2008-12-10 FVR Salido rev1 fileThe review of the project design documentation and additional...

VALIDATION REPORT

SALIDO KECIL MINI HYDROPOWER PLANT, INDONESIA

Report No: 8000352890 – 07/144

Date: 2008-12-10

TÜV NORD CERT GmbH JI/CDM Certification Program

Langemarckstrasse 20 45141 Essen, Germany

Phone: +49-201-825-3335 Fax: +49-201-825-3290

www.tuev-nord.de www.global-warming.de

Validation Report: Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower Plant, Indonesia

TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program

P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Date of first issue: Project No.:

2008-09-22 Report No: 8000352890 – 07/144 Approved by: Organisational unit:

Mr. Eric Krupp TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program Client: Client ref.:

Myclimate – The climate Protection Partnership Mr. Thomas Finsterwald

Summary/Opinion:

The myclimate – The climate Protection Partnership has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to validate the project: “Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower Plant, Indonesia” with regard to the relevant requirements of the Gold Standard for Gold Standard VER project activities, as well as criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting.

The project activity exports the electricity, produced with a small hydro power plant to the PT PLN grid in West Sumatra. The project intends to reduce GHG emissions to the extent of equivalent electricity generated by fossil fuels based power plants of the grid.

A risk based approach has been followed to perform this validation. In the course of the pre-validation, 9 Corrective Action Requests (CARs) and 5 Clarification Requests (CRs) were raised and successfully closed.

The review of the project design documentation and additional documents related to baseline and monitoring methodology; the subsequent background investigation, follow-up interviews and review of comments by parties, stakeholders and NGOs have provided TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP with sufficient evidence to validate the fulfilment of the stated criteria.

In detail the conclusions can be summarised as follows:

- The project is in line with all relevant host country criteria (Indonesia) and all relevant GS requirements for VER.

- The sustainable development is suffiently justified and referenced.

- The project additionality is sufficiently justified in the PDD.

- The monitoring plan is transparent and adequate.

- The calculation of the project emission reductions is carried out in a transparent and conservative manner, so that the calculated emission reductions of 57,929 tCO2e is most likely to be achieved within the 15 years fixed crediting period (Aug. 2007-July 2022).

The conclusions of this report show, that the project, as it was described in the project documentation, is in line with all criteria applicable for the validation.

Report No.: Subject Group:

8000352890 – 07/144 Environment Indexing terms

Report title:

Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower Plant, Indonesia

Climate change

CDM

Validation

Kyoto Protocol Work carried out by:

Mr. Rainer Winter, Mr. Ramaness Parasuraman, Ms. Ellys Simamora, Ms. Katja Beyer, Mr. Usman Suwandi

No distribution without permission from

the Client or responsible organisational unit

Work verified by:

Mr. Eric Krupp Limited distribution

Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:

2008-12-10 1 82 Unrestricted distribution



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Abbreviations BAU Business as usual

CA Corrective Action / Clarification Action

CAR Corrective Action Request

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CER Certified Emission Reduction

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent

CP Certification Program CR Clarification Request

DNA Designated National Authority EB CDM Executive Board EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

GHG Greenhouse gas(es)

HCA Host Country Approval IRR Internal Rate of Returns

LoA Letter of Approval MP Monitoring Plan NCV Net Calorific Value ODA Official Development Assistance PDD Project Design Document PLF Plant Load Factor PP Project Proponent QC/QA Quality control/Quality assurance MSC Micro Scale UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VVM Validation Verification Manual GS Gold Standard VER Verified Emission Reduction VO Voluntary Offset SD Sustainable Development ISC Initial Stakeholder Consultation



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Table of Contents Page

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................5

1.1 Objective 5

1.2 Scope 5

1.3 GHG Project Description 6

1.3.1 Project Scope 6

1.3.2 Project Parties 7

1.3.3 Project Entities 7

1.3.4 Project location 7

1.3.5 Technical project description 8

2 VALIDATION TEAM................................................................................................10

3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................10

3.1 Validation Protocol 11

3.2 Review of Documents 13

3.3 Follow-up Interviews 13

3.4 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests 14

3.5 Initial and Public Stakeholder Comments 14

3.6 Finalising the report 14

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS ........................................................................................15

4.1 Participation Requirements/ Host Country Check 16

4.2 Project type eligibility screen 16

4.3 Project design 16

4.4 Baseline 17

4.5 Additionality 19

4.6 Crediting Period 24

4.7 Monitoring Plan 25

4.8 Calculation of GHG Emissions 26

4.9 Sustainable Development 26

4.10 Environmental Impacts 27

4.11 Comments by Local Stakeholders 27

4.12 Pre-feasibility assessment 28

5 COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS...................................31

6 VALIDATION OPINION ..........................................................................................32

7 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................33

ANNEX: VALIDATION PROTOCOL .....................................................................................39



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

1 INTRODUCTION

Myclimate – The Climate Protection Partnership has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to validate the project:

“Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower Plant, Indonesia”

with regard to the relevant requirements for Gold Standard VER project activities.

1.1 Objective The purpose of this validation is to have an independent third party assess the project design. In particular the project's baseline, the monitoring plan (MP) and the project’s compliance with

- the requirements of the Gold Standard for Voluntary Offset Projects,

- relevant decisions and requirements by the UNFCCC

- other relevant rules, including the host country (Indonesia) legislation and sustainability development criteria

are validated in order to confirm that the project design as documented is sound and reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. Validation is seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders on the quality of the project and its intended generation of voluntary emission reductions (VERs).

1.2 Scope

The validation scope is given as an independent and objective review of the project design, the project’s baseline study and monitoring plan (based on AMS I.D./ Version 13: “Grid-connected renewable electricity generation”) which are included in the PDD and other relevant supporting documents.

The items covered in the validation are described below:

• Gold Standard & Host Country Criteria - Gold Standards requirements, as stated in the Gold Standard Validation and

Verification Manual for Voluntary Offset Projects (June 2007) and following documents

- Host country requirements / criteria • VER Project Description

- Project design - Project boundaries - Predicted VER project GHG emissions



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

• Project Baseline - Baseline methodology - Baseline GHG emissions

• Monitoring Plan

- Monitoring methodology - Indicators/data to be monitored and reported - Responsibilities

• Background investigation and follow up interviews • Stakeholder consultation

- Initial stakeholder consultation as per GS - Review of comments

• Draft validation reporting with CARs & CRs, if any • Final validation reporting.

The information included in the PDD and the supporting documents were reviewed against the requirements and criteria mentioned above. The TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP has, based on the recommendations in the Validation and Verification Manual/VVM/,/GS-

VVM/, employed a risk-based approach in the validation, focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation, sustainability criteria and the generation of VERs. The validation is based on the information made available to TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP and on the contract conditions. TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP can not be held liable by any entities for making its validation opinion based on any false or misleading information supplied to it during the course of validation.

The validation is not meant to provide any consulting to the project participant. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide input for improvement of the project design.

1.3 GHG Project Description

1.3.1 Project Scope

The considered GHG project can be classified as a VER project in the sector given in Table 1-1 (according to List of Sectoral Scopes of UNFCCC).

Table 1-1: Project Scope(s)

No. Project Scope 1 Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources)



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Under the GS the project qualifies under type A.1 renewable energy, A.1.2 hydroelectricity with a capacity below 15 MW.

1.3.2 Project Parties

Indonesia and Switzerland are the two parties involved in the project activity. Both of them are not considered as project participants.

1.3.3 Project Entities

The following entities are involved in the developing of the project:

Project Proponent 1 PT. Anggrek Mekar Sari (AMS) Jati Padang Raya No. 8B Pasar Minggu Jakarta Selatan 12540 Indonesia Contact person: Ir. Ibratama Munir Director Tel No: 0062 21 781 3649 Fax No: 0062 21 781 3649 Email: [email protected] Project Proponent 2 Myclimate – The Climate Protection Partnership Technoparkstrasse 1 8005 Zürich Switzerland Contact Person: Mr. Thomas Finsterwald Carbon Offset Manager Tel No: +41 44 633 77 50 Fax No: +41 44 633 15 85 Email: [email protected]

1.3.4 Project location

The proposed project is implemented at the Salido River near Salido Kecil. The next City is Painan, the capital of Kabupaten Pesisir Selatan, West Sumatra, Indonesia. The unique identification is provided in table 1-2.

Table 1-2: Project Location

Host Country Indonesia Region: West Sumatra,

Project location address: PLTMH Salido Kecil, Painan / Salido Kabupaten Pesisir Selatan Provinsi Sumatra Barat



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Coordinates

Latitude (Power House): 1° 18’ 30’’ S

Longitude (Power House): 100° 37’ 10’’ E

1.3.5 Technical project description

The proposed project activity is a run-of-river hydro power project at the Salido River. The low efficient and old existing power plant will be retrofitted and upgraded in 3 phases from 75 kW to 990 kW. It consists of an old, since 100 years existing dam with one intake canal and a 342 m penstock with a diameter of 0.61 to 0.71 m. The rated water head is 99 m (gross head 106.7 m) and the rated water flow is estimated to be 0.43 m3/s The water sources three turbines with 330 kW capacities each. Three generators each with a capacity of 330 kW produce electricity which is fed to the West Sumatra grid and to an ice factory, which have been provided with electricity also in the previous project scenario. The total capacity of the project after full implementation is 990 kW. The expected electricity generation is 6231 MWh per year after full implementation of the project. The total estimated annual emission reductions are 3862 tCO2e per year (on average basis) during the 15 years crediting period.

The key parameters for the Project are given in table 1-3:

Table 1-3: Key parameters of the proposed VER project activity after full implementation

Turbines Type: Pelton Poros Horizontal Manufacturer: Briegleb, Hansen & Co Quantity: 3 Rated Rotation Speed: 750 rpm Over Speed 1400 rpm

Rated Power per unit: 330 kW Rated Water Head: 97 m Net Head, 106.7 m Gross Head Designed Flow Rate per unit: 0.43 m3/s Designed Flow Rate total: 1.2 m3/s

Generators Type: SGS 7C 08T Manufacturer: Dipl. Ing. Hitzinger Gesellschaft m. b. H. Quantity: 3 Rated Capacity: 400 kW Rated Rotation Speed: 750 rpm (Overspeed for 2 min. 1400 rpm) Construction date Phase 1: 2nd January 2006 Phase 2 and 3: 1st June 2008

The electricity generated will be jointly connected to PLN Grid via Starlite Transformer Substation at 20kV directly connected to the PLN medium voltage grid.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

The project’s net electricity exported to the grid during the 15 year crediting period is expected to be 85,277 MWh and the estimated emission reduction (Aug. 2007 – July 2022) is 57,929 tCO2e.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

2 VALIDATION TEAM

The Validation Team is led by

- Rainer Winter. He works at TÜV NORD as ISO 9001/ 14001 Auditor and environmental verifier for EMAS. He is also an approved emission verifier within the European Emission Trading Scheme. Mr. Winter is an authorized JI/CDM senior assessor and is global leader of the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP. For this validation he was assisted by:

- Katja Beyer. She is an environmental scientist and in charge with TÜV NORD CERT GmbH. Ms. Beyer has received extensive training in the CDM as well as technical aspects and is an appointed JI/CDM Expert in the JI/CDM Certification Program of TÜV NORD.

