# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

|  | Assessment Report for CDM proposed standardized baseline (Version 02.0) |
| --- | --- |
| (To be used by the UNFCCC secretariat in assessing the quality of a proposed standardized baseline only when requested by eligible DNAs.) |  |
| Title of proposed standardized baseline: | Grid Emission Factor for the West African Power Pool |
| Reference of proposed standardized baseline: | ASU\_006: Request for update of ASB0034, ver.1.0 |
| Name(s) of the Party or Parties to which the proposed standardized baseline applies: | Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo |
| Name(s) of the proponent(s) of the proposed standardized baseline: | DNA of Togo |
| History of the submission & assessment: | 1) 16/12/2020: first submission was received 18/12/2020: initial assessment was finalized 20/01/2021: Additional information was requested from the DNA via email. 2) 05/02/2021: second submission was received 10/02/2021: its assessment was finalized 10/02/2021: its QA/QC assessment was finalized |

* * *

| Conclusion: |  |
| --- | --- |
| (a) | The quality assurance and quality control system complied with the provisions and data quality objectives of the valid“Guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of data in the establishment of standardized baselines” |
| (b) | The approach used by this proposed standardized baseline complied with one of the approaches referred to in the valid“Procedure for development, revision, clarification and update of standardized baselines”： |
| Date when the assessment report is complete |  |

| Control and management | Yes |
| --- | --- |
| No |  |
| One and all | N/A |
| Yes |  |
| No |  |
| One of the four approved approaches: |  |
| The “Guidelines for the establishment of sector specific standardized baselines”; |  |
| A methodological approach contained in an approved baseline and monitoring methodology; |  |
| A methodological approach contained in an approved methodological tool “TOOL07: Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (version 07.0); |  |
| The “Guideline: Establishment of standardized baselines for afforestation and reforestation project activities under the CDM”. |  |
| d: | 10/02/2021 |

SECTION A. Summary of Proposed Standardized Baseline

A.1. Scope and application of the proposed standardized baseline

1. The proposed standardized baseline (PSB) is developed for

(a) Additionality demonstration;

2. The update to ASB0034 applies to the power sector for determination of grid emission
   factor in 9 member countries of West African Power Pool (WAPP) including Benin, Burkina
   Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo.

(c) Baseline emission estimation

(b) Baseline identification;

* * *

A.2. Description of the proposed standardized baseline

4. Key data parameters and data sources:

| Key data parameters |
| --- |
| The list of power plants, including the capacity, technology, commissioning date, electricity generated, and fuel consumed by each power plant |
| NCV of fuel used for power generation and CO2 emission factor of the fuel |
| Power plant efficiency default values |

|  | Data sources |
| --- | --- |
|  | Respective utilities and Independent Power Producers(IPPs) from WAPP member countries as followsBenin-SBEE,CEBBurkina Faso-SONABELCôte d’Ivoire-CI-ENERGIES,CIEGhana-VRA,Karpowership,GRIDCOECG,Cenpower,CENIT,NEDCOSunon Asogli,Aksa EnergyMali-SOGEM,EDM-SANiger-NIGELECNigeria-TCN,Mainstream EnergyNorth South Power,Pacific EnergySahara Power,Paras Energy,SapelePower,Transcorp Power,CumminPowerSenegal-Senelec,AprEnergyTogo-Contourglobal,CEET |
|  | IPCC2006 guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories |
|  | TOOL09:Determining the baseline efficiency of thermal or electric energy generation systems |

5. The scope and coverage of the data:

(ii) 65 fuel oil-based power plants;

(iii) 4 coal-based power plants;

(a) The updated ASB0034 identifies the WAPP electricity system (WAPP grid) that has
installed capacity of 26037 MW and includes nine interconnected countries: Benin,
Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo. The
WAPP grid comprises of following power plants as a part of the relevant electricity
system of WAPP:

(iv) 41 hydropower plants;

(v) 1 wind power plants;

(vi) 13 solar power plants; and

* * *

(vii) 1 biogas-based plant.

(b) The data includes key information of each power plant (name, technology, electricity
generation, fuel type/consumption and commissioning data) from WAPP;

(c) The data represent most recent three years i.e. 2017, 2018 and 2019.

6. The DNA used a data template in accordance with the grid tool.

7. The development of the updated ASB0034 includes only grid-connected power plants from
   WAPP.

8. The average of electricity generation from low-cost/must-run (LCMR) plants from 2015 to
   2019 is 27.14 per cent, which is below 50 per cent, hence, simple operating margin (OM)
   method is applied to calculate OM emission factor (EF).

