y > TEL,p,y for all the off-grid power plants even if only the fuel costs are taken into consideration in order to be conservative. Thus no offgrid power plant had to be excluded based on this condition. At the end of the exclusion process the database composed of 1,762 4 = 1,758 eligible off- grid plants. Step 3: Aggregate data according to classes of off-grid power plants In the case of direct use of the data on a plant-by-plant basis (Option a in the introduction to Step 1), allocate the collected data to the classes of off-grid power plants. The electricity generation of the directly sampled off grid power plants in the year 2007 amounts to 174,000 MWh. The sum of the capacities of all the sampled off- grid power plants amounts to 239 MW. These figures are just given for illustration. In the underlying off- grid study a statistical extrapolation for the total population was performed (see following clause below). In the case of a statistical evaluation of the data based on sampling (Option b in the introduction to Step 1), allocate the collected data to the applicable stratum. Use the results of the survey to derive global estimates for the total population, for each class of off-grid power plants m, adjusting conservatively for the uncertainty at a 95% confidence level.98 The extrapolation is done on strata level according to the procedure summarized in the following table: Extrapolation weights for the 49 determined strata of the overall population
98
Note that this should not include power plants which did not qualify as off-grid following the procedures in Step 2.
page 104
Strata
1 Dega = C And Size = 1 2 Dega = D And Size = 1 3 Dega = E And Size = 1 4 Dega = F And Size = 1 5 Dega = G And Size = 1 6 Dega = H And Size = 1 7 Dega = I And Size = 1 8 Dega = J And Size = 1 9 Dega = K And Size = 1 10 Dega = M And Size = 1 11 Dega = N And Size = 1 12 Dega = O And Size = 1 13 Dega = C And Size = 2 14 Dega = D And Size = 2 15 Dega = E And Size = 2 16 Dega = F And Size = 2 17 Dega = G And Size = 2 18 Dega = H And Size = 2 19 Dega = I And Size = 2 20 Dega = J And Size = 2 21 Dega = K And Size = 2 22 Dega = M And Size = 2 23 Dega = N And Size = 2 24 Dega = O And Size = 2 25 Dega = C And Size =3 26 Dega = D And Size = 3 27 Dega = E And Size = 3 28 Dega = F And Size = 3 29 Dega = G And Size = 3 30 Dega = H And Size = 3 31 Dega = I And Size = 3 32 Dega = J And Size = 3 33 Dega = K And Size = 3 34 Dega = M And Size = 3 35 Dega = N And Size = 3 36 Dega = O And Size = 3 37 Dega = C And Size = 4 38 Dega = D And Size = 4 39 Dega = E And Size = 4 40 Dega = F And Size = 4 41 Dega = G And Size = 4 42 Dega = H And Size = 4 43 Dega = I And Size = 4 44 Dega = J And Size = 4 45 Dega = K And Size = 4 46 Dega = M And Size = 4 47 Dega = N And Size = 4 48 Dega = O And Size = 4 49 Strata VIP
Strata 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Total
Population Size 5 183 27 52 9 10 22 3 51 71 98 38 49 505 31 731 235 67 97 13 170 61 318 135 73 625 17 721 951 299 239 46 233 101 144 184 216 6,629 30 2,743 41,039 11,657 7,778 227 3,805 486 1,212 3,586 729 86,751
Sample Size 5 183 27 52 9 10 22 3 51 71 98 38 7 72 7 101 40 9 13 6 25 9 44 19 6 56 7 66 89 26 20 7 18 9 12 16 7 132 7 53 820 233 155 7 76 9 24 71 729 3,576
Initial Weight 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 7.0000 7.0139 4.4286 7.2376 5.8750 7.4444 7.4615 2.1667 6.8000 6.7778 7.2273 7.1053 12.1667 11.1607 2.4286 10.9242 10.6854 11.5000 11.9500 6.5714 12.9444 11.2222 12.0000 11.5000 30.8571 50.2197 4.2857 51.7547 50.0476 50.0300 50.1806 32.4286 50.0658 54.0000 50.5000 50.5070 1.0000 739.4687
Refused 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 3 0 3 0 1 2 55 97
NonClosed Contact 0 20 1 4 1 1 1 0 7 10 3 3 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 4 2 2 7 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 14 2 7 77 16 10 1 6 0 5 10 37 274
Do not qualify 0 8 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 6 0 3 35 7 4 0 5 0 1 5 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
True Sample
4 152 25 45 7 8 19 1 42 59 94 33 7 62 6 88 39 8 13 6 23 8 43 14 5 52 5 56 77 21 18 5 14 8 12 14 6 112 5 43 702 206 138 6 62 9 17 54 603 3056
147
Weight 1.2500 1.2039 1.0800 1.1556 1.2857 1.2500 1.1579 3.0000 1.2143 1.2034 1.0426 1.1515 7.0000 8.1452 5.1667 8.3068 6.0256 8.3750 7.4615 2.1667 7.3913 7.6250 7.3953 9.6429 14.6000 12.0192 3.4000 12.8750 12.3506 14.2381 13.2778 9.2000 16.6429 12.6250 12.0000 13.1429 36.0000 59.1875 6.0000 63.7907 58.4601 56.5874 56.3623 37.8333 61.3710 54.0000 71.2941 66.4074 1.2090 875.5711
Since the estimation of the variances was not satisfying a reasonable strategy to improve the estimation of variances is the collapsing of strata with few observations only. The collapsing was applied to the 4 economic sectors with least number of companies according to the scheme determined in the following table.
page 105
Number of eligible NON-VIP Companies in the Sample
Size of company 50+ 10-49 5-9 1-4 employees employees employees employees Section of Mining and Economic quarrying Activity Manufacturing 2 1 1 2