- Ramaness Parasuraman. He works at TÜV NORD Malaysia inter alia as ISO 9001/14001 and ISO/TS16949 Lead Auditor and is an appointed expert of the JI/CDM Certification Program of TÜV NORD.

- Usman Suwandi. He works at TÜV NORD Indonesia inter alia as ISO 14001 Lead Auditor. He is appointed as local expert of the JI/CDM Certification Program of TÜV NORD.

The validation report is verified by:

Eric Krupp. He is an expert in the field of environmental approval procedures as well as national and international Emission Trading. He worked in different projects in the framework of the German allocation procedure and the verification of the annual CO2 emission reports. Mr. Krupp is an appointed JI/CDM senior assessor and the deputy of TÜV NORD JI/CDM certification program.

3 METHODOLOGY

The validation of the project was carried out from November ’07 to August ’08. It was divided into two phases: the pre-validation and the validation phase. The pre-validation consisted of the following three phases:

• A desk review of the PDD (incl. annexes) and supporting documents with the use of a customised validation protocol according to the Validation and Verification Manual/VVM/, /GS-VVM/;

• Back ground investigation and follow-up interviews with personnel of the project proponent, the consultant, legal authorities and other stakeholders;

• Reporting of validation findings taking into account the public comments received on TUV NORD website.

The draft validation report includes Corrective action and Clarification Requests (CAR and CR) identified in the course of this validation.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

A Corrective Action Request is established if

• mistakes have been made in assumptions or the project documentation which directly will influence the project results,

• the requirements deemed relevant for validation of the project with certain characteristics have not been met or

• there is a risk that the project would not be registered by the UNFCCC or that emission reductions cannot be verified and certified.

A Clarification Request is issued where information is insufficient, unclear or not transparent enough to establish whether a requirement is met.

The final validation started after issuance of proposed corrective action (CA) of these CAR and CR by the project proponent. The validator has assessed the proposed CA with a positive result and after the closure of these CAR and CR the project proponent has issued the final version of the PDD. On the basis of this the final validation report and opinion were issued.

3.1 Validation Protocol

In order to ensure consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a validation protocol was used. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means of verification and the results from pre-validating the identified criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes:

- It organises, details and clarifies the requirements that a CDM resp. VER GS project is expected to meet;

- It ensures a transparent validation process where the independent entity will document how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the determination.

The validation protocol consists of three tables: Table 1 (Requirement Checklist); Table 2 (Gold Standard Specific Checklist) and Table 3 (Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Request).

The completed validation protocol is enclosed in the annex to this report, identifying 9 Corrective Action Requests and 5 Clarification Requests.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Validation Protocol Table 1 and 2: Requirement checklist

Checklist Question Reference Means of verification (MoV)

Comment Draft and/or Final Conclusion

The various requirements in Table 1 are linked to checklist questions the project should meet. The checklist is organised in seven different sections. Each section is then further sub-divided. The lowest level constitutes a checklist question.

Gives reference to documents where the answer to the checklist question or item is found.

Explains how conformance with the checklist question is investigated. Examples of means of verification are document review (DR) or interview (I). N/A means not applicable.

The section is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or the conformance to the question. It is further used to explain the conclusions reached.

This is either acceptable based on evidence provided (OK), or a Corrective Action Request (CAR) due to non-compliance with the checklist question (See below). Clarification is used when the validation team has identified a need for further clarification.

Validation Protocol Table 3: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarifications and corrective action requests

Ref. to checklist question in table 2

Summary of project owner response

Validation conclusion

If the conclusions from the draft Validation are either a Corrective Action Request or a Clarification Request, these should be listed in this section.

Reference to the checklist question number in Table 2 where the Corrective Action Request or Clarification Request is explained.

The responses given by the Client or other project participants during the communications with the validation team should be summarised in this section.

This section should summarise the validation team’s responses and final conclusions. The conclusions should also be included in Table 2, under “Final Conclusion”.

Figure 1: Validation protocol tables



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

3.2 Review of Documents

The draft PDD submitted by myclimate in September 2007 and supporting background documents related to the project design and baseline were reviewed.

Furthermore, the validation team used additional documentation by third parties like host party legislation, technical reports referring to the project design or to the basic conditions and technical data.

The documents that were considered during the validation process are given in chapter 7 of this report. They are listed as follows:

• Documents provided by the project proponent (Table 7-1)

• Background investigation and assessment documents (Table 7-2)

• Websites used (Table 7-3).

In order to ensure the transparency of the decision making process, the reference codes listed in tables 7-1 to 7-3 are used in the validation protocol and – as far applicable – in the report itself.

3.3 Follow-up Interviews

On 12th and 13th November 2007, the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP performed on-site interviews and subsequently telephone interviews with the project owner, project developer, plant operating personnel and stakeholder to confirm selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review.

The key interviewee and main topics of the interviews are summarised in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Interviewed persons and interview topics

Interviewed Persons / Entities Interview topics

Project proponent representatives

- Chronological description of the project activity - Technical details of the project realisation and

Project Design Report - Approval procedures and status - Quality management system - Monitoring and measurement equipment - Crediting period and its starting date - Project activity starting date - Power purchase agreement with grid - Sustainable development benefits because of

project - Analysis of local stakeholder consultation - Operational data – technical specification (capacity



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Interviewed Persons / Entities Interview topics

of turbine), startup power supply, water availibility, plant load factor.

- Training & competency of the staff members w.r.t project management, monitoring and reporting

Project consultant representatives - Editorial aspects of PDD - Methodology selection aspects - Baseline study, leakage and additionality - Details of emission reduction calculation - Debundling

Local Stakeholders - Job opportunities - Stakeholder process - Concerns related to the projects

3.4 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests In order to remedy any mistakes, problems or any other outstanding issues which needed to be clarified for positive conclusion on the project design, CARs and CRs were raised.

In this validation report 9 CARs and 5 CRs are raised.

The CARs / CRs are documented in Annex and addressed in section 4.

3.5 Initial and Public Stakeholder Comments Consultation meetings for local stakeholders have been carried out on 4th of September, 14th of November and 23rd of November 2006 in Salido Kecil, Bandung and Tambang. Additional all GS supporting NGOs which are located in Indonesia as well as the international NGOs with locals in Indonesia have been consulted between 11th and 22nd of December 2006 via e-mail.

The comments received by the stakeholders have been summarized in the initial stakeholder consultation report which was made publicly available.

All comments received (fulfilled questionnaires) have been checked by the validator. The NGOs don’t expect significant negative impacts after the full implementation of the project activity. However, impacts during the construction phase might happen but are not significant and thus negligible.

3.6 Finalising the report The draft validation report was submitted to the project proponents. After reviewing the revised and resubmitted project documentation; resolving the CRs & CARs raised and outstanding concerns TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP issues this final validation report and opinion.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS In the following protocol the findings from the desk review of the draft PDD, visits, interviews and supporting documents are summarised.

The results are shown in table 4-1:

Table 4-1: Summary of CAR and CR issued

Validation topic 1) No. of CAR No. of CR

General description of project activity (A) - Project boundaries - Participation requirements - Technology to be employed - Contribution to sustainable development

2 2

Project baseline (B) - Baseline Methodology - Baseline scenario determination - Additionality determination - Calculation of GHG emission reductions

Project emissions Baseline emissions Leakage - Emission reductions - Monitoring Methodology - Monitoring of Project emissions Baseline emissions Leakage Sustainable development indicators / environmental impacts - Project management planning

6 2

Duration of the Project / Crediting Period (C) 1 -

Environmental impacts (D) - -

Stakeholder Comments (E) - 1

Project Eligibility (A) - -

SUM 9 5 1) The letters in brackets refer to the validation protocol

For an in depth evaluation of all validation items it should be referred to the validation protocol (Annex). Annex also includes all CARs and CRs (Table 3).



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

4.1 Participation Requirements/ Host Country Check

Since this project activity is under the GS VER scheme a letter of approval is not a prerequisite for the registration. However, the Indonesian DNA has been informed about the project and confirmed the same/CDNA/. Indonesia has not a quantitative target for emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol; hence the country is eligible for voluntary offset projects.

4.2 Project type eligibility screen

The project activity is a small scale run-of-river project under category I.D of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities/SMP/. Under the GS it is eligible under type A.1 renewable energy, A.1.2 hydroelectricity. The project qualifies as a micro scale project activity and meets the applicability criteria of AMS I.D (ver.13)/AMSI.D/ because of its small size (990 kW) the emission reductions are below the limit of 5,000 t CO2e per year. It is not a debundled component of a larger project activity. Socio-economic and environmental impacts as specified in Appendix C of the GS Validation & Verification Manual for CDM Projects has been assessed in an appropriate manner within the framework of the EIA/EIA/. Accordingly the project type is eligible for the Gold Standard.

4.3 Project design

The objective of this 990 kW small hydro power project is to reduce GHG emissions by replacing electricity of the PLN grid in West Sumatra which predominantly uses fossil fuels. The project activity is estimated to reduce GHG emissions equivalent to 3,862 tCO2e annually. The proposed GS VER project is the rehabilitation of an existing run-of-river hydro power plant and comprises the rehabilitation of three turbines in two phases. During the first phase the civil structures (weir, intake canal, grid connection), electrical equipment and one turbine were reconstructed, the turbine for the provision of an directly connected ice factory has been overhauled. During the second phase the ice factory will be connected to the in the first phase reconstructed turbine and the two other turbines will be displaced and connected to the grid. To convert the kinetic energy of water into mechanical energy and subsequently into electrical energy, water from the river was led through barrage, tunnel and pressure adjustment well and then led into pressure pipe to form the high water head. Then water from the pressure pipe flows into the powerhouse and drives the turbines and generators to generate electricity. According to the EIA approval from the host country, the technology used in the project activity is environmentally safe and sound.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

The feasibility of technology has been approved by the local municipality/EIA/ and PT PLN/COM/. In the course of the project validation, the following - CAR A1, CAR A2 and CR A1, regarding the project design and the correct completion of the PDD - were raised and successfully closed out.

For an in depth evaluation of all validation items it should be referred to the validation protocol (Annex). Annex also includes all CARs and CRs (Table 3).

4.4 Baseline The selected baseline methodology is in line with the approved baseline methodology AMS I.D. – Grid connected renewable electricity generation (Version 13, EB 36). As prescribed in small scale type I.D. baseline methodology, the baseline emission will be the kWh produced/ displaced by the renewable generating unit multiplied by an emission coefficient of the grid (measured in kg CO2e/kWh). In this project, the grid emission coefficient is calculated by “combined margin method” consisting 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 1). Thus emission reductions for this project activity will be the amount of electricity (kWh) supplied to the grid multiplied with the emission coefficient of PLN grid, West Sumatra. The calculation of the gird emission factor is according to the above mentioned Tool. The operating margin as well as the built margin are determined ex-ante and thus remain fixed throughout the crediting period. This approach does not call for reviewing the grid emission co-efficient every year. The required data for baseline emission coefficient are sourced from the PT.PLN Wilayah Sumatera Barat, MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH and AKSA Würenlos AG (representing company of Cummins in CH) and PT.Pertamina/GEF/. The ERy of the project activity during the crediting period is the difference between the baseline emission (BEy), project emission (PEy) and leakage (Ly).