9. The data for 2019 is used for BM calculation.


SECTION B. Summary of Assessment

10. The submission did not include a DOE assessment report. There is a level of ambiguity
    related to the need for a DOE assessment report in regard to this submission. As per
    “Procedure for development, revision, clarification and update of standardized
    baselines” for a new submission of proposed standardized baseline (PSB), for up to 3
    cases, the DOE assessment report is waived, and the task is taken over by the secretariat,
    provided the host country(ies) is/are under-represented country(ies) under the CDM. For
    the case of updates however an equivalent provision is neither explicitly excluded nor
    included. In this specific case, 8 of the 9 DNAs meet the requirement i.e. less than 3 PSBs
    are supported so far. On the other hand, WAPP approved standardized baseline (ASB) is a
    mandatory one and there is no alternative for the project participants if this ASB is not
    updated.

11. DNA informed that the current submission is an update of an ASB and the assessment
    report is not prepared as there is almost no modification to the list of utilities engaged in the
    data collection process, the methodological approach used is same and no changes to the
    interconnected system were identified, and furthermore, no site visits are involved in
    updating the ASB which is in accordance with the procedures. The required data was
    collected and provided directly and officially by utilities, through the WAPP secretariat for
    the desk review of the information to enable the update.

12. Based on the above and further consideration as below, the secretariat and the two Meth
    Panel members assessing this submission concluded that the submission can be
    processed with assessment prepared by the secretariat and reviewed by the MP members:


(d) The Executive Board of the clean development mechanism (CDM) (hereinafter
referred to as the Board), at EB 106, in response to the DNA’s request to extend the validity of the ASB0034, agreed to extend the validity by 1 year i.e. until 26/02/2021.
EB 106 further requested that the DNAs submit information pertaining to plan of
actions including timelines that ensure timely submission of the updated
standardized baseline. Such a plan submitted by the DNA was brought to the
attention of EB 107 and it did not include a step for the preparation of assessment
report by a DOE;

(e) The Board at EB 106 has instructed the secretariat to treat the consideration of new
vs revised submissions of SBs flexibly, so as to avoid creating gap periods between
two approved SBs which may cause difficulties for the PPs;

(f) 8 out of 9 countries (except Senegal) meet the required conditions for waiver if this
submission would have been submitted as a new standardized baseline instead of
update to the existing standardized baseline;

(g) At EB 108, the Board revised the SB procedures to indicate that it may, upon
request from the DNA(s), request the secretariat to provide the technical support to
the DNA(s); and

(h) Further, this ASB is a mandatory standardized baseline and if there is no update to
this ASB then there is risk that project proponents applying earlier version of it will
face a stalemate, as it is unlikely that they can calculate a grid emission factor for
the host country of their project that accounts for electricity exchange among 9
countries in the WAPP.

13. The purpose of assessment conducted by the secretariat is: i) to ensure that the QA/QC
    system implemented by the respective DNAs from WAPP area complies with the provisions
    and data quality objectives of the “Guidelines for quality assurance and quality control of
    data used in the establishment of standardized baselines” (hereinafter referred to as
    QA/QC guidelines); and ii) to ensure that the updated ASB0034 complies with the
    requirements of the grid tool.

14. The assessment consisted of the following:


(a) Review of the documents submitted,

(b) Identification of issues (assessment findings) and draft of the assessment “findings
and resolution” note,

(c) Communication of assessment findings with DNA and request for their resolution
and response,

(i) WAPP SB Update request 2020 form, version 1.0 dated 14/12/2020;

15. A desk review was performed on the following data/information submitted as part of the
    updated ASB0034.

(f) Closing the findings,

(ii) Update to ASB0034 in track change mode;

(iii) Quality Control report for WAPP GEF SB update 2020-12-11;

* * *

(iv) WAPP GEF – Grid Emission Factor Report 2020-12-11;

(v) WAPP GEF Calculation (excel file) 2020-12-06;

(vi) Letter of approval from 9 DNAs from WAPP;

(vii) Meeting reports and interaction letters with the utilities from WAPP.

(b) Additional information and clarification were requested from the DNA on 20/01/2021,
in response to which the DNA requested a conference call.

(c) A conference call was held on 27/01/2021. During the call following issues were
discussed;

(i) QA/QC aspects of data compilation while transferring data from various
utilities into a single spreadsheet;

(ii) Use of option A2 to calculate emission factor of a power plant under operating
margin calculation; and

(iii) Higher emission factor for some of the power plants.