total 6
141
49
38
70
298
Electricity, gas and water supply Construction
14
20
33
48
29
13
123
Wholesale and retail trade Hotels and restaurants Transport, storage and communication Financial intermediation Real estate, renting and business activities Education
25
45
284
359
14
131
156
11
18
39
23
11
26
69
30
38
Health and social work Other community, social and personal service activities Total
65
11
89
14
10
10
34
68
344
171
162
597
1274
Due to the collapsing of strata the weights had to be recalculated as for the collapsed strata extrapolation is based on the total economic sector irrespective of the size of the company. The result of this recalculation is summarized in the following table.
page 106
Strata
1 Dega = C And Size = 1 2 Dega = D And Size = 1 3 Dega = E And Size = 1 4 Dega = F And Size = 1 5 Dega = G And Size = 1 6 Dega = H And Size = 1 7 Dega = I And Size = 1 8 Dega = J And Size = 1 9 Dega = K And Size = 1 10 Dega = M And Size = 1 11 Dega = N And Size = 1 12 Dega = O And Size = 1 13 Dega = C And Size = 2 14 Dega = D And Size = 2 15 Dega = E And Size = 2 16 Dega = F And Size = 2 17 Dega = G And Size = 2 18 Dega = H And Size = 2 19 Dega = I And Size = 2 20 Dega = J And Size = 2 21 Dega = K And Size = 2 22 Dega = M And Size = 2 23 Dega = N And Size = 2 24 Dega = O And Size = 2 25 Dega = C And Size =3 26 Dega = D And Size = 3 27 Dega = E And Size = 3 28 Dega = F And Size = 3 29 Dega = G And Size = 3 30 Dega = H And Size = 3 31 Dega = I And Size = 3 32 Dega = J And Size = 3 33 Dega = K And Size = 3 34 Dega = M And Size = 3 35 Dega = N And Size = 3 36 Dega = O And Size = 3 37 Dega = C And Size = 4 38 Dega = D And Size = 4 39 Dega = E And Size = 4 40 Dega = F And Size = 4 41 Dega = G And Size = 4 42 Dega = H And Size = 4 43 Dega = I And Size = 4 44 Dega = J And Size = 4 45 Dega = K And Size = 4 46 Dega = M And Size = 4 47 Dega = N And Size = 4 48 Dega = O And Size = 4 49 Strata VIP
Strata 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 26 28 29 30 31 33 35 36 38 40 41 42 43 45 47 48 49 Total
Population Size 343 183 105 52 9 10 22 289 51 719 98 38 505 731 235 67 97 170 318 135 625 721 951 299 239 233 144 184 6,629 2,743 41,039 11,657 7,778 3,805 1,212 3,586 729 86,751
Sample Size 25 183 48 52 9 10 22 23 51 98 98 38 72 101 40 9 13 25 44 19 56 66 89 26 20 18 12 16 132 53 820 233 155 76 24 71 729 3,576
Initial Weight 13.7200 1.0000 2.1875 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 12.5652 1.0000 7.3367 1.0000 1.0000 7.0139 7.2376 5.8750 7.4444 7.4615 6.8000 7.2273 7.1053 11.1607 10.9242 10.6854 11.5000 11.9500 12.9444 12.0000 11.5000 50.2197 51.7547 50.0476 50.0300 50.1806 50.0658 50.5000 50.5070 1.0000 596.9448
Refused 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 4 3 3 1 2 55 97
NonDo not qualify Closed Contact 2 0 20 5 4 1 1 1 1 7 12 3 3 4 4 0 1 0 1 0 4 4 2 7 4 0 0 0 1 14 7 77 16 10 6 5 10 37 274 8 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 3 0 2 3 0 1 6 3 35 7 4 5 1 5 33 147
True Sample
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 22 152 41 45 7 8 19 18 42 84 94 33 62 88 39 8 13 23 43 14 52 56 77 21 18 14 12 14 112 43 702 206 138 62 17 54
Weight 15.5909 1.2039 2.5610 1.1556 1.2857 1.2500 1.1579 16.0556 1.2143 8.5595 1.0426 1.1515 8.1452 8.3068 6.0256 8.3750 7.4615 7.3913 7.3953 9.6429 12.0192 12.8750 12.3506 14.2381 13.2778 16.6429 12.0000 13.1429 59.1875 63.7907 58.4601 56.5874 56.3623 61.3710
71.2941 66.4074 603 1.2090 3056 716.1880
The 1,758 eligible off-grid plants were allocated to the different UNFCCC classes defined under Step 1.2 of Annex 2 of the Tool.
page 107
The general Hansen-Hurwitz estimation principle has been applied for the extrapolation of the sampled data. For the calculation of the confidence intervals for UNFCC-Classes the estimation had to be applied to each UNFCC-Class separately, leading to domain estimation which was applied. In fact this means only observations belonging to the UNFCC-Class contribute in this case to estimation (see SPSS documentation for details and formulas). The results of the survey were used to derive global estimates for the total population, for each class of off-grid power plants m, adjusting conservatively for the uncertainty at a 95% confidence level. The results are summarized in the following table. Energy produced from the off grid power plants within the determined 23 UNFCCC classes
page 108
Energy produced from off- grid power plants for the year 2007 in (MWh)