Baseline emission: BEy is calculated by multiplying the electricity baseline emission factor or grid emission factor (EFy) and the electricity exported to the PLN grid (EGy).

The grid emission factor (EFy) is determined ex-ante and estimated as a combined margin (CM), consisting of the weighted average of operating margin (EFOM) and build margin (EFBM) factors.

The calculation method of the OM and BM is derived from the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system. Due to the reason that the grid emission factors of the grids in Indonesia are not publicly available the calculation is based on the information, provided directly by the respective entity/GEF/.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

EFOM,y calculation: Due to the fact that low-cost must-run resources constituting less than 50% of the total grid generation, the simple OM emission factor (EFOM,y) calculation method is chosen; the OM factor is calculated as generation-weighted average emissions per electricity unit (tCO2/MWh) of all generating sources serving the system (not including the low-cost and must-run power plants) of three years average data, i. e. 2003 to 2005, the most recent data available at the time of submission of the PDD to the DOE. The EFOM,y is calculated to be 0,721 tCO2e/MWh.

EFBM,y calculation: Due to the data unavailability at the power plant level in Indonesia the EFBM,y is calculated as follows:

1) The set of power units that have been built most recently (2002 to 2005) is chosen. Due to the lack of information it was not possible to get the data for the capacity additions in the system that comprise 20% of the system generation. Since the most conservative value was chosen for the efficiency of the diesel power plants (41% instead of the given plant specific efficiencies between 37.1% and 39.5%) which is normally applicable for large plants the calculation was accepted.

2) According to the data provided by PT.PLN, the weighted averages of the newly added diesel based capacity are used to calculate EFBM,y. The EFBM,y is calculated as 0,637 tCO2e/MWh. In accordance with the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, weight factors of wOM = wBM = 0.5 have been used and the resultant grid emission factor (EFy) works out as 0.679 tCO2e/MWh.

The validation team is convinced of the result of the emission coefficient calculation. It is deemed to be adequate, transparent and conservative.

The annual electricity delivered to the grid is approximately 2,717 MWh after phase I and 6232 MWh after phase II, as defined in the project feasibility study, whereas the total generation after phase II is 6889 MWh.

The difference of 657 MWh is supplied directly to the ice factory and the four households nearby. Since they are connected directly to the non-grid connected overhauled turbine during phase I and will be connected to the grid connected turbine (from phase I) before the interconnection point, it is not necessary to consider the factory and households already provided with electricity in the pre-project scenario, because the electricity consumed by them is not provided to the grid via the interconnection point. Altogether the project activity reduces emissions of 57,929 tCO2e during the 15 years fixed crediting period. Nevertheless during the validation the CAR A2, CAR B1, CAR B3 and CAR B6 have been raised and successfully closed. Please refer table 3 for further information.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

4.5 Additionality Public announcement check

The project activity is of micro scale; hence a written statement by the project developer is required, stating that the project has not been announced for implementation without seeking carbon finance during the last 3 years.

CAR A2 has been raised i. a. for this document and was succesfully closed. Corresponding evidence has been provided to the validation team/ADD/.

Additionality Tool Check

Additionality of the project activity has been demonstrated in the PDD/PDD/ according to the currently available version of the UNFCCC “Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 5)/TA/ as per the GS requirement for VER project activities.. The individual arguments to justify the additionality were summarised in the table below. This table also includes the assessment of the GS validation team.

Step Argument PP Assessment of the GS validation team

1 Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations

1a

Define alternatives to the project activity: The project plausible alternatives have been arrived as: 1. Continuation of the pre-

project situation, i. e. only one turbine is in use for electricity supply to the ice factory.

2. Continuation of pre-project situation till break down of the equipment. Connection of the factory to the grid or closure.

3. The proposed project activity not undertaken as a GS VER project activity

The alternatives given in the step 1a can be considered as plausible and credible for the PP. Since the project owner is not interested in any investment in the pre-project situation, scenarios 1 and 2 are plausible alternatives. Sufficient evidences are provided to show that the project activity without the revenues of emission reductions is not financially attractive. The company investing in the rehabilitation of the project (PT.ENTEC) is specialised for hydro power plants; hence fossil fuel or renewable based power plants are not an alternative.

1b

Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations: The alternatives described above comply with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

All alternatives are in line with the national laws and regulations.

step passed step not passed not applicable

2 Step 2. Investment analysis

step passed



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82


step not passed not applicable (step 3 has to be

passed) 3 Step 3. Barrier Analysis

3a

Investment Barrier Due to the prevailing practice (see below) of hydropower plants, financial institutions have been reluctant to provide debt funding to the project. Only investors with an interest in Emission Reductions could be found. Furthermore the rural location of the plant and the higher risk of the project (as shown in this analysis) and hydropower plants in general, compared to standardized (diesel) power generators, prevent investors and financing institutions to support such projects. Even though a signed electricity supply contract exists today, this contract has to be renewed annually. Therefore commercial banks hesitate to support such projects with loans. PT. AMS does not have enough political or economical influence in order to conduct pronounced lobbying within the finance community. It is hard to predict the political and economical course of PT. PLN for the next years and whether they will honour today’s arrangements. There is a significant risk that the presently difficult situation for private small-scale power producers becomes worse during the project lifetime. PT.AMS is neither able, nor willing, to take the financial and technological risk (see below) to invest in this plant. Once the remaining electricity output breaks down, the ice factory would eventually be shut down. Even though fossil-based grid power or diesel generator will be a more attractive alternative to provide the village and the factory, rather than to restore the

In the barrier analysis investment barriers as well as technological and prevailing practice barriers have been identified. The investment in small respectively micro hydro power plants is comparable high to the conventional power plants. Since fossil fuels are subsidised by the government it is financially more attractive to invest in fossil fuel based power plants. Especially for private investors it is difficult to get loans because of the comparable high risks. This increases also the interest rates. Even if the potential for small hydro power projects in Indonesia is high (10% of the total potential, i. e. 7,500 MW) only 200 MW has been developed so far (2.7%). Evidences for the argumentation has been provided and referenced in the PDD/ADD/. Argument not justified

Argument not convincing Argument justified but not

decisive Argument justified /

significant




P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82


existing hydropower, it would not be a financially viable option probably. Even among hydro power stations, the development and implementation of large-scale plants are given higher priority than small-scale plants. By including crediting funds into the financial analysis PT. entec agreed to take part of the risk as described above and helped to find international creditors, as the European Development Bank. The funds of VERs have been absolutely crucial for the investors to participate. Even the technological risks remain the same the crediting funds can reduce the financial risk to an acceptable degree. This is especially true, as the revenue from the crediting funds is the only existing revenue in “hard currency”. Having this revenue dramatically reduces the risk associated with fluctuations of the exchange rate in a project, where the major revenue is generated in Indonesian Rupiah, but where substantial parts of the investment had to be made in Euro and where the used loan was paid and has to be returned in Euro. Techological Barrier As shown by the barriers due to prevailing practice (see below), small hydropower plants are not the typical kind of electricity generating facilities in Indonesia. The technology is well known but not common in remote regions in Indonesia. However, as the old infrastructure is used and only restored, the project has significant risks. For example, it is not possible to access the penstock to check the inside surfaces and the remaining wall thickness. There is a risk of cost overruns due to unexpected site conditions and subsequent delays. Such risks, along with financial barriers,



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82


make it impossible to raise conventional funding. Most large-scale hydro power plants in Indonesia have been developed with substantial international technical and financial support, leading to fast and appropriate reconditioning in case of failures. In the case of failure of small-scale plants, operation tends to stop for a while or the plants are even abandoned forever. The flow duration curve has been examined and assessed. However, during very dry years the flow available for power generation might drop below the actual design flow during some periods. Currently the utility’s grid is basically down for some time every day. These blackout periods can influence the risk and the revenue of the plant significantly. Prevailing Practice Barriers Even though they do exist, hydropower plants are not the standard in Indonesia. In the region of West Sumatra only 3 hydropower plants are operated by the state utility compared to over 140 diesel plants (as at 2004). The existing 3 plants also have a much larger capacity, all of them between 10 and 180 MW (according to PT. Entec). Investors hesitate to support this less-known technology and particularly small hydro plants. In Annex 2 PLN statistics clarify the prevailing electricity generating practice in West Sumatra.

3b

The identified barriers would obviously not have prevented alternative 1 and 2.

Argument not justified Argument not convincing Argument justified but not

decisive Argument justified / significant


4 Step 4. Common practice analysis

4a and 4b There are only 3 hydropower The argument is substantiated step passed



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82


plants connected to the West Sumatra grid compared to over 140 diesel plants. There are no signs, regulations or announcements that this tendency could be changed toward more hydroelectricity. See also explanations in Step 3a – Barriers due to prevailing practice.

with a publicly available statistic by PT. PLN for the year 2005. Only 2% of the installed power plants in the province Barat are hydro power plants/ADD/.

step not passed not applicable

Assessment of the validation team project is additional project is not additional

The additionality provided in the PDD is well substantiated with references and documents (please refer table 7-1, /ADD/). One of the main arguments is the financial barrier identified by several organizations referenced in the final PDD/PDD/. The project faces additionally technological barriers which directly are related to higher investment risks because it is based on the reconstruction of partially 100 year old structures; hence it is not known whether additional investment is necessary in the future. This and the several electric power sector characteristics like subsidies for fossil fuelled power plants make it difficult to get loans for private investment in the hydro power sector in Indonesia. A bank based in Europe and specialised to sustainable development was willing to provide a loan, but the exchange rates and the higher inflation rate in Indonesia increase the risk for the investor so that the investment without carbon credits faces to high barriers. Besides several references with generic information the business plan was provided to the DOE to evidence these statements. The power purchase agreement between the project owner and PLN has to be renewed once a year, this leads to further uncertainties in investment. The unavailability of the grid several times per day was detected by the validation team during the site visit. Sometimes the grid is down for several hours, during this time no electricity can be supplied to the grid, another factor for a reliable analysis how much electricity can be exported and sold to the grid.

The common practice analysis shows that only 3 of 149 grid connected power plants in the province of Barat are based on hydro power/ADD/. Considering all provinces of Sumatra the common practice shows a worse situation: only 9 of 1491 power plants have been based on hydro power in the year 2005 (< 1%). Even if the potential for small hydro power plants is high and has been identified by PLN it is not expected that the situation will change without private investment because of the financial constraints of PT.PLN/HRSHP/ and the comparable low selling price of electricity for residential districts in the rural areas.

The provided evidences and references have been approved by the validation team to arrive at the conclusion that the revenues from the emission reductions are essential to reduce the investment risks to a level that private investment can be done for this small hydro power project.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Nevertheless during the validation CAR A2 and CAR B5 have been raised and successfully closed. Please refer table 3 for further information.

ODA Additionality Screen

No ODA funds were used to finance the project activity. This was also confirmed by the project developer and was assessed with the business plan/ADD/.