(d) After the conference call, the DNA submitted the revised documents and additional
relevant documents.

(e) Second submission dated 05/02/2021 contains

(i) Response to the clarification requested;

(ii) WAPP SB Update request 2020 form, version 2.0 dated 03/02/2021;

(iii) Update to ASB0034 in track change mode;

(iv) Data received from Utilities and IPPs from WAPP member countries;

(v) Sample communication files between the consultant and the respective utility
and or IPP;

(vi) WAPP GEF – Grid Emission Factor Report 2021-02-02;

(vii) WAPP GEF Calculation (excel file) 2021-02-02; and

B.2. Assessment opinion:

(viii) Quality Control report for WAPP GEF SB update 2021-02-03.

(f) The additional submissions clarified all issues raised by the secretariat.

16. In accordance with the QA/QC guidelines, the secretariat concluded that the all following
    requirements were met by this update request of ASB0034:

* * *

# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

calculation and renewal may be maintained and submitted to DNA to facilitate further transparency and quality control;

(c) All relevant documents and data were available for assessment. The data used in the calculation are available at the WAPP secretariat and with the respective WAPP member utility and IPPs;
(d) The data scope was comprehensive enough to produce a “true and fair” representative standardized baseline;
(e) The key data and information are consistently presented;
(f) The data vintage (three years) was met as per the provisions of the grid tool;
(g) The assumptions and conservative approaches for data processing and calculations were justified.
17\. The secretariat concluded that the updated ASB0034 complied with the approach of the grid tool, the detailed assessment can be found in the table below:

* * *

CDM-PSB-SA-FORM
lectric system was determined by the WAPP secretariat that is r esponsible for the
system (WAPP grid) includes
re, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria,
a, Liberia and Sierra Leone are
newable power plants (41

| Step from the Grid Tool | Assessment |
| --- | --- |
| Step 1: Identify the relevant electricity systems | The project electric system was determined by the WAPP secretariat that is responsible for the update of the WAPP standardized baseline.The WAPP electricity system(WAPP grid) includes nine interconnected countries:Benin,Burkina Faso,Côte d'lvoire,Ghana,Mali,Niger,Nigeria,Senegal and Togo.Currently transmission lines connecting Guinea,Liberia and Sierra Leone are being built and thus these countries were not included in exercise.The WAPP grid is composed by 281 power plants,comprising 56 renewable power plants(41 hydro power plants,13 solar power plants,1 wind power plant and1 biogas-based power plant),156 natural gas-based power plants,65 fuel oil (using Diesel oil,Residual fuel oil,LPG,Kerosene)和4 coal-based power plants.The total installed capacity of WAPP grid in 2019 is 26037 MW.Further,in 2019,the total generation from grid-connected plants is 77,0892.098 TWh and out of this renewable accounted for 27,060.85 TWh(around 34.74% of the total generation). |
| Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system(optional) | The DNA selected Option I i.e. only grid-connected power plants are included in the calculation. |
| Step 3: Select a method to determine the operating margin(OM) | The average of electricity generation from low-cost/must-run(LCMR) plants from 2015 to 2019is 32.60 per cent,which is below 50 per cent,hence,simple operating margin(OM) method is applied to calculate OM emission factor(EF). |
| Step 4: Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method | The calculation of the OM was performed through Option A(Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit)and the EF ELm,ywas determined based on option A1 where data on fuel consumed and electricity generated by each power plant is available.Wherein such data was not available option A2 is used.There are total 25 power plants for whichA2option was used. |

\ \_\\mathrm{M A P P}

E F\_{E L,m,y}

{\\mathrm C O}\_{2}

* * *

\| \| The list of power plants, including the capacity, technology, commissioning date, electricity generated, and fuel consumed by each power plant were sourced from respective utilities from the member countries. The NCV of fuel used for power generation and CO2 emission factor of the fuel was sourced from the IPCC 2006 guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, while the power plant efficiency default values were referred from the TOOL09: Determining the baseline efficiency of thermal or electric energy generation systems.

