1 / 18

Baseline methodologies in the power generation sector

Baseline methodologies in the power generation sector. “High-level Roundtable on CDM Reform” Session 3 October 5 th , 2005 World Bank Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Marcos Castro, mcastro@ambiente.gov.ec Ecuadorian CDM Promotion Office. Brief review….

lesley-good
Download Presentation

Baseline methodologies in the power generation sector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Baseline methodologies in the power generation sector “High-level Roundtable on CDM Reform” Session 3 October 5th, 2005 World Bank Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Marcos Castro, mcastro@ambiente.gov.ec Ecuadorian CDM Promotion Office

  2. Brief review… • Approved meths for electricity projects up to date • Consolidated meth: some critical issues • Improving methodological tools (power generation sector case)

  3. Why focus (in this presentation) on meths for CDM power generation projects? • demand for electricity is growing rapidly in many CDM host countries • many projects in the electricity sector are being developed as potential CDM projects • assessing additionality & baselines is often more difficult for projects in the electricity sector, i.a.: • project “boundaries”  grid • BAU capacity additions vs. proposed CDM activities • much work has been done on assessing appropriate methods to determine baselines in the electricity sector.

  4. Approved meths for electricity projectsby September 05 Overall: 19 meths (incl. 4 SSC-meths) • 3 (1 ACM) --- Renewable energies (w/o biomass) • 4 (1 ACM (tbc)) --- Biomass power generation • 5 (1 ACM) --- Biogas PG (LFG, wastewater, animal waste) • 3 (1 ACM) --- Others (waste heat; fuel-switch) • 4 --- SSC meths: grid-connected, fuel-switch, etc. Well covered sector by approved methodologies… but: • Some particular project types/circumstances not addressed yet • Balance between broad applicability and accurate results ensured?

  5. Projects in the pipeline using these methsby September 05 Out of 142 projects: at least at validation stage • 33 (23 ACM) --- Renewable energies • 29 (/ ACM) --- Biomass power generation • 4 (3 ACM) --- Others (waste heat; fuel-switch) • [ 29 (20 ACM) --- Biogas w/o power generation ] 97 out of 141 SSC-projects • 80 --- grid-connected SSC meth

  6. Determination of additionality Once adopted, broad incorporation of “additionality tool” in newly approved methodologies. • Despite not mandatory, precedent has been set for addressing assessment of additionality  discussions on requirements of “additionality tool” • Incorporation of additionality tool in baseline methodologies: has been consistency ensured between (i) baseline scenario development and (ii) demonstration of project additionality? • ACM002: recent guidance, but still general • Feedback with ongoing EB work on treatment of national/sectoral policies & regulations (↔ AT Step1)

  7. CEF calculation approach: rationale • Weighted-average • Operating margin: reflects the effect of the project on grid operation • Build margin: reflects the effect of the project on grid expansion • Combined margin: reflects a project’s short-term effect on the OM and longer-term effect on BM. Different choices for CEF calculation methods can significantly impact the level of baseline emissions, and consequently, the number of CERs generated.

  8. CEF calculation method • Weighted average: 1 • Operating margin : / • Build margin: / • Combined margin: 8  incorporation of ACM002: 6 • AVG/OM: 2 • [displaced fossil EF: 2 ] • [no claim of ER: 2 ]

  9. Combined margin approach is becoming the preferred (standard ?) approach for EF calculation. • It does not clearly fit into one of the three baseline approaches (based on actual emissions & on emissions from planned plants). • Notwithstanding, it is perceived as a comprehensive approach to setting baselines, since it reflects a project’s short-term effect on the operating margin and longer-term effect on the build margin. • It is supposed to be flexible: if justified by specific system & project circumstances, participants may propose particular weightings (but: weightings to be approved by EB).

  10. Consolidated meth ACM002 Objectives of meth consolidation • Reduce methodological uncertainty & accelerate the process of providing ‘approved’ methodological guidance • Reduce transaction costs • Clarify and, to some extent, simplify the application of methodologies in PDD development

  11. Some critical aspects of consolidation as carried on by EB: • Consolidation ↔ standardization • Scope of consolidation: went beyond approved methodologies / elements • Trade-off: gain methodological certainty but accept some arbitrary guidance • Limited participation of interested stakeholders along the consolidation process, due to feedback mechanisms

  12. Some key features • Applicability: grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources • excludes: hydro projects involving construction of reservoirs • adjusted versions for biomass & biogas projects • new revision: projects that retrofit existing capacity • Additionality • “Consolidated additionality tool” shall be used • Baseline scenario • “System operation & expansion without proposed CDM project” • Shall be consistent with “alternative scenario assessment” carried on with additionality tool (revised version)

  13. Some key features (2) • Baseline emissions: calculation of emission factor (EF) • Ex-ante or ex-post calculation • Project participants may choose • Combined margin approach (CM) • 4 OM EF calc methods (with conditions for choosing method) • 2 BM EF calc methods (dito) • Default weighting: 0.5 OM + 0.5 BM = grid EF • Alternative weightings: need EB consideration ( discussion paper) • Leakage • Considered negligible; do not need to be accounted for. • Monitoring • Linked monitoring meth; straightforward (relies on dispatch centre data).

  14. Does it sufficiently allow to account for national circumstances? • While broad applicability conditions, limited space for incorporating specific characteristics of system expansion & operation • Calculation methods include some mandatory tresholds & parameters, that may significantly affect ER calculations (simplification rather than conservativeness!). • Choice of OM & BM calculation methods • Weightings for CM • Sound guidance pending for justifying other weightings • Electricity imports • EF= 0 tC02/MWh

  15. Data vintage • Data intensive? • Depends on methods selected by a particular project. • Official dispatch data preferred, but works also with aggregated data. • Avoids application of “black box” models • Least-cost planning tools ( backwards looking BM calculation) • Dispatch simulation models ( if selected, ex post dispatch analysis)

  16. Smoothening the process… • Int’l regulatory/administrative level • EB has adopted procedures for requests for clarifications & revisions of approved meths • Window is open for submitting new or adjusted meths that better reflect national circumstances • e.g. Chile / Colombia • But: measures that will improve pace of meth review process? • National institutional level • Mainstreaming the CDM in the national power sector ( appealing sector) • Involvement of sector agencies as to address tasks that will smoothen the CDM project development cycle

  17. Improving the process… (2) • Key tasks at national level (basic agenda with sector agencies) • Ensure access to consistent grid operation & expansion information • Develop sound sector reference scenario • Agree on baseline emission factors (OM / BM / weighting procedures) • Arrange procedures for official reporting of i.a. updated ex-ante EF & monitored ex-post EF • Significant impact on timelines & transaction costs • PDD development; • Approval/validation/registration; verification

  18. Gracias!

More Related