Conservative approach

The most plausible scenario at time of validation is the annual kWh generated by the renewable unit times the emission coefficient for the grid, calculated by data directly provided by PT.PLN and equipment suppliers/GEF/. In order to meet the Gold Standard Requirements, it is necessary to use the most conservative alternative for the baseline, i. e. the grid, and the baseline emissions. The emission coefficient of 0.679 tCO2/MWh was calculated as the average of the “approximate operating margin” and the “build margin” based on the electricity distribution system at time of validation/AMS I.D/.

TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP confirms that the baseline scenario has been established in a conservative manner and is in compliance with the applied version 13 of the methodology AMS I.D/AMS I.D/.

Technology transfer and / or knowledge innovation

Sufficient evidence has been provided to TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP that there are benefits for the project activity due to technology transfer as well as knowledge innovation/SD//TEI/. Benefits results from

- The technology transfer (partially) from Switzerland and Austria to the host country

- The technology transfer to a rural area. - Intensive qualification and training of the local staff of the plant. - Exchange of information with other hydro power plant developers in the private

sector and promotion of development in renewable energy sector.

CR B1 and CR B2 were raised during the validation process regarding the technology transfer and training opportunities and successfully closed.

4.6 Crediting Period

The starting date of the crediting period as mentioned in the PDD under Section C.2. is 01/08/2007. The intended crediting period of the project is 15 years fixed as for micro scale projects, up to 2022. The starting date of the project activity as mentioned in the PDD under Section C.1 and verified by the validation team is 02/01/2006, the start of construction for phase I. The project life time (30 years for



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

both phases), indicated in the Section C.1.2 of the PDD was verified by the validation team. However, as per experiences of the validation team under proper operation it is possible that the lifetime get extended. However, CAR C1 has been raised during validation and was successfully closed, please refer table 3 for details.

4.7 Monitoring Plan

The project applies the monitoring methodology AMS ID: Grid connected renewable electricity generation: Version 13 (EB 36) for small scale CDM project activities.

The project category is renewable electricity generation for a grid system having installed capacity less than 15 MW. The proposed VER project falls under category I.D. – Grid connected renewable electricity generation as per the UNFCCC criteria and category A.1.2 Hydroelectricity as per the GS eligible project types.

The project methodology consists of metering the electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid and the electricity imported from the Grid. The ice factory and few houses are connected to the turbines before the grid interconnection point; hence it is not necessary to deduct this part. However, a separate meter is installed for them during phase II and if after their connection to the turbine any changes in the installation would be implemented, this meter can be used in the future to deduct the electricity consumption from the exported net electricity, but also previously for cross-checks. The data are measured continuously and recorded monthly. Cross-check with the bills is possible as well as with the electronic readings of the control system.

The OM and BM are calculated as fixed factors for the 15 years fixed crediting period by choosing data based on ex-ante data provided by PT.PLN, PT.Pertamina, AKSA Würenlos AG and MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH.

The procedure for calibration, accuracy and maintenance of monitoring equipment are clearly mentioned as per QA/QC procedure of PDD.

The meter is a bidirectional meter of class 0.5 accuracy.

Additionally three SD indicators will be monitored as indicated in section D.2.1.2 of the PDD which have been identified as crucial for the sustainable development. They are related to the employment, generated with the project activity. The parameters monitored are the numbers of employees for the quantity and salary and trainings for the quality of the jobs. Since most of the trainings will be internal they will be monitored by signatures. Nevertheless, also the salary is an indicator for the job quality, because with additional trainings the employees have the possibility to fulfil higher internal job requirements. The indicators and data collection methodology have been described in a sufficient manner. The indicators are deemed appropriate. Difficulties regarding availability are not expected. Nevertheless CAR A2 and CAR B7 were raised related to the monitoring plan and tables in the PDD and were successfully closed.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Please refer to Table 3 of Validation Protocol for Corrective Action Request (CARs).

4.8 Calculation of GHG Emissions

Methodologies for calculating emission reductions are documented. The project intends to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by generating electricity from a run-of-river hydroelectric project, which would be exported to the PT-PLN grid of West Sumatra.

Project emission: The proposed project is a run-of-river hydropower project, the project emission is zero.

Leakage: The technology introduced is not transferred to or from another project activity. Thus leakage can be ignored.

The emission reduction calculation was reviewed by the validation team. All underlying data/ values are transparent presented and assessed to be adequate.

4.9 Sustainable Development

The sustainable development indicators relevant for the project activity have been assessed using the Gold Standard Sustainable Development (SD) assessment matrix.

The scoring is reproducible and the justification considers existing information like results from the environmental impact assessment and the local stakeholder consultation in a sufficient manner/EIA//ISC/. All considered changes are relative to the baseline situation. In the consultation the scoring of the SD matrix has been discussed in detail with local stakeholders. The results of this consultation confirm the positive impacts of the project in terms of sustainable development.

The total score is +7. There is no sub-total score that is negative and none of the indicators have a negative score. Comprehensive information has been provided to TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP suitable to evidence the data and statements/SD/. Even if the project activity is of a very small scale and it is difficult to trace back whether only this project leads to an overall positive impact the replication of such small renewable energy projects will bring measurable effects for the environment and sustainable development, hence the validation team assessed the provided references as traceable information to conclude the positive impacts of the project activity.

Crucial indicators have been identified and included in the monitoring plan.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

4.10 Environmental Impacts

The environmental impact assessment is mandatory in Indonesia. It was carried out in 2005 and was approved on 3rd January 2006/EIA/. Since during this time the format of appendix C of the GS VVM/GS-VVM/ which is now mandatory for GS run-of-river projects was not existent the format is different. However, the EIA has been checked by the validation team inter alia w. r. t. the specific aspects of the appendix C of the GS. As per communication between the Gold Standard and myclimate this procedure could be accepted.

Since the project activity uses infrastructure already existing since 100 years no environmental impacts are expected. Environmental and social-economic impacts were discussed in detail. Environmental impacts in the phase of construction and at operating stage were assessed. Only during the rehabilitation of the weir and intake canal the fauna and flora may be disturbed for a few days. Also no negative social impacts have been identified; positive effects for the region are expected in terms of job creation, electricity supply and better infrastructure.

Although the GS version June 2007 requires at least an integrated stakeholder consultation for the EIA the same was not mentioned in the earlier versions of the GS. Formerly it was mentioned that the initial stakeholder consultation should be based on environmental impacts, what has been done in this project activity. Since environmental impacts have been addressed in the initial stakeholder consultation/ISC/ the validation team has concluded that the procedure is in line with the requirements.

Also the stakeholders have not identified any environmental impacts, only during the rehabilitation phase it is expected that fauna and flora is disturbed as well as the local people are affected by increased transport and particles in the water. No negative impacts are expected during the operation. Positive social impacts are expected with the project activity since the creation of jobs will prevent the illegal timbering in the forest nearby/ISC/, this could also have a positive impact to the biodiversity.

The validation team concluded that the project activity will cause only positive impacts in terms of sustainable development and no negative impacts in terms of the environment.

Nevertheless CAR A2 has been raised during validation and was successfully closed. Refer table 3 for more information.

4.11 Comments by Local Stakeholders

Consultation meetings for local stakeholders have been carried out on 4th of September, 14th of November and 23rd of November 2006 in Salido Kecil, Bandung and Tambang. Additional all GS supporting NGOs which are located in Indonesia as well as the international NGOs with locals in Indonesia have been consulted between 11th and 22nd of December 2006 via e-mail.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

The comments received by the stakeholders have been summarized in the initial stakeholder consultation report which was made publicly available. No negative comments received for the project activity, only during the rehabilitation and construction phases temporary impacts are expected.

All comments received (fulfilled questionnaires) have been checked by the validator. The NGOs don’t expect significant negative impacts after the full implementation of the project activity. However, impacts during the construction phase might happen but are not significant and thus negligible.

The validation team contacted some of the stakeholders named in the initial stakeholder consultation report/IM04/. The local residents confirmed that they don’t expect any negative impacts by the project activity but that they get the possibility to ask questions and give comments. They appreciate that with the project more jobs have been created close to their residents.

Mr. Dadang Sudardja has represented the NGO WALHI during the initial stakeholder consultation. He has not attended to the meeting at Salido and his comments have been based only on the description of the project. Nevertheless, he confirmed that, during the meeting held in November 2006 in Bandang, he got an overview about the project activity and filled in the questionnaire. He couldn’t expect any negative environmental or social impacts and he appreciates that under the CDM the societies have the possibility to develop such small hydro projects in Indonesia.

Neverthelss, CR E1 has been raised during the validation process and was successfully closed.

4.12 Pre-feasibility assessment

Table 4-12: Summary of responses to requests formulated in the GS pre-feasibility assessment

GS pre-feasibility assessment Response by the project owner / TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP

1. Eligibility

Per GS requirements, all hydro projects require the use of Appendix C EIA Requirement for Run of River projects. Please ensure that this has been conducted, and that the validation team will have access to this document.

As per the explanation provided in section 4.10 of this report a deviation is accepted by the GS.

A summary of the EIA is included in the PDD for the respective points and a cross check has been conducted by the validation team.

2. Sustainable Development Assessment matrix

Please provide a reference (with page number, if applicable) for each of the justification paragraphs related to the

References are now provided for the justifications and the documents are



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

indicators. Please ensure that the validation team will be given access to these references, as this will ensure reproducibility of the scoring as well as facilitate the efficiency of the validation process.

provided to the validor.

Please indicate on the matrix (with *) which of the indicators have been chosen for inclusion in the monitoring plan.

The employment in quantity and quality are marked with an asterix and included in the monitoring plan.

In general, for micro-scale projects, it is not necessary to use the -2 to +2 scoring system. Only –, 0, + is necessary. This, however, does not affect the current status of the project activity.

The scoring system is revised to the micro scale system now.

Employment quality: According to GS procedures, crucial indicators are those deemed as positively contributing to local sustainable development. In this case, the creation of permanent and better paying jobs could be seen as a crucial indicator and should therefore be added to the monitoring plan, as its fluctuation could affect local stakeholder support for this project. In addition, please consider changing this score from neutral to positive. Employment numbers: Please consider the monitoring of this indicator, as the creation of permanent jobs can be considered as crucial for an overall positive contribution towards local sustainable development.

Both parameters are marked with an asterix and included in the monitoring plan.

3. Stakeholder Consultation

Please amend the Initial Stakeholder Consultation report to include an attendance sheet, with signatures and clear contact details. This will ensure that the validation team is able to conduct follow-up interviews as needed.

The Initial Stakeholder consultation report is not modified but all information and documents have been provided to the validation team.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

4. Monitoring

Please include the above-mentioned crucial indicators (i.e. employment quality and employment numbers) from the sustainability matrix into the monitoring plan.

Employment quality and quantity is mentioned in the monitoring plan now.

Per GS rules, please also include any mitigation or compensation measures identified from the Appendix C EIA Requirement for Run of River projects, and from the other EIA that was conducted.