The OM calculated for the period 2017-2019 is equal to 0.5781 tCO2/MWh. \|
\| \-\-\- \| \-\-\- \|
\| Step 5: Calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor \| The set of power plants that comprises 20% of the generation in 2019(SET≥20per cent)include 54 units between 2015 and 2019.The build margin was determined based on the set of power units that started to supply electricity to the WAPP grid during 2015 and 2019.This list does not include the 71 projects that are registered with the CDM.The total generation from this set of units(AEGSET≥20per cent)is equal to15,779,234 MWh.
The secretariat confirmed that the calculation of the emission factor was made in line with equation 15 of the grid tool.The value of BM determined for 2019was equal to0.5563tCO2/MWh. \|
\| Step 6: Calculate the combined margin emissions factor \| The combined margin emission factor was determined by applying different weights for OM and BM as follows:

- wind and solar:OM=0.75;BM=0.25
- other plants1stcrediting period:OM=0.5;BM=0.5
- other plants2ndand3rdcrediting periods:OM=0.25;BM=0.75 \|

{\\mathrm O}\_{2}

1^{\\mathrm{s l}}

2^{\\mathrm{n d}}

3^{\\mathrm{r d}}

* * *

B.3. Validity of the update of ASB

18. It is noted that the DNA has requested that the validity period of the proposed updated
    standardized baseline should be 5 years. Most of the approved standardized baselines
    carry a validity period of 3 years, however a handful have been approved with longer
    validity such as 7 years in the case of “ASB0008-2020: Methane Emissions from Rice
    Cultivation in the Republic of the Philippines (version 01.0)”. When the validity proposed is
    longer than 3 years it needs to be justified by the DNA as per “Standard: Determining
    coverage of data and validity of standardized baselines”.

19. The DNA justified its proposal for 5 years validity highlighting that;


(a) WAPP has undergone a slow evolution of technologies as confirmed from review of
1
previous submission of ASB0034 and current submission the share of natural gas
has reduced by 20% with corresponding increase of 11% in the share of renewables
(e.g. hydro, solar and wind) and increase of 9% in the share of coal and diesel
generation. Refer to following table for further details.

Table 2: WAPP - Electricity generation by fuel type

| Fuel type | Data Vintage |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2013 | 2019 |  |
| Natural Gas | 70.2% | 50.0% |
| Hydro | 21.0% | 24.0% |
| Diesel | 8.2% | 12.4% |
| Oil | 0.5% | 5.5% |
| Coal | 0.0% | 0.2% |
| Solar | 0.0% | 7.5% |
| Wind | 0.0% | 0.4% |

(b) Further, the operating margin emission factor of WAPP grid has increased by 3 per
cent and build margin emission factor has decreased by 2 per cent. This has
resulted in overall increase in combined margin emission factor by 2 per cent during
the past 6 years. Refer following table for further details.

| Parameter | Unit | Description | Applicable values |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ASB0034 | Update request of ASB0034 |  |  |  |
| EFgrid,OM,y | tCO2/MWh | Operating margin CO2 emission factor for the WAPP power system | 0.559 | 0.578 |
| EFgrid,BM,y | tCO2/MWh | Build margin CO2 emission factor for the WAPP power system | 0.565 | 0.556 |

{\\sf F F{\ }{\\sf g r i d},0}{\\sf\ M M},y

\\mathrm{C O\_{2}}

{\\sf F F{\_{r i i,}B M}}}

\\mathrm{{C O}{}\_{2}}

1 Refer approval history of ASB0034 at [https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/standard\_base/2015/sb102.html](https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/standard_base/2015/sb102.html)

* * *

| Parameter | Unit | Description | Applicable values |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ASB0034 | Update request of ASB0034 |  |  |  |
| EFgrid,CM,y | tCO2/MWh | Combined margin CO2 emission factor for the WAPP power system for all projects except wind and solar for 1st crediting period,(WOM=0.5,WBM=0.5 for all crediting periods) | 0.562 | 0.567 |
| EFgrid,CM,y | tCO2/MWh | Combined margin CO2 emission factor for the WAPP power system for all projects except wind and solar for2ndand3rdcreditingperiod,(WOM=0.25,WBM=0.75forallcreditingperiods) | 0.563 | 0.562 |
| EFgrid,CM,y | tCO2/MWh | Combined margin CO2 emission factor for the WAPP power system for wind and solar projects,(WOM=0.75,WBM=0.25forallcreditingperiods) | 0.561 | 0.573 |

