Understanding CDM Methodologies - SuSanA

Pre-Project
Metering for
Retrofits
Detailed
Monitoring of
Scrapping
Definition of
Retrofits changed
to include
Modifications
Metering of
Energy Use
through Proxies
Monitoring:
For retrofits, the energy use of the facility “affected” by the project shall be
metered. The methodology does not specify for which period the pre-project
situation has to be metered.
For new facilities, only the energy of the new facility is to be metered.
Monitoring under a PoA: Monitoring should be conducted to check if the
number of the equipments distributed by the small-scale CPA coincides
with the number of the scrapped equipment. Equipment scrapped should
be stored until the completion of this check. The scrapping of replaced
equipment should be documented and independently verified.
Simplifications for the small-scale methodology: As compared to
ACM0012, AMS-II.D applies default emission factors and does not define a
minimum period of data for the pre-project energy use. There is no need to
apply conservative values for the efficiency of replaced equipment.
Challenges encountered in the application of the methodology
The main challenges encountered so far in the application of AMS-II.D were i)
definition of retrofits, ii) metering of energy use and iii) additionality testing.
Definition of retrofits: For the project “Installation of Additional Urea
Trays in Urea Reactors (11/21- R01)” (UNFCCC no. 0587), in October 2006,
a request for review was launched as this project neither replaced existing
equipment nor represented a new facility. It involved a retrofit, the addition
of 5 sieve trays to the existing sieve trays, but not replacement of existing
equipment. The version 7 of AMS II.D. limited retrofit measures to those that
involve replacement of existing equipment with new equipment. The project
was registered and the methodology changed to include “modifications”.
Metering of energy use
For the project 0587, the request for review also addressed the issue that
urea production and steam consumption are monitored but energy use is
only calculated. The validator argued that the manufacturing process for
urea is very complex and has hence has been looked into from an overall
perspective. The parameter of the specific consumption of steam to urea
gives a clear indication of the energy saved. There is, however, no change
foreseen in the consumption of power due to an increased production of
urea. This was the logic adopted for the project monitoring of the urea
production and the steam consumption in the urea plant. The EB accepted
this argument.
With regard to the project “Energy efficiency measures at cement production
plant” (UNFCCC no. 1068) as well as “Energy Efficiency Measures At Cement
Production Plant In Central India” (UNFCCC no. 1072), energy consumption
before and after project was tested for 13 equipment modifications in each
of the two plants on a basis of several hours. The EB required corrections to
correctly describe the unit and frequency of measurement of parameter(s)
representing the energy use of each equipment.
80