No mitigation or compensation measures are identified in the EIA. As clarified in section 4.10 a special EIA as per Appendix C of the GS was not necessary to conduct.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

5 COMMENTS BY PARTIES, STAKEHOLDERS AND NGOS

According to the GS Validation and Verification manual/GS-VVM/ for micro scale projects at least one stakeholder consultation is required with the intention of an initial stakeholder consultation. As per the GS rules and procedures, updates and clarifications an international stakeholder is not required for VER project activities.

Please refer section 4.10 for the initial stakeholder consultation.



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

6 VALIDATION OPINION The myclimate – The climate Protection Partnership has commissioned the TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program (CP) to validate the project: “Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower Plant, Indonesia” with regard to the relevant requirements of the Gold Standard for Gold Standard VER project activities, as well as criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting.

The project activity exports the electricity, produced with a small hydro power plant to the PT PLN grid in West Sumatra. The project intends to reduce GHG emissions to the extent of equivalent electricity generated by fossil fuels based power plants of the grid.

A risk based approach has been followed to perform this validation. In the course of the pre-validation, 9 Corrective Action Requests (CARs) and 5 Clarification Requests (CRs) were raised and successfully closed.

The review of the project design documentation and additional documents related to baseline and monitoring methodology; the subsequent background investigation, follow-up interviews and review of comments by parties, stakeholders and NGOs have provided TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP with sufficient evidence to validate the fulfilment of the stated criteria.

In detail the conclusions can be summarised as follows:

- The project is in line with all relevant host country criteria (Indonesia) and all relevant GS requirements for VER.

- The sustainable development is suffiently justified and referenced.

- The project additionality is sufficiently justified in the PDD.

- The monitoring plan is transparent and adequate.

- The calculation of the project emission reductions is carried out in a transparent and conservative manner, so that the calculated emission reductions of 57,929 tCO2e is most likely to be achieved within the 15 years fixed crediting period (Aug. 2007-July 2022).

The conclusions of this report show, that the project, as it was described in the project documentation, is in line with all criteria applicable for the validation.

Essen, 2008-09-22 Essen, 2008-09-22

Rainer Winter Eric Krupp

TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program TN JI/CDM Certification Program

Team Leader Final Approval



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

7 REFERENCES

Table 7-1: Documents provided by the project proponent

Reference Document

/ADD/ Documents evidencing the additionality arguments • Public Announcement Check

• PT.entec involvement in the project activity

• Loan contract and conditions (2005-11-14)

• Statistics about no. of installed hydro power plants in Sumatra, generated electricity and fuel consumption

• Hangzhou, P.R. China: The Prospect of Small Hydro Power Development in Indonesia, TCDC Training Course, October and November 2002

• Energy Information Administration, Country Analysis Indonesia, January 2007

• Purchase Tariff

• Business Plan

• Project Idea Note, myclimate, dated 2005-08-19

• Averaged selling price of electricity by type of customer 1992 – 2005, PLN statistics 2004-2005

/CDNA/ Confirmation of notification of the Indonesian DNA

• Masnellyarti Hilman, Chairman of National Comission on CDM, e-mail dated 26th December 2006

/COM/ Commissioning Certificate of the 1st hydro turbine, No. 004/PLTM/076A.07/SKT-JS/2007, dated 1st August 2007

/EIA/ Environmental Impact Assessment & Approval, No. 660/01.I/LH – SETDA/2005, dated 3rd January 2006

/FSR/ Feasibility study report, June 2004

/GEF/ Grid Emission Factor • Letter of PT PLN (Persero) Wilayah Sumatera Barat, statistical data

about the power plants built most recently, dated 2006-08-28

• Efficiency MTU diesel generators, MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH

• Efficiency KTA38G5, AKSA Würenlos AG

• Pertamina Bunker, high speed diesel specification



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Reference Document

/ISC/ Initial Stakeholder Consultation • Consultation 4th September 2006, Salido Kecil, Office PT.AMS • Consultation 14th November 2006, Bandung, PT.Entec Indonesia

Office • Consultation 23rd November 2006, Tambang, Wali Nagari Office • NGO e-mail consultation (11th to 22nd December 2006) • Initial Stakeholder Consultation Report (January 2007)

/LP/ Layout Plan • Water Conveyance • Power House • Settling Bassins

/MOU/ Memorandum of Understanding

• PT.AMS – PT.Entec (26th August 2004) • PT.Entec – myclimate (20th December 2005)

/OM/ Operating and maintenance manual DTC Vario System

/PDD/ • Project Design Document entitled “Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower

Plant, Indonesia, Version 01, dated 2007-06-27 (draft)

• Project Design Document entitled “Salido Kecil Mini Hydropower Plant, Indonesia, Version 03, dated 2008-07-17 (final)

/PPA/ Power Purchase Agreement between PT.AMS and PT.PLN, dated 2005-08-08

/QA/ Internal quality assurance documentation

• Calibration schedule of equipment/ instruments, calibration procedures and records

/SD/ Sustainable Development

• Country Report: The prospects of small hydro power development in Indonesia, 2002 TCDC Training Course on Small Hydro Power.

• Natural Selection – Evolving Choices for Renewable Energy Technology and Policy, UNEP 2000

• Burning our future – Coal, Climate Change and Renewable Energy in Asia, Greenpeace 2005.

• PT PLN Persero Annual Report 2006

• Contracts of employees (Mr. Akmal Hamli)

• Monitoring sheet of employees



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Reference Document

/TEI/ Technical Equipment Informations • Turbine: Pelton, Briegleb, Hansen & Co, 330 kW, 750 rpm

• Generator: SGS 7C 08T, Hitzinger, 400 kVA, 750 rpm

• Transformator: Starlite, PT. Asata Utama Wlectrical Industries

• Contro System: DTC – Vario

• Meter: Actaris SL7000, 0.5 class, bi-directional

Table 7-2: Background investigation and assessment documents

Reference Document

/AMS I.D./ ”Grid-connected renewable electricity generation” (Version 13), EB 36

/CPM/ TÜV Nord JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms)

/GSDM/ The Gold Standard Developers Manual, Version 5, dated May 2006

/GSPDD/ Gold Standard Project Design for Gold Standard Voluntary Offset Projects (GS-VER-PDD) with explanation to fulfilment.

/GS-VVM/ The Gold Standard Validation and Verification Manual for Voluntary Offset Projects, dated June 2007

/IPCC-GP/ IPCC Good Practice Guidance & Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2000

/IPCC-RM/ Revised 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Reference Manual

/KP/ Kyoto Protocol (1997)

/MA/ Decision 17/CP. 7 (Marrakesh – Accords & Annex to decision 17/CP.7)

/SMP/ Simplified modalities and procedures for small–scale clean development mechanism project activities (Annex II to Decision 21/CP.18)

/TA/ Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Ver 5)

/TEF/ Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 1)

/VVM/ IETA, PCF Validation and Verification Manual (V.4)



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Table 7-3: Websites used

Reference Link Organisation

/dna/ http://dna-cdm.menlh.go.id/en/ National Commission for CDM, Indonesia

/eia/ http://www.eia.doe.gov/ Energy Information Administration

/ENTEC/ http://www.entec.ch http://www.entec.co.id

Entec Consulting and Engineering

/esdm/ www.esdm.go.id Ministry of Energy and Mineral Sources, Indonesia

/GS/ www.cdmgoldstandard.org The Gold Standard

/HRSHP/ http://www.hrcshp.org/index.shtml

Hangzhou Regional Center for Small Hydro Power

/ipcc/ www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp IPCC publications

/pert/ www.pertamina.com PT Pertamina

/PLN/ http://www.pln.co.id PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PLN)

/unfccc/ http://cdm.unfccc.int UNFCCC

Table 7-4: List of interviewed persons

Reference MoI1 Name Organisation / Function

/IM01/ V Mr. Ms.

Mark Hayton PT Entec Indonesia, President Director

/IM01/ V Mr. Ms.

Komarudin PT Entec Indonesia, Project Manager Salido Kecil

/IM01/ V Mr. Ms.

Aljamani Salido Kecil, Operator

/IM02/ T Mr. Ms

Ibratama Munir Director, PT Anggrek Metar Sari

/IM03/ T Mr. Ms.

Thomas Finsterwald

Myclimate – The Climate Protection Partnership, Consulter

/IM04/ T Mr. Ms.

Hendra Local resident, Salido



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

Reference MoI1 Name Organisation / Function

/IM04/ T Mr. Ms.

Kamus Local resident, Salido

/IM04/ T Mr. Ms.

Dadang Sudardja Member of WALHI during the ISC

1) Means of Interview: (Telephone, E-Mail, Visit)



P-No.: 8000352890 – 07/144

of 82

ANNEX

Validation Protocol



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144

* MoV = Means of Verification, DR= Document Review, I= Interview Page A-39

ANNEX: VALIDATION PROTOCOL

Table 1: Requirements Checklist

CHECKLIST QUESTION Ref. MoV* COMMENTS Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

A. General Description of Project Activity The project design is assessed.

A.1. Project Boundaries Project Boundaries are the limits

and borders defining the GHG emission reduction project.

A.1.1. Are the project’s spatial boundaries (geographical) clearly defined?

/PDD/ (A 4.1.4),

(B.3.)

DR

Yes, the spatial boundary of the project activity is explained correctly. It includes all power plants that are connected physically to the electricity system where the VER project supplies electricity to. As described under B.3. of the PDD the PLN grid of West Sumatra is part of this spatial boundary. Nevertheless, for the unique identification of the project site the longitude and latitude as well as the address (if possible) should be included in section A.4.1.4 PDD.

CAR A1

OK

A.1.2. Are the project’s system boundaries (components and facilities used to mitigate GHGs) clearly defined?

/PDD/ (A 4.1.4)

DR The description of the system boundary in PDD section A.4.1.4. should be more precisely. Information about the dam (e.g. length, heights, intakes etc), the submerged area and if the project includes a reservoir or is run-of-river type should be provided. A technical drawing as additional annex might be helpful.

CR A1 OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

A.2. Participation Requirements Referring to Part A, Annex 1 and

2 of the PDD as well as the CDM glossary with respect to the terms Party, Letter of Approval, Authorization and Project Participant.

A.2.1. Which Parties and project participants are participating in the project?

/PDD/ (A.3.),

(Annex 1),

DR, I As the project activity is a VER project, no parties or host country approvals are necessary. The project participants are PT.AMS (owner) and myclimate. However, as per discussion during the site visit, clarification is necessary whether PT.entec is also a project participant and should be included in the corresponding section. Confirmation of PT.entec is required regarding their participation.

OK

CR A2

OK

A.2.2. Have all involved Parties provided a valid and complete letter of approval and have all private/public project participants been authorized by an involved Party?

/PDD/ (A.3.)

DR, I Not applicable. OK

A.2.3. Do all participating Parties fulfil the participation requirements as follows:

/GS/ /unfccc/

DR Indonesia as well as Switzerland have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. However, for Gold Standard VER projects an approval of the host Party’s DNA is not required.

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

− Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

− Voluntary participation

− Designated a National Authority

A.2.4. Potential public funding for the project from Parties in Annex I shall not be a diversion of official development assistance.

/PDD/

DR, I Public funding from an Annex I - country is not used to finance the project activity.