{\\sf F F}{\_{\\sf g r i d,,C M,y}

\\mathfrak{t}C O\_{2}/M W h

\\mathsf{W B M}=0.5

\ \\mathrm C O\_{2}

{\\sf F F}{}\_{\\sf g r i d,c\ ,\\sf y}

\\mathfrak{t C O}\_{2}/M W

3^{\\mathrm{r d}}

0.25,W B M=0.75

\\mathrm{C{O\_{2}}}

{\\sf E F}\_{\ {\\sf g r i d},{\\sf C M},y}

\\mathfrak{t C O}\_{2}/M W

20. The assessment team noted that in 2013 the 5 years average share of low-cost must run
    power generation (constituting renewable sources) in WAPP grid was 25.24 per cent while
    2
    in 2019 that has increased to 27.14 per cent. Further, as per “Update of the ECOWAS
    3
    revised master plan for the generation and transmission of electrical energy, volume 4”,
    the WAPP grid by 2025 is expected to have 33% of its generation from renewable sources
    and by 2030 it is expected to increase to 38%. In essence, the energy mix in the WAPP
    region is changing, although barriers persist for rapid penetration of renewable energy, it is
    seen that decarbonization of the grid is under way.

4^{\\prime\ },

21. Further, it is also noted from the ‘WAPP GEF – Grid Emission Factor Report’ that
    construction is ongoing to interconnect remaining WAPP member countries namely Sierra
    Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau and The Gambia with the WAPP.

22. Taking into account the above dynamic nature of decarbonization in the WAPP grid, the
    assessment team proposes to maintain the default validity period of 3 years for the
    standardized baseline.

23. The details of issues (assessment findings) identified by the secretariat and the responses
    provided by the DNA are provided in Appendix-1 to this document.


2 Economic Community of West African States refer Member States \| Economic Community of West African
States(ECOWAS) for further details.

3WAPP \| West African Power Pool the specialized agency of ECOWAS (ecowapp.org)

* * *

## CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

# Appendix 1. Findings and resolutions

|  |  | CL |  |  |  | Request for Clarification (CL) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Reference to Responses and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | No. | 1 |  |  |  | Date – (20/01/2021) The DNA missed to submit the source files for the generation an all the plants included in the calculation. Submission of the s secretariat to validate the prim DNA is requested to submit backg contain information reg. yearly p fuel consumption data for the period 2017 to 2019. If the DNA o collected the primary data from utilities via emails, then DNA communication and or its attachments from the utility confirmin collected by the respective utilities. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ary data that is used for calcu |  | ower plant generation for the | round data files/source files f |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | lation of grid emission factor. The | ource files are essential for the may submit a copy of email | period 2015 to 2019 and yearly and quality | rom the respective utilities that r person authorized by it has control of g that the primary data is | d fuel consumption records for |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | general provisions of DNA guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector- specific standardized baselines Para 15 (b) of Date – (28/01/2021) the “Guidelines: Quality assurance data used in the establishment files in a folder. of standardized baselines”, version 2.0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | corrective actions of (open/closed) The reported by utilities and form of excel files and pdfs using a common structure for consumption data collection. We have compiled these To validation of the data, source, compiled a sample of email communications, through which the utilities / regulators submitted the data. |  |  |  |  |  | regulators in The data reg. support |  | data |  | we |  |  |  |  | have | was the |  |  |  |  | Date – (08/02/2021) electricity generation and fuel provided by the utilities to the DNA is cross checked against the data that is used for EF calculation. No inconsistency in data reporting is noted. For fuel consumption records it is noted that where the fuel consumption is recorded in |

* * *

# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

| CL No. | Request for Clarification (CL) | general provisions of DNA guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector- specific standardized baselines | Reference to Responses and corrective actions of (open/closed) | Conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  | measurement units other than SCM (standard cu. meter), Liter or m3 it is converted into these measurement units using conversion factors. The excel file under tab ‘DV’ includes list of conversion factors that are used for conversion. Further, it is also informed by the DNA that for following power plants data that was either missing or incorrect was confirmed with the respective utility in one-to-one communication. |

* * *

# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

| CL No. | Request for Clarification (CL) | general provisions of DNA guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector- specific standardized baselines | Reference to Responses and corrective actions of (open/closed) | Conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  | 1\. Power plant no. 48 – Data related to commissioning date and fuel consumption for 2017 to 2019 is corrected; 2. Power plant no. 49, 51 and 52 – Data related to commissioning date is corrected; 3. Power plant no 58 – Fuel type is correctly mentioned as ‘Gas/Diesel oil’; 4. Power plant no. 86 to 93 and 95 to 98 – Fuel type is corrected as ‘Gas/Diesel oil’ from ‘Residual fuel oil’; 5. Power plant no. 94 – Fuel type is corrected as ‘Natural Gas’ from |

