Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

Retrofit for
Improvement
of Efficiency
or Increase in
Capacity?
Box 45: Issues related to the inclusion of new baseline scenarios (continued)
In addition, several cases where submitted for projects that aim to improve
the efficiency of an existing facility 297 . The first request arose from an agriindustrial
facility that wants to claim emissions reductions by improving its energy
production and consumption. The MP rejected the request on the premise that
the proponent assumed in its calculation that an increase in the project’s own
energy efficiency – whether assessed by an increase in the amount of electricity
directed to the grid or by an increase in the amount of biomass residues used by
the plant – was necessarily triggered by the CDM activity. The MP argued that a
decrease in production at the facility would reduce the facility’s need for electricity
and increase the quantity of it may export to the grid. Alternatively, an increase in
production at the facility could lead to an overall increase in energy production,
subsequently increasing the electricity exported to the grid. In both cases, the MP
considered that such potential increase of exported electricity would arise without
the input of the CDM component, and therefore the project proponent should
not be allowed to claim CERs from the additional electricity exported to the grid.
Another request for an energy efficiency project was later rejected by the MP
on similar grounds. First, though one of the project’s aims was to reduce its
own energy consumption, it did not explicitly specify what measures would be
undertaken to reduce its heat and electricity. Additionally, the project proponent
did not provide an adequate procedure for assessing its baseline scenario
throughout the crediting period. The proponent assumed that its energy intensity
demand would not change over time, without considering the eventual necessary
replacement of the existing equipment leading to a reduction in the project’s own
energy need.
Combined
Additionality Tool
to be used
263
To prove additionality, project proponents should perform a thorough
additionality test as per the latest version of the “Combined tool to identify
the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”. Similarly, ACM0006
recommend proponents to use the same Tool to properly assess their baseline
scenario.
Baseline emissions
Baseline emissions include two main sources: (i) the CO 2
emissions arising
from fossil fuel consumption by existing electrical power plants on the site
of the project or by electrical power plants connected to the grid that the
project contributes to displacing; and (ii) the CO 2
emissions attributable to
the production of the thermal energy the project contributes to displacing.
Methane
Emissions can
be covered in
Baseline
Different
Baselines required
for different Types
of Residues
In cases where the most plausible baseline scenario for the biomass residues
used by the project is that the biomass residues would be dumped and left to
decay in an aerobic or anaerobic state or burned in an uncontrolled manner,
project proponents may choose to account for the CH 4
emissions mitigated
by the project through the diversion of the biomass residues.
Issues specific to projects using different types of biomass residues: Projects
that use different types of biomass residues or similar biomass residues but
from difference sources should develop separate baseline calculation for each
type of biomass residue. Similarly, biomass residues with different end uses in
the absence of the project should also be treated as different residues and be
accounted for separately in the baseline assessment.
263
See AM_REV_0006, AM_REV_0015, AM_REV_0044, and AM_REV_0062
116