OK

A.3. Technology to be employed Validation of project technology

focuses on the project engineering, choice of technology and competence/ maintenance needs. The validator should ensure that environmentally safe and sound technology and know-how is used.

A.3.1. Does the project design engineering reflect current good practices?

/PDD/ (A.4.4.)

DR, I Yes, the project is a run-of-river hydro power project which uses the water flow of a river to generate electricity. The emission reductions result due to the displacement of the grid based power.

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

A.3.2. Does the project use state of the art technology or would the technology result in a significantly better performance than any commonly used technologies in the host country?

/PDD/ (A.4.2.)

DR Hydro power is a technology to generate GHG emission free electricity. The components utilized are new and state of the art.

OK

A.3.3. Does the project make provisions for meeting training and maintenance needs?

/PDD/ (A.2.)

DR, I In section A.2. of the PDD it is indicated that the employees of the project activity will get training for observation and monitoring of the technical equipment (esp. the turbines and generators).

OK

A.4. Contribution to Sustainable Development

The project’s contribution to sustainable development is assessed.

A.4.1. Has the host country confirmed that the project assists it in achieving sustainable development?

/LOA/ DR Not applicable. OK

A.4.2. Will the project create other environmental or

/PDD/ (A.2.)

DR The view of the project participants on the contribution of the project activity towards sustainable development is

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

social benefits than GHG emission reductions?

briefly described in section A.2.

The project compensates mainly the gap between supply and demand of electricity. Further it improves the air conditions as fossil fuel energy is replaced and the economic growth of the region is positively influenced. The project activity also helps to reduce the dependency of ending fossil fuel resources. Since the installed electricity generation will be exceeded and a higher monitoring is required the project will create also new long term jobs as well as short time jobs during the different construction phases.

Small scale project activity Is it assessed whether the project qualifies as small-scale CDM project activity

A.4.3. Does the project qualify as a small scale CDM project activity as defined in paragraph 6 (c) of decision 17/CP.7 on the modalities and procedures for the CDM?

/PDD/ (A.4.2, A.4.3

A.4.4.1)

/AMS I.D./

/GS/

DR In section A.4.3 of the PDD it is explained why the project activity refers to AMS I.D. It fulfils the criteria as a renewable energy source is used which is connected to an electricity grid which is supplied by fossil fuel fired power plants. The installed capacity is under the threshold of 15 MW.

Furthermore, the yearly emission reduction is estimated to be between 1000 and 4650 t CO2, thus the project activity qualifies as a Micro Scale Project as per the Gold Standard requirements.

OK

A.4.4. Is the small scale project activity not a debundled component of a larger

/IM01/

/IM02/

DR, I Yes, the project is not a debundled component of a large hydropower project activity. This was confirmed by the project participant and the consultant during interview and

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

project activity? on-site visit.

A.5. General Topics

A.5.1. Has the PDD been duly filled?

/PDD/ DR No, several sections need adaptation regarding the Guidelines to fulfil the GS-VER-PDD.

Several CARs

OK

A.5.2. Has all necessary information been made available to the validator?

DR, I Several documents which are necessary to provide a final assessment of the proposed project activity are pending. Kindly refer to the list of documents provided in section 5, table 5.1, for all pending documents regarding the project.

CAR A2

OK

B. Project Baseline The validation of the project baseline establishes whether the selected baseline methodology is appropriate and whether the selected baseline represents a likely baseline scenario.

B.1. Baseline Methodology It is assessed whether the

project applies an appropriate baseline methodology.

B.1.1. Does the project apply an approved methodology and the correct version thereof?

/PDD/ (B.1)

/AMS I.D./

DR The project applies the small scale methodology AMS I.D. Version 10 (EB 33). Since this version has been revised, adaptation of all corresponding sections to the current available version is required.

CAR B1

OK

B.1.2. Are the applicability /PDD/ DR The project activity uses hydropower as a renewable



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

criteria in the baseline methodology all fulfilled?

(B.1.1), /AMS I.D./

energy source. It is connected to the West Sumatra electricity grid and it is below the threshold of 15 MW. Nevertheless, the justification of the SSC Methodology AMS.I.D in section B.1.1 should be more specified according to all applicability criteria, hence revision is required.

CAR B2

B.2. Baseline Scenario Determination

The choice of the baseline scenario will be validated with focus on whether the baseline is a likely scenario, and whether the methodology to define the baseline scenario has been followed in a complete and transparent manner.

B.2.1. What is the baseline scenario?

/PDD/ (B.2.)

/AMS I.D./ /ACM0002/

DR The baseline scenario is the continuation of the pre-project scenario, i. e. the electricity supply to the ice factory with one old turbine. However, as per the guidelines for completing the PDD all key parameters and information used for the estimation of the baseline scenario should be provided in table form. Furthermore clarification regarding the pre-project scenario is required, because in the PDD several inconsistencies whether households are provided with electricity or not are included. For the demonstration of the historical electricity generation a minimum of 5 years of data is required.

CAR B3

OK

B.2.2. What other alternative /PDD/ DR, I Since there is no investment capital for the case that the OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

scenarios have been considered and why is the selected scenario the most likely one?

(B.3.) /AMS I.D./ /ACM0002/

old equipment will break down, there is no alternative given to the project activity without the revenues of the carbon credits. The old equipment will continue to generate electricity for the ice factory till the break down of the equipment.

B.2.3. Has the baseline scenario been determined according to the methodology?

/PDD/ (B.3.),


DR Yes, the baseline scenario is in line with the methodology. However, the used version of AMS.I.D is not the latest and all corresponding sections should be adapted to the currently available version. For additional information regarding the historical situation and electricity generation please refer CAR B3

CAR B1

OK

B.2.4. Has the baseline scenario been determined using conservative assumptions where possible?

/PDD/ (B.3.),


DR Yes, since the electricity consumption of the ice factory will be subtracted from the generated electricity of the project activity, the most conservative assumption has been chosen. However, clarification regarding the historical data and pre-project scenario is required in section E for the calculation of the historical electricity generation as per AMS.I.D.

OK

CAR B.3

OK

B.2.5. Does the baseline scenario sufficiently take into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies, macro-economic trends and political aspirations?

/PDD/ (B.3.),


DR Yes, there are no political or economical trends or aspirations to prohibit fossil fuel based electricity generation.

OK

B.2.6. Is the baseline scenario determination compatible with the available data

/PDD/ (E.4.)

/AMS I.D./

DR The baseline scenario data is based on information provided by PLN, the grid operator. The data used for the calculation of the grid emission

CAR

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

and are all literature and sources clearly referenced?

/ACM0002/ /NCV/ /IPCC/

factor in section E.4 should be referenced in the PDD with a publicly available data source.

A2

B.2.7. Have the major risks to the baseline been identified?

/PDD/ (B.4.)

DR No major risks were identified and are not to be expected. OK

B.3. Additionality Determination The assessment of additionality will be validated with focus on whether the project itself is not a likely baseline scenario.

B.3.1. Is the project additionality assessed according to the methodology?

/PDD/ (B.3.),

/AMS I.D./

DR Yes, in section B.3 of the PDD the additionality is justified with the barrier approach according to the additionality tool. Nevertheless, the additionality argumentation should be revised to version 3 of the additionality tool. Furthermore all arguments should be referenced resp. the documents should be provided to the validator as evidences.

CAR B5

OK

B.3.2. Are all assumptions stated in a transparent and conservative manner?

/PDD/ (B.3.)

DR All arguments should be referenced with data sources or documents.

CAR B5

OK

B.3.3. Is sufficient evidence provided to support the relevance of the arguments made?

/PDD/ (B.3.)

DR, I Several documents should be provided to assess the argumentation. Please refer CAR A2 and B5

CAR A2

CAR B5

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.3.4. If the starting date of the project activity is before the date of validation, has sufficient evidence been provided that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity?

/PDD/ (B.3.)

DR, I The validation is conducted after the start of the project activity. During September and October 2005 the management decided to start with the project activity as CDM/VER benefits could be considered to improve the financial feasibility of the project activity. However, reliable and approved documents were not yet presented to the validator. Documentation should be provided. Kindly refer to CAR A1.

CAR A1

OK

B.4. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Project emissions It is assessed whether the project emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values – where applicable – is justified.

B.4.1. Are the calculations documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/PDD/ (E.4.)

/AMS.I.D/

DR According to AMS I.D. project emissions must not be considered for renewable energy projects.

N/A

B.4.2. Have conservative assumptions been used

/PDD/ (B.6.)

DR Refer B.4.1 N/A



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

when calculating the project emissions

B.4.3. Are uncertainties in the project emission estimates properly addressed?

/PDD/ (B.6.)

DR Refer B.4.1 N/A

B.5. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Baseline emissions It is assessed whether the baseline emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values – where applicable – is justified.

B.5.1. Are the calculations documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/PDD/ (E.4.)


/IPCC/

DR The calculations and formulae provided in section E.4. are in accordance to AMS I.D. The approach to calculate the baseline emission factor as a Combined Margin as stated in the methodology ACM0002 is correct. Nevertheless, it is not clearly stated which kind of calculation for the OM is used. It should be clearly indicated, whether the calculation of the grid emission factor is ex-ante (fixed) or ex-post (annually update) over the 15 years crediting period. Furthermore the data used for the ex-ante estimation should be revised to the actual available data, i. e. the year 2004 – 2006 and the data should be referenced with official available data sources.

CAR B6

CAR A2

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

Adaptation to the currently available version of AMS.I.D is necessary.

CAR B1

B.5.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the baseline emissions

/PDD/ (E.4.)

DR Please refer section B.5.2 CAR B6

CAR A2

CAR B1

OK

B.5.3. Are uncertainties in the baseline emission estimates properly addressed?

/PDD/ (E.4.)

DR No uncertainties are expected in estimating the baseline emissions.

OK

B.6. Calculation of GHG Emission Reductions – Leakage It is assessed whether leakage emissions are stated according to the methodology and whether the argumentation for the choice of default factors and values – where applicable – is justified.

B.6.1. Are the leakage calculations documented according to the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

/PDD/ (E.2.)

DR, I During interview it was confirmed that leakage is not applicable as the energy generating equipment is not transferred from another activity. The same is indicated in the PDD in section E.2.

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.6.2. Have conservative assumptions been used when calculating the leakage emissions?

/PDD/ (B.6.)

DR Not applicable since leakage is not considered. N/A

B.6.3. Are uncertainties in the leakage emission estimates properly addressed?

/PDD/ (B.6.)

DR Not applicable since leakage is not considered. N/A

B.7. Emission Reductions The emission reductions shall be real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change.

B.7.1. Are the emission reductions real, measurable and give long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change.

/PDD/ (E.5)

DR The CARs/CRs given in section B have to be closed satisfactorily before forming an opinion.

Not yet OK

OK

B.8. Monitoring Methodology It is assessed whether the project applies an appropriate baseline methodology.

B.8.1. Is the monitoring plan documented according to

/PDD/ (D.2)

DR The methodology applied is AMS I.D. According to the methodology “Monitoring shall consist of metering the

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

the approved methodology and in a complete and transparent manner?

electricity generated by the renewable technology.” Nevertheless, the whole monitoring section needs revision esp. according to the following issues: It is not clearly stated whether the net electricity is meant in section D.2.1.4. To be most accurately, the electricity generation and the auxiliary consumption could be included to calculate the net generation which should be also monitored.