* * *

# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

| CL No. | Request for Clarification (CL) | general provisions of DNA guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector- specific standardized baselines | Reference to Responses and corrective actions of (open/closed) | Conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  |  | ‘Residual fuel oil’; 6. Power plant no. 99 and 100 – Fuel type is mentioned as ‘Anthracite’ 7. Power plants no. 249 to 255 and 257 to 264 – Data related to commissioning date is corrected. The DNA also applied apportioning method to calculate fuel consumption and electricity generation where instead of per unit data per facility data was available together with installed capacity of each unit. This approach is found acceptable as the electricit y |

* * *

# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

|  |  | CL |  |  |  | Request for Clarification (CL) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Reference to Responses and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Conclusion |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | No. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | general provisions of DNA guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector- specific standardized baselines |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | corrective actions of (open/closed) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | generation and fuel consumption is apportioned with respect to installed capacity of each |
|  |  | 2 |  |  |  | Date – (20//01/2021) It is noted that the emission factor of some of the power plant ‘OM(2)’ and ‘OM(3)’ is more than 1.0 tCO2/MWh during one or mor refer to following table that lis number in red text colour indicates the OM EF more than 1.0. | Power plant Sr. No. in base data |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Power Plant name Fuel |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ts such power plants and their |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Commissioning OM EF 2017 OM EF 2018 OM EF 2019 year |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | OM EF for respective year. The (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh) | s under excel sheet ‘OM(1)’, |  |  |  | e data vintage year. Please |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Para 15 (f) and (h) of the “Guidelines: Quality assurance and quality control of data used in the establishment of standardized |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Date – (28/01/2021) This section reports i) on corrections conducted and ii) plant specific justification / context of high EFs. In general, it is our understanding that the high EFs depends |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | unit. The CL is closed. Date (08/02/2021) The corrected data file is reviewed against the data submitted by the DNA. No inconsistency is noted in data reporting. Further, |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | sheet |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | predominately on |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | no conversion error |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 5 |  |  |  |  | Natitingou |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Gas/Diesel Oil |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2005 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1.0184 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.7108 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.6618 baselines”, |  |  |  |  |  |  | version 2.0 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | fuel; for coal and |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | is noted while |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 6 |  |  |  |  | Maria-Gleta 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Natural Gas |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2019 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | - |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | - |  |  |  |  |  | 1.2405 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | diesel plants it is |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | converting non- |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 25 |  |  |  |  | KOMPIENGA THERMIQUE |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Gas/Diesel Oil |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1988 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1.0219 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1.2767 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 1.2580 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | common to report EFs above 1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | metric measurement units |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 53 |  |  |  |  | Kpone Thermal Power Plant KTPP |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | Gas/Diesel Oil |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 2016 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 0.7926 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 3.9159 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 4.1802 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | tCO2/MWh. For the US, EPA reportsthe |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | to metric units. |