Estimation Class 1 : Cap=1, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 2 : Cap=1, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Class 3 : Cap=1, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=3 Class 4 : Cap=1, Tech=1, Fuel=G, Age=1 Class 5 : Cap=1, Tech=1, Fuel=G, Age=2 Class 6 : Cap=1, Tech=1, Fuel=G, Age=3 Class 7 : Cap=2, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 8 : Cap=2, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Class 9 : Cap=2, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=3 Class 13 : Cap=3, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 14 : Cap=3, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Class 15 : Cap=3, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=3 Class 19 : Cap=4, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 20 : Cap=4, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Class 21 : Cap=4, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=3 Class 25 : Cap=5, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 26 : Cap=5, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Class 27 : Cap=5, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=3 Class 31 : Cap=6, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 32 : Cap=6, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Class 33 : Cap=6, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=3 Class 37 : Cap=7, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=1 Class 38 : Cap=7, Tech=1, Fuel=D, Age=2 Standard deviation 2,950 1,700 657 3,316 720 534 16,522 7,853 2,448 2,664 774 933 5,448 5,032 1,197 9,333 7,241 481 19,735 10,335 7,051 35,544 14,091 95%-Confidence intervall Lower Level 32,527 6,629 0 13,131 1,066 493 171,478 32,329 700 3,419 1,820 242 25,247 10,126 247 29,349 8,849 1,668 67,940 14,227 1,811 26,466 22,944 Upper Level 44,099 13,298 2,402 26,141 3,891 2,586 236,287 63,135 10,301 13,869 4,856 3,901 46,615 29,866 4,942 65,958 37,255 3,554 145,352 54,766 29,469 165,896 78,217 Unweighted amount of samples 282 79 7 197 34 14 392 133 24 87 50 18 120 58 10 62 34 15 61 32 9 19 21
38,313 9,963 1,113 19,636 2,478 1,539 203,883 47,732 5,500 8,644 3,338 2,072 35,931 19,996 2,594 47,654 23,052 2,611 106,646 34,497 15,640 96,181 50,580
779,594
156,557
472,708
1,086,656
1758.0
page 109
Step 4: Assess the extent of off-grid power The effects of feeding additional electricity to the grid or saving electricity demand on off-grid power plants connected to the system are associated with significant uncertainty. For this reason, a significant amount of off-grid power should exist to include these plants in the grid emission factor. The inclusion of off-grid power plants in the grid emission factor is only allowed if one of the following two conditions are met: The total capacity of off-grid power plants (in MW) is at least 10% of the total capacity of grid power plants in the electricity system; or The total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) is at least 10% of the total power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system.
If one of these conditions are not met, then off-grid power plants cannot be included in the calculation of the grid emission factor of the electricity system. Otherwise, proceed to next step. There is an inconsistence in the underlined sections from above, which was not solved in the revised Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0). The off- grid study for Albania was done for the year 2007. According to Step 3 of the Tool data from one single calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission of the CDM-PDD for validation has to be used. 2007 is within this timeframe, thus this requirement is fulfilled. The extrapolated off grid generation for the year 2007 amounted to approx. 472,708 MWh (lower level of the confidence interval). This is equal to 16.3% of the total power generation of power plants connected to the Albanian grid in the year 2007. The total power generation for the year 2007 amounted to 2,892,974 MWh (inclusive thermal power; without imports). Since the installed capacity of all (sampled) off-grid power plants in operation amounts to 239 MW, which is equal to 15.7 % of the total installed capacity of 1,523 MW both above mentioned requirements are met. Step 5: Assess the reliability and stability of the grid and that this is primarily due to constraints in generation, and not to other aspects such as transmission capacity It has to be demonstrated that the grid to which project participants have access is not reliable and not stable and that this is primarily due to constraints in generation and not due to other issues, such as limited transmission capacity. To this end, it needs to be demonstrated that Shortages, blinks, black-outs, load shedding and/or large variations in frequency and voltage ranges are common practice in the grid operation. Supporting evidence describing the number, duration and extent of events related to instability and unreliability of the grid has to be provided based on project participants or third parties statistics or surveys; and This situation is primarily due to constraints in generation, and not to other aspects such as transmission capacity.
page 110
The reliability and stability of the grid was discussed between VeVe and OST (KESH). It was demonstrated that the instability of the grid is (was) primarily due to constraints in generation, and not to other aspects such as transmission capacity (see attached Letter of OST) below.
page 111
Annex 4 MONITORING INFORMATION
DEVOLL HPP - MONITORING PLAN 2020 to 2030