• The electricity should be measured hourly/continously and recorded monthly.

• A cross check with receipt of sales is required. • The quality procedure of the monitoring should be

described more precisely. Calibration periods should be included.

• During on-site visit it was detected, that no back-up meters were installed. Quality procedures should be described for the blackout of equipment.

• The measurement equipment should be described, incl. addressing of accuracy.

• Procedures for the data handling and measurements should be included.

• Responsibilities should be explained to ensure the data handling and accuracy. The provision of the management and operational structure might be helpful.

• Since it is not clearly stated whether the emission factor will be calculated ex-ante or ex-post it could not assessed, whether additional parameters should be monitored.

CAR B.7

CAR B6



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.8.2. Will all monitored data required for verification and issuance be kept for two years after the end of the crediting period or the last issuance of CERs, for this project activity, whichever occurs later?

/PDD/ (D.2.)

DR Yes, the data will be archived two years after the end of the crediting period. This is indicated in D.2.1.4.

OK

B.9. Monitoring of Project Emissions It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete project emission data over time.

B.9.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for estimation or measuring the greenhouse gas emissions within the project boundary during the crediting period?

/PDD/ (D.2.)

DR As project emissions are zero, this is not applicable. N/A

B.9.2. Are the choices of project /PDD/ DR As project emissions are zero, this is not applicable. N/A



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

GHG indicators reasonable and conservative?

(D.2.)

B.9.3. Is the measurement method clearly stated for each GHG value to be monitored and deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (D.2.)


B.9.4. Is the measurement equipment described and deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (D.2.)


B.9.5. Is the measurement accuracy addressed and deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on how to deal with erroneous measurements?

/PDD/ (D.2.)


B.9.6. Is the measurement interval identified and deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (D.2.)


B.9.7. Is the registration, monitoring,

/PDD/ (D.2.)




P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

measurement and reporting procedure defined?

B.9.8. Are procedures identified

for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations? Are the calibration intervals being observed?

/PDD/ (D.2.)


B.9.9. Are procedures identified for day-to-day records handling (including what records to keep, storage area of records and how to process performance documentation)

/PDD/ (D.2.)


B.10. Monitoring of Baseline Emissions It is established whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete baseline emission data over time.

B.10.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all

/PDD/ (D.2.)

DR No, please refer CAR B7 and CAR B6. CAR B7

CAR

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

relevant data necessary for determining baseline emissions during the crediting period?

B6

B.10.2. Are the choices of baseline GHG indicators reasonable and conservative?

/PDD/ (D/E)

DR Yes, the only considered GHG is CO2. OK

B.10.3. Is the measurement method clearly stated for each baseline indicator to be monitored and also deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (D) DR No, kindly refer to CAR B7 and CAR B6 CAR B7 & B6

OK

B.10.4. Is the measurement equipment described and deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (D.) DR No, kindly refer to CAR B7 and CAR B6 CAR B7 & B6

OK

B.10.5. Is the measurement accuracy addressed and deemed appropriate? Are procedures in place on how to deal with erroneous measurements?

/PDD/ (D) DR No, kindly refer to CAR B7 and CAR B6 CAR B7 & B6

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.10.6. Is the measurement interval for baseline data identified and deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (D.) DR No, kindly refer to CAR B7 and CAR B6 CAR B7 & B6

OK

B.10.7. Is the registration, monitoring, measurement and reporting procedure defined?

/PDD/ (D.) DR No, kindly refer to CAR B7. CAR B7

OK

B.10.8. Are procedures identified for maintenance of monitoring equipment and installations? Are the calibration intervals being observed?

/PDD/ (D) DR It is stated in section D.4, that a plant operator will be employed to be in charge for all monitoring data and handling. However, the section should be explained more detailed to ensure high quality of data management and reporting. Please refer CAR B7

CAR B7

OK

B.10.9. Are procedures identified for day-to-day records handling (including what records to keep, storage area of records and how to process performance documentation)

/PDD/ (B.7.)

DR Please refer to CAR B7 and CAR A2. CAR B7 &A2

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.11. Monitoring of Leakage It is assessed whether the monitoring plan provides for reliable and complete leakage data over time.

B.11.1. Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of all relevant data necessary for determining leakage?

/PDD/ (B.7.)

DR As leakage is not to be considered, monitoring is not necessary.

N/A

B.11.2. Are the choices of project leakage indicators reasonable and conservative?

/PDD/ (B.7.)

DR See comment above. N/A

B.11.3. Is the measurement method clearly stated for each leakage value to be monitored and deemed appropriate?

/PDD/ (B.7.)

DR See comment above. N/A



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.12. Monitoring of Sustainable Development Indicators/ Environmental Impacts It is assessed whether choices of indicators are reasonable and complete to monitor sustainable performance over time.

B.12.1. Is the monitoring of sustainable development indicators/ environmental impacts warranted by legislation in the host country?

/PDD/ (D.) DR No, the monitoring of sustainability indicators is not necessary according to Indonesian legislation.

OK

B.12.2. Does the monitoring plan provide for the collection and archiving of relevant data concerning environmental, social and economic impacts?

/PDD/ (D.) DR See comment above. N/A

B.12.3. Are the sustainable development indicators in line with stated national priorities in the Host Country?

/PDD/ (D.) DR See comment in B.12.1. N/A



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

B.13. Project Management Planning It is checked that project implementation is properly prepared for and that critical arrangements are addressed.

B.13.1. Is the authority and responsibility of overall project management clearly described?

/PDD/ (D) DR It is stated, that a plant operator will be responsible for the data handling. More information as required in CAR B7 is necessary and should be substantiated with documents.

CAR B7&A2

OK

B.13.2. Are procedures identified for training of monitoring personnel?

/PDD/ (D) DR Clarification is requested if training is required over the crediting period to ensure accuracy of the monitored data. A short description should be included in section D.4. as additional part of the monitoring plan. The training plans and attendance registries should be provided.

CR B1 OK

B.13.3. Are procedures identified for emergency preparedness for cases where emergencies can cause unintended emissions?

/PDD/ (D.) DR; i No emergencies are envisaged leading to higher GHG emissions.

OK

B.13.4. Are procedures identified for review of reported results/data?

/PDD/ (D) DR, I Please refer to CAR B7 andA2 CAR B7&A2

OK

B.13.5. Are procedures identified for corrective actions in

/PDD/ (D.) DR CAR B7 & A2 CAR B7&A2

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

order to provide for more accurate future monitoring and reporting?

C. Duration of the Project/

Crediting Period It is assessed whether the temporary boundaries of the project are clearly defined.

C.1. Are the project’s starting date and operational lifetime clearly defined and evidenced?

/PDD/ (C.1.)

DR The starting date of the project activity is diverted into three different phases. However revision of section C is necessary, since during the site visit it was detected that the time schedule is delayed. The project lifetime is expected to be 30 years.

CAR C1

OK

C.2. Is the start of the crediting period clearly defined and reasonable?

/PDD/ (C.2.)

DR Revision is necessary regarding to start of crediting period, as the project activity’s registration is unlikely to be done before 2008/2/1.

CAR C1

OK

D. Environmental Impacts Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts will be assessed, and if deemed significant, an EIA should be provided to the validator.



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

D.1. Has an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity been sufficiently described?

/PDD/ (D.1.)

DR Yes, several topics of the EIA are summarized in section D.1. of the PDD. The effects of the project activity are addressed appropriately and are assessed as not significant.

OK

D.2. Are there any Host Party requirements for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if yes, is an EIA approved?

/PDD/ (D.1.) /EIA/

/IM01/

DR I

Yes, an environmental impact assessment is stipulated by the host party. The EIA was approved by the District Environmental Agency on 15th January 2006.

OK

D.3. Will the project create any adverse environmental effects?

/PDD/ (D.1.)

DR It is indicated in the EIA that the project will bring just minor and temporary negative impacts on the environment, for example wastewater, dust or garbage during construction. These will be solved through applying environment protecting measures as explained in section D.1 of the PDD.

OK

D.4. Are transboundary environmental impacts considered in the analysis?

/PDD/ (D.1.)

DR No transboundary effects are expected. OK

D.5. Have identified environmental impacts been addressed in the project design?

/PDD/ (D.1.)

DR Yes, in section D.1. several environmental impacts are addressed, e. g. impacts on water, air etc.

OK

D.6. Does the project comply /PDD/ DR Yes, the project activity is approved by the Indonesian



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

with environmental legislation in the host country?

(D.1.) government.

For Small- scale projects

D.7. Does host country legislation require an analysis of the environmental impacts of the project activity?

Refer D.2 OK

D.8. Does the project comply with environmental legislation in the host country?

Refer D.6 OK

D.9. Will the project create any adverse environmental effects?

Refer D.3 OK

D.10. Have environmental impacts been identified and addressed in the PDD?

Refer D.5 OK

E. Stakeholder Comments The validator should ensure that stakeholder comments have been invited with appropriate media and that due account has been taken of



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

any comments received.

E.1. Have relevant stakeholders been consulted?

/PDD/ (G.1.)

DR Three initial stakeholder consultation meetings have been conducted during September and November 2006. The meetings were held in local language (Minang) and the stakeholders have been invited to complete the questionnaires. The residents were invited to attend. The local NGOs were invited separately via email and have also had the possibility to submit the questionnaire. However, more clarification regarding the invitation procedure, stakeholder procedure as well as the e-mail consultation is required.

CR E1

OK

E.2. Have appropriate media been used to invite comments by local stakeholders?

/PDD/ (G.1.)

DR, I The stakeholder meeting was not communicated in a newspaper. The locals have been invited orally, the NGOs via e-mail. Since local residents and members of the local governance have attended, this procedure is considered to be sufficient.

OK

E.3. If a stakeholder consultation process is required by regulations/laws in the host country, has the stakeholder consultation process been carried out in accordance with such

The Indonesian regulation doesn’t include requirements for stakeholder consultation processes.

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144



Final Concl.

regulations/laws?

E.4. Is a summary of the stakeholder comments received provided?

/PDD/ (G.2.), /SPD/

DR A summary of the comments received is provided in the PDD. Additional an initial stakeholder consultation report is publicly available by myclimate.

OK

E.5. Has due account been taken of any stakeholder comments received?

/PDD/ (G.3.)

As the comments were generally positive no actions has been taken.

OK

Table 2: Gold Standard requirement checklist for VER projects

CHECKLIST QUESTIONS IN RESPECT TO MAJOR Aspects of Project Eligibility, Additionality and SD Ref. MoV* COMMENTS

Draft Concl.

Final Concl.

A. Project Eligibility Screen The project type is assessed

A.1.1. Is the Project activity a renewable energy or End use energy efficiency improvement project?

/PDD/ (A.4.3)

DR Yes, the project is a small hydropower plant, hence it is a eligible project type for the GS VER.

OK

A.1.2. Has the host country a quantitative reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol?

/PDD/ (A.4.1)

DR The host country is Indonesia, which has no quantitative reduction target under the Kyoto protocol.