–

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) |  |  |  |  |  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion (open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 58 | Tema CENIT Thermal Power Plant | Gas/Diesel Oil | 2012 | 6.5909 | 6.5909 | 28.1750 | weighted average EF for diesel at 0.97 and for coal at 1.00tCO2/MWh, in countries facing difficult political economic framework, sub-optimal maintenance and lack of investment in new plants may lead to higher specific emissions. |  |
| Nr.5:data was checked,no mistakes could be identified.The load factor is low in all three years(0.0%-0.4%)and the plant is small in terms of installed capacity(12MW)leading to a comparably high EF. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Nr.6:a mistake was | However,it is noted that power plants Sr.No.5,25,53,65,94,248,249 and 250 have EF more than 1. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| The EF of above-mentioned power plants is ranging between 1.0 to 1.45tCO2/MWh,and their installed capacity is 711MW which is@2% of the total installed capacity of the WAPP grid. |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Upon further review of the power generation and fuel consumption records of these plants,no reporting |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 63 | Karpownership | Residual Fuel Oil | 2015 | 1.3338 | 1.0415 | 0.9279 |  |  |  |
| 65 | AKSA | Residual Fuel Oil | 2017 | 1.1651 | 1.0786 | 0.9911 |  |  |  |
| 94 | NIAMEYII | Residual Fuel Oil | 1966 | 1.0153 | - | - |  |  |  |
| 99 | SONICCHAR | Anthracite | 1981 | 2.3684 | 2.4162 | 1.9304 |  |  |  |
| 100 | SONICCHAR | Anthracite | 1982 | 2.1379 | 2.2582 | 2.1038 |  |  |  |
| 101 | SONICCHAR | Gas/Diesel Oil | 1982 | 3.4175 | 3.9267 | 0.9376 |  |  |  |
| 102 | SONICCHAR | Gas/Diesel Oil | 1982 | 273.0802 | 140.7746 | 2.7815 |  |  |  |
| 156 | AFAM IV GT17 | Natural Gas | 1982 | 8.3471 | 0.6402 | 0.6856 |  |  |  |
| 157 | AFAM IV GT18 | Natural Gas | 1985 | 8.3471 | 0.6402 | 0.6856 |  |  |  |
| 198 | IHOVBOR GT1 | Natural Gas | 2013 | 0.5924 | 1.1092 | 0.5956 |  |  |  |
| 199 | IHOVBOR GT2 | Natural Gas | 2013 | 0.5924 | 1.1092 | 0.5956 |  |  |  |
| 200 | IHOVBOR GT3 | Natural Gas | 2013 | 0.5924 | 1.1092 | 0.5956 |  |  |  |
| 201 | IHOVBOR GT4 | Natural Gas | 2013 | 0.5924 | 1.1092 | 0.5956 |  |  |  |
| 216 | OMOKU GT1 | Natural Gas | 2006 | 0.5125 | 4.6989 | 0.7537 |  |  |  |
| 217 | OMOKU GT2 | Natural Gas | 2006 | 0.5125 | 4.6989 | 0.7537 |  |  |  |
| 218 | OMOKU GT3 | Natural Gas | 2006 | 0.5125 | 4.6989 | 0.7537 |  |  |  |
| 219 | OMOKU GT4 | Natural Gas | 2007 | 0.5125 | 4.6989 | 0.7537 |  |  |  |
| 220 | OMOKU GT5 | Natural Gas | 2007 | 0.5125 | 4.6989 | 0.7537 |  |  |  |

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 221 | OMOKU GT6 | Natural Gas | 2008 | 0.5125 |  |
| 247 | CALABAR NIPP GT1 | Natural Gas | 2015 | 2.5536 |  |  |
| 248 | Cap des Biches-C.III Vapeur | Residual Fuel Oil | 1966 | 1.0751 |  |  |
| 249 | Bel air-TAG 4 | Gas/Diesel Oil | 2011 | 1.1666 |  |  |
| 250 | Cap des Biches-TAG 2 | Gas/Diesel Oil | 2000 | 1.1705 |  |  |
| The DNA is requested to review the OM EF calculations for these power plantsEF and CM EF calculations for entire WAPP grid and provide any justificationpower plants is more than 1.0。 |  |  |  |  |  |  |

|  |  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion(open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.6989 | 0.7537 | Features and also BM in why EF of these | found in the conversion of RFO from kL to t.The mistake was corrected.Nr.25:old plant,only0.52MWand onlyload factorof0.4%-0.7%.This resultsin higher specific fuelconsumptionandrelatedEFs.Nr.53:Thedatawascrosscheckedandreplacedwithdatadeliveredbytheregulator.Thenewdataresultsinavalueofabove1tCO2/MWhandforyear1andbelow1foryear3.Pleasenote that thepowerplant wasmainlyrunningofresidualfueloilinyear1andonnaturalgasin | errorisnotedThough,it is not notedthat power plants with;i)Sr.No.5and25operateatlowloadfactor rangingfrom0to0.4%;ii)Sr.No.53and65operatesonresidualfuel oil;iii)Sr.No.94operatesonresidualfuel oilandinadditionthisplanthassurpasseditsoperationallifeandoperatedasareserveplantin2017withloadfactor@13%.Thepowerplantwasnotoperatedin |
| 0.6455 | 0.6325 |  |  |  |
| 1.0902 | 1.1081 |  |  |  |
| 1.0699 | 1.0917 |  |  |  |
| 1.4511 | 1.4311 |  |  |  |

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

|  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion (open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | year 3. |  |
| Nr.58 data was crosschecked,and conversion errors were identified and amended. |  |  |  |
| Nr.63.Data was checked and found to be integrated and converted correctly.Please note,this refers to a mobile power ship which,during year1 and2 operates based solely onRFOand in year3 onRFOand partially on natural gas(connected to gas pipeline in Oct 2017) resulting in a decrease of the EF in year3. |  |  |  |
| Nr.65:Data was checked and found to be integrated and converted correctly. | 2018 and 2019; |  |  |
| iv)Sr.No.248has surpassed its operational life time and its operated on residual fuel oil |  |  |  |
| v)Sr.No.249and250 operate [at@4.7](mailto:at@4.7)% load factor. |  |  |  |
| Therefore,the clarification provided by theDNA that the higherEFof these plants is due to one or more of the following reasons,i)use of residual fuel oil,ii)low load factor andiii)continuing operation beyond |  |  |  |

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

|  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion (open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | The plant operates exclusively on RFO which naturally results in a high EF. Moreover, plant was commissioned during 2017 (completed in Nov) and operated partially before the completion of commissioning. The emission factor slightly improves from year 1 to year 2 and 3 related to improvement of the plant's operational management. |  |
| Nr 94. The plant operates based on residual fuel oil, resulting typically in high EFs. The plant is very old (commissioned in 1966) and is mainly operated as reserve. | the operational life time that has resulted in lower efficiency of the power unit, is found acceptable. |  |  |
| Due to these corrections simply operating margin EF and build margin EF of WAPP grid has been changed resulting changes combined margin EF. The EF value calculated in excel file 'WAPP GEF Calc 2021-02-02' are same as reported in the update request form and updated ASB. |  |  |  |

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

|  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion (open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | The load factor for 2017 was 13% with no production in 2018 and 2019. |  |
| Nrs 99-102: Data was crosschecked, and no mistake could be identified. The coal power-based EFs are deemed unlikely, and the diesel based EFs are deemed impossible; all four units hence were switched to the A2 calculation mode. They now produce reasonable results. |  |  |  |
| Nrs 156-157: the data reported by the TCM exhibits an unusually high fuel consumption for 2017. We have changed this year to the A2 calculation approach. | The CL is closed. |  |  |

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) |
| --- | --- |
|  |  |

|  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion(open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Nrs 198-201 was checked.The submitted data exhibits a usually high fuel consumption for 2018.We have changed this year to the A2 calculation approach.Nrs 216-221:an omission was identified.The transmission company provided the data on plant level,however unit specific installed capacities and commissioning dates.The total consumption was erroneously not broken down to the individual units for the year 2017.This was corrected. |  |
|  |  |  |  |

|  | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion (open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Nr 247: the fuel consumption data for 2017 was leading to very high EFs. That plant was changed to A2 calculation approach for 2017. |  |
| Nr. 248: the plant was commissioned in 1966 and has surpassed it is expected operational live. Moreover, the plant operates on residual fuel resulting in comparably high EFs. |  |  |  |
| Nrs. 249 +250: the data and units were checked and is considered to be correct. Both plants were operated at very low load factors ranging from 1.5% to 10.3% (average) |  |  |  |

* * *

| CL No. | Request for Clarification(CL) | Reference to general provisions of guidelines on quality assurance and quality control of data used for sector-specific standardized baselines | Responses and corrective actions of DNA | Conclusion (open/closed) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  |  | 4.7%) Such intermittent operation of plants leads to a higher fuel consumption and higher EFs. |  |
| 3 | Date-(20/01/2021)It is noted that the calculation of OM EF under excel sheet‘OM Calc’ does not consider generation from all the power plants that are not LCMR plants.Refer cells D291,F291 and H291 in the sheet‘OM Calc’,the annual electricity generation should consider the generation from all plants that are not LCMR plants in respective year,the DNA did not consider the generation from all the plants.It considered the plants only up to cell D155 instead up to cell D290.The correct application of the formulae needs the DNA to consider all the plants i.e.up to cell D290.The correct application of the formulae for OM calculation leads to change OMEF.This will also lead to a minor change in CM EF values.To address this issue the DNA,need to submit revised excel file together with revised‘WAPP GEF-Grid Emission Factor Report 2020-12-11.docx’and‘ASB0034 2020-12-12 Update 2020.docx’. | Para 15(f)of the“Guidelines:Quality assurance and quality control of data used in the establishment of standardized baselines”,version 2.0 | Date-(28/01/2021)The excel functions have been corrected. | Date-(08/02/2021)The revised excel file is checked against the consistency of the formulae used and it is noted that the file does not have any calculation error.The CL is closed. |

* * *

# CDM-PSB-SA-FORM

* * *

# Document information

_Version Date Description_

01.0 27 May 2013 Initial publication
02.0 01 June 2015 Modified in order to take into account the Board’s decision and
improve clarity and consistency Decision Class: Regulatory Document Type: Form, (for Secretariat use only) Business Function: Methodology Keywords: Assessment, Standardized baselines, Methodologies