Purpose
The monitoring plan is designed to monitor the parameters listed in B.7.1 of the PDD, which are required for calculation of the actual Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) achieved by the underlying project activity.
The Project activity requires the monitoring of the following items: a) Net electricity generation by the project activity b) The surface areas of the reservoirs of the power plants when full. c) Installed Capacity of the power plants d) Net electricity imports to the project activity, if any
Ad a) The monitoring of the net electricity generation by the project activity is described in detail below. Ad b) The surface areas of the reservoirs at the full water level will be measured and calculated yearly by using the design schematics and area maps. Photographs of the reservoir at several key locations will be taken when the project becomes operational to check whether the actual reservoir does not deviate substantially from the design. Ad d) No electricity imports is envisaged at the current stage of project development.
Monitoring framework
Objective The objective of the present monitoring plan is to assure the complete, consistent, clear, and accurate monitoring and calculation of the emissions reductions, within the DEVOLL hydropower boundaries, during the crediting period.
page 112
Boundaries
The boundaries of the project activity will remain constant during the entire crediting period as defined in Section B.3. Equipment to be used
The electric energy meters record net energy generation fed to the national grid every hour and stores the data accumulatively. The electricity measurement devices are chosen according to the requirements determined in the electric metering code of Albania. Installation Point of the Electric energy metering equipment
The exact installation points of all the electricity meters are not fixed so far, but it should be done similar to the procedure described as follows: Net Electricity exports of each HPP will be recorded and aggregated monthly at the sub-station at the end of the transmission line connecting the HPPs to the grid. Monitoring of generation and consumption of electricity should be performed on-site by e.g. a bidirectional electricity meter, together with monitoring of exports directly after transformation up to 220kV, the voltage used by the grid for transmissions. The project proponent will keep all relevant receipts for electricity sales. These receipts (or photocopies) will be made available to the auditor at verification.
The on-site data can be used to back-up the generation data from the aforementioned sub-station. Electricity Meter Calibration
Regular calibration will be necessary for the monitoring equipment. The necessary calibration will be performed according to the manufacturers guidelines, or according to the applicable regulations (e.g. the Albanian electric metering code), by a suitably skilled technician at the required frequency (at least once a year). A certificate of calibration will be provided for each piece of equipment after completion. The output meters will be jointly sealed after calibration. Operational and management structure for monitoring the project activity The following figure below outlines the operational and management structure, which the project developer will implement to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects generated by the project activity. An operational team will be formed which will be responsible for monitoring of all the aforementioned monitoring parameters. This team will compose of a DEVOLL Plant Manager and a group of DEVOLL Plant Engineers, who will be in charge of the monitoring processes. The group of DEVOLL Plant Engineers under the supervision of the DEVOLL Plant Manager will be assigned for monitoring of different parameters on a timely basis and will perform the recording and archiving of data in an orderly manner.
page 113
Internal monitoring reports will be forwarded to and reviewed by the DEVOLL Plant Manager on a monthly basis in order to ensure the project activity follows the requirements of the monitoring plan.
DEVOLL Plant Manager
MOGLICE Plant Engineers
KOKEL Plant Engineers
BANJA Plant Engineers
Data Archiving
Data Archiving
Data Archiving
Training of the monitoring personnel Personnel, who carry out the monitoring functions, are trained continuously. New personnel have to follow up a training program and are formed in the specific skills required to carry out the Monitoring Plan. The training contains CDM knowledge, operational regulations, quality control (QC), data monitoring requirements and data management regulations, etc. The DEVOLL plant manager carries out regular refresher trainings. Minutes are made by the Plant Manager after every training course. Measuring procedure 1. Measuring and recording frequency The Plant Engineers read the meter monthly, report it in a spreadsheet (see tables below) and store the data separately from the electronically saved data. The meter readings and data discharge of the monitoring month takes place at the last day of every month. The DEVOLL plant manager controls and verifies the monthly aggregated data of all three power plants. Moglice Hydropower Plant Year Month January February March
Monthly Generation (MWh)
page 114
April May June July August September October November December Total Kokel Hydropower Plant Year Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Banja Hydropower Plant Year Month January February March April May June July August September October November
page 115
December Total 2. Verification and Quality Control (QC) of the measurement The measurements are done according to national or international standards (like the ELECTRIC METERING CODE of Albania). Currently DHP still negotiates the transmission network connection and electric energy injection agreement with OST. This agreement will fulfil all requirements determined in the metering code. The person in charge of monitoring will verify the accuracy of the recorded energy data in the hydro power plant. Data will need to be compared against the information of the commercial measurements published by (OST). The commercial measurement of exported energy to the grid, is combined with DEVOLL hydropower plant, and is validated monthly by (OST or DHP). DEVOLL hydropower energy measurement should be (nearly) equal to the commercial measurement. If the measurements are not exactly equal the smaller figures are used to stay on the conservative side. The net electricity generation from Moglice; Kokel and Banja HPP is obtained from the data reported by the Plant Engineers. If the electricity measurements are disproportionate to the jointly commercial measurement, the person in charge of monitoring process has to investigate a possible damage in the meters and report the non conformance. At each HPP site at least one back up electricity meter has to be kept in reserve.
3. Calculation of the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) The person in charge of monitoring calculates the Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) for each year of the crediting period in a spreadsheet, where the Grid Emissions Factor (GEF) is determined ex ante according to Section B.6.1. The spreadsheet used may looks as follows: Calculation of the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) for DEVOLL HPP: fixed 10-years crediting period A Annual validated generation (MWh) B Emission factor (ton CO2/MWh) C Baseline emissions (ton CO2) A*B D Project emissions (ton CO2) E Emission Reductions (ton CO2) C-D
Year
01/07/202 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
page 116
2026 2027 2028 2029 30/06/203 0 Sum Data management All data collected as part of monitoring plan should be archived electronically and be kept for at least 2 years after the end of the last crediting period. Monitoring report Monitoring reports for verification by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) will be prepared on a yearly basis as follows: The DEVOLL plant manager will issue an annual monitoring report in line with CDM regulations and the requirements of this monitoring methodology. The monitoring report will contain a summary of the whole monitoring plan and will describe the implementation of the monitoring plan in that particular year, present the relevant results and data and calculate emission reductions for this period. The report will include: Quality assurance (QA) reports for the monitoring equipment; Calibration reports for the monitoring equipment (including relevant standards and regulations); Any maintenance and repair of monitoring equipment; The qualifications of the persons responsible for the monitoring and calculations; The tests performed and data obtained; Emission reduction calculations; A summary of the monitoring plan in that particular year; Any other information relevant to the monitoring plan. The performance of the project activity will be reviewed and analyzed by the consultants on a regular basis.
page 117
Annex 5
INFORMATION REGARDING STAKEHOLDERS
Photos: DHP Public Information Centre, Gramsh
page 118
Photos: Impressions from MIS (information meetings held in different communities (clockwise: Cingar i Poshtem, Drize, Moglice and in Gjergjovine 2)
page 119
Photo: Impression of the Public Hearing from March 25th 2010 in the Cultural House in Gramsh, Albania
page 120
Screenshot of DHP website
page 121
Annex 6 NOTIFICATION LETTER TO THE ALBANIAN DNA AND UNFCCC SECRETARIAT/CDM PRIOR CONSIDERATION
page 122

Devoll Hydro Power (DHP), Albania

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

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

Devoll Hydro Power (DHP), Albania

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

Description of the project activity:

Name of Party involved (host)

Albania (host Party) Austria Norway

Figure 1: Map of Albania

Middle Plant (HPP2) HPP Kokel20

rpm years MVA kV years kV Hz years (m) km2 HPP Kokel

MW MW rpm years Hz MW MVA rpm years MVA kV years kV Hz years

Francis 3 Vertical 32.851 64.6 300 50 Francis Horizontal 1.252 1000 50

110 50 40 Clay core embankment dam 80 14.11 44

Aplicability conditions of ACM0002

Fulfilment of applicability criterion

The proposed project activity is

the development and installation of a hydropower plant.

Excluded Excluded Included Excluded Excluded

Project life-time (years of operation)

Financial model of the Business Plan, Spreadsheet FCF

Start of operational generation

01/07/2015 01/12/2017 01/10/2018

Installed capacity Annual gross generation Losses (for auxiliary services

When all 3 plants are operational Base: gross generation

Wholesale Power Price (Base Load)

EUR inflation 2.25 in 2008, increased by EUR inflation rate 3,000

FSR, Executive Summary, Page 9

Value in year 2010, then increased by EUR inflation rate

Depreciation EUR inflation rate

90% 9,6% 8,2% 8,2%

95% 9,2% 8,5% 8,5%

100% 8,9% 8,9% 8,9%

105% 8,6% 9,2% 9,2%

110% 8,3% 9,5% 9,5%

No date indicated in the document 10. 29/09/2009

English translation: Confidentiality agreement

11. 20/10/2009 12. 01/02/2010

13. 11/2010 14. 22/12/2010

15. July 2011

Installed Capacity (MW) 22.5 5 5 25 24 250 500 600 9.2

HPP Gjanc HPP Bogove

BEy = EGPJ,y x EFgrid,CM,y Where: BEy = EGPJ,y = EFgrid,CM,y =

(1) Where: PEy = PEFF,y = PEGP,y = PEHP,y =

64,600,000 36,200,000 171,200,000 4.578 50.986 23.745

ERy = BEy PEy Where: ERy BEy PEy

(1) Where: EF grid,OMsimple,y = EG m,y = EF EL,m,y = m= y=

(3) Where: EFEL,m,y = EFCO2,m,i,y = m,y = m= y=

(4) Where: EGm,y = FCi,m,y = NCV i,y = m,y = m= y= i=

This information shall be provided by the host country.

A EGm Net Electricity Generation

Name of Power Plant

Diesel Gasoline Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel

EFgrid,OM,y = wOM = wBM =

Timing of project output

Source of data used: Value applied:

Value applied: Justification of the choice of data or description of

Provided in Annex 3 Application of IPCC default values.

Latest information of DHP to the start of operation are given as follows:

Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Any comment: Data / Parameter: Data unit: Description:

Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording

Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording

New calculation once at the first year of crediting period.

Check the generators nameplates annually.

Banja HRWL surface area [m] 14,110,000

Indicate if the person/entity is also a project participant listed in Annex 1