OK

A.1.3. Which size has the project per definition of the GS VER requirements (Micro-, Small-, Large Scale)?

/PDD/ (A.4.2)

DR The projects emission reductions are less than 5 kt CO2e per year. Thus the project fulfils the requirements of Micro-Scale definition.

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144


CHECKLIST QUESTIONS IN RESPECT TO MAJOR Aspects of Project Eligibility, Additionality and SD

Ref. MoV* COMMENTS Draft

Concl. Final

Concl. However, since a revision of the emission reduction calculation is required as per adaptation of the grid emission factor calculation, the size of the project can not be finally assessed during the draft status.

CAR B1

A.1.4. Is the project activity a bundle and are all project activities that are part of this bundle eligible under GS?

/PDD/ (A.4.2)

DR No, the project activity is not a bundle. OK

B. Additionality Screen Public Announcement Check

B.1.1. Has the project, in its current design, previously been publicly announced to go ahead without the VER, prior to any payment being need for the implementation of the project?

/PDD/ (A.4.4)

DR No, since the project has identified several uncertainties, it was not publicly announced to implement it without the carbon financing.

Nevertheless, the written statement, which is a requirement of the GS for Micro-Scale projects, is not included in the PDD and a document which can satisfy this statement is pending.

CAR A2

OK

B.1.2. If the project is a Micro Scale project, is a written statement included, that the project has not been announced for implementation without seeking carbon finance during the last 3 years?

/PDD/ (A.4.4)

DR See comment above. CAR A2

OK

Additionality tool Check

B.1.3. Is the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” of the UNFCCC used in its currently available version?

/PDD/

(B)

DR The additionality argumentation should be revised to version 3 of the additionality tool. Furthermore all arguments should be

CAR B5

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. referenced resp. the documents should be provided to the validator as evidences.

B.1.4. Is the tool used in it’s totally and are the additionilty documents satisfactorily?

/PDD/

(B)

DR Please refer B.1.3 CAR B5, A2

OK

B.1.5. Are the main arguments reasonable and evidenced?

/PDD/

(B)


OK

B.1.6. Are all references up-to date and reliable?

/PDD/

(B)


OK

B.1.7. Is the project activity compared to the normal practice in the region?

/PDD/

(B)

DR Yes, the project is compared to common practice in the region. The usually used technologies are diesel power plants.

Nevertheless, the documents with the PLN statistics are pending.

CAR A2

OK

B.1.8. Are all assumptions (quantitative or qualitative) used to demonstrate the additionality conservative?

/PDD/

(B)


OK

ODA Additionality check

B.1.9. Is a clear and transparent financing plan submitted which allows an assessment of whether the project financing includes ODA?

Not applicable. N/A

B.1.10. Is ODA used for the project activity and if yes is the funding eligible for the GS?

Not applicable. N/A

Conservative Approach Check

B.1.11. Is the baseline methodology described /PDD/ DR The project applies the small scale CAR OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. and the choice of the baseline scenario substantiated?

(B) methodology AMS I.D. Version 10 (EB 33). Since this version has been revised, adaptation of all corresponding sections to the current available version is required. The project activity uses hydropower as a renewable energy source. It is connected to the West Sumatra electricity grid and it is below the threshold of 15 MW. Nevertheless, the justification of the SSC Methodology AMS.I.D should be more specified according to all applicability criteria, hence revision is required.

B1

CAR B2

B.1.12. Are there any legally binding regulatory instruments?

/PDD/

(B)

DR No, in Indonesia are no regulatory instruments to implement hydropower plants.

OK

B.1.13. Are evidences provided to assess whether the project activity is not considered as “normal practice”?

/PDD/

(B)

DR Yes, in Annex 2 a statistic is provided which clarifies, that there are only 3 hydropower plants in West Sumatra. The document or reference is pending.

CAR A2

OK

B.1.14. Is leakage to be considered? /PDD/

(B, E.2)

DR According to the methodology AMS.I.D leakage is not to be considered if there is no equipment transferred from or to another activity. This is also stated in the PDD, section E.2.

OK

B.1.15. Is the most convincing and conservative baseline scenario selected?

/PDD/

(B)

DR Yes, since the project activity is the retrofitting of an old existing hydropower plant, the most convincing and conservative baseline scenario is selected. The pre-project scenario, i. e. the electricity generation with one old turbine for

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. the ice factory, will be subtracted from the project activity. The historical data are a pending document as per table 5.1.

CAR A2

Technology Transfer and/or Technology Innovation Check

B.1.16. Will there be any transfer or knowledge innovation of technology in the host country of project implementation and are the benefits of the transfer substantiated?

/PDD/

(A.2)

DR The installed turbines are constructed in Indonesia. Other parts of the equipment are from PT.entec Switzerland (DTC vario system) and Hitzinger, Austria (generator).

However, in the PDD in section A.2 is stated, that the whole equipment comes from Indonesia, clarification is requested.

CR B2

OK

C. Sustainable Development Screen The project’s contribution to sustainable development is assessed

C.1. 1. Sustainable Development Assessment

C.1.1. Does the project activity clearly demonstrate benefits in terms of SD, based on

• Local / global environment sustainability

• Social sustainability and development

• Economic and technological development?

/PDD/

(A.2)

DR Yes, in section A.2 the benefits of local, global, social economical and technological development are described.

The project conducted to new investment in an undeveloped region and gives the opportunity to local people to find higher qualified long-term jobs. Since the project is a renewable energy project, the electricity demand in the region will be reduced without conducting higher GHG

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. emissions. With the new installed equipment, which has a higher efficiency, it is possible without increasing of the old structures (dam, intake canal etc.) to produce more electricity.

C.1.2. Are all statements in the SD Assessment Matrix based on existing sources and referenced?

/PDD/

(A.2)

DR No, for the substantiation of the statements references and documents are pending.

CAR A2

OK

C.1.3. Is the scoring transparent and verifiable? /PDD/

(A.2)

DR Please refer C.1.2 CAR A2

OK

C.1.4. Are all SD indicators discussed during stakeholder consultation?

/PDD/

(A.2)

DR Yes, during the initial stakeholder consultation the SD Matrix had been discussed. This could be assessed with the provided questionnaires.

OK

C.1.5. Are all points considered relative to the baseline scenario?

/PDD/

(A.2)

DR Yes, the points are considered relative to the baseline scenario. Since the project activity is based on existing civil structures, no negative impacts are expected during the normal operation of the project; only during the rehabilitation process some minor impacts without any significance are expected.

OK

C.1.6. Scoring requirements:

• Have all components a non-negative sub-total score?

• Is the total score positive?

• Has one indicator a score of -1?

• Are all indicators scoring -1 subjected to the EIA?

/PDD/

(A.2)

DR The scoring of the SD matrix fulfilled the requirements of GS VER projects. No negative scoring is expected, each of the three sub groups is scored with +2, and hence the total scoring has the scoring 6.

Nevertheless, references and documents regarding the statements to assess them are pending.

CAR A2

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. C.1.7. In case of significant negative impacts of the

project, are the identified points included in the monitoring plan?

/PDD/

(A.2, D)

DR Since no significant negative impacts are considered, the monitoring of such is not necessary.

OK

C.2. Environmental Impact assessment The project’s contribution to sustainable development shall be assessed in the sustainability matrix in section K.

C.2.1. Does the Project Proponent conforms with (local, regional, national) requirements concerning EIAs?

/PDD/

(F)

DR Yes, an EIA as required by the Indonesian DNA has been conducted. A confirmation letter, dated 3rd January 2006, was provided.

OK

C.2.2. Is an EIA carried out by the PP? /PDD/

(F)

DR Yes, regarding the national law an EIA has been conducted.

OK

C.2.3. Is it clearly demonstrated whether an EIA is required or not (demonstrated with the EIA Pre-Screen Checklist)?

/PDD/

(F)

DR Not applicable, since the EIA is required by the host country.

N/A

C.2.4. Is each question with regard to every significant impact identified fully documented?

Not applicable, since the EIA is required by the host country.

N/A

C.2.5. If no EIA has been carried out, could it be assessed whether

• Environmental impacts or the project are included in the PDD?

• Any SD indicator is scored -1?

• Stakeholders identified any significant social or environmental impacts?

/PDD/

(F)

DR Not applicable, since the EIA is required by the host country.

N/A



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. C.2.6. In cases where SD indicators are scored -1 or

stakeholders identify impacts, is a mitigation plan developed?

/PDD/

(F)

DR Since no negative scoring is identified, no mitigation plan must be developed.

OK

C.2.7. If a full EIA has carried out, is the documentation submitted to the validator and are all GS criteria fulfilled?

/PDD/

(F)

DR The EIA document is pending. CAR A2

OK

C.2.8. In case of significant negative impacts of the project, are the identified points included in the monitoring plan?

/PDD/

(D)

DR Since no significant negative impacts are considered, it is not necessary to include an environmental monitoring in the PDD.

OK

C.3. Public consultation Procedures

C.3.1. Was an initial stakeholder consultation conducted with invitation of local policy makers, directly impacted people, NGOs (that have endorsed the GS), the GS?

/PDD/

(G)

DR Yes, an initial stakeholder consultation procedure has been conducted in September and November 2006. The locals and local policy makers were invited. Local NGOs have had the possibility to give comments during a separate e-mail consultation.

OK

C.3.2. Have comments been actively invited and was the publication adequate publicities?

/PDD/

(G)

DR Yes, the comments have been actively invited during the stakeholder meeting. The invitation to the meeting has been done orally. However, more clarification regarding the invitation procedure, stakeholder procedure as well as the e-mail consultation is required.

CR C1

OK

C.3.3. Is the range of stakeholders selected appropriate?

/PDD/

(G)

DR Since there are only a few people living near the power plant it can be assessed, that the attended local policy makers and local NGOs are appropriate.

OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. C.3.4. Were all stakeholders asked to address

environmental and social impacts ? /PDD/

(G)

DR More clarification regarding the invitation procedure, stakeholder procedure as well as the e-mail consultation is required.

CR C1 OK

C.3.5. Does the initial stakeholder report include

• a clear description of the invitation and the meeting?

• All written comments received?

• An argumentation whether or not a comment is taken into account?

/PDD/

(G)

DR Please refer CR C1. CR C1 OK

C.3.6. Was a main stakeholder consultation conducted?

/PDD/

(G)

DR The main stakeholder consultation is not required for Micro-Scale projects.

OK

C.3.7. Is the main stakeholder procedure clearly described and are all arguments whether or not comments are taken into account demonstrated?

/PDD/

(G)

DR Not applicable. OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. D. Monitoring requirements and Monitoring Plan

D.1. SD Indicators and EIA

D.1.1. Are all indicators of the SD Matrix and the EIA, which are critical for a positive contribution

• Clearly identified

• Marked with an asterix in the matrix

• Added to the monitoring plan?

/PDD/

(D)

DR Since not all documents have been provided till the draft validation status, a final assessment is not possible yet.

CAR A2

D.1.2. Are the data to be used for monitoring actually available?

/PDD/

(D)

DR Please refer CAR B7 CAR B7

OK

D.2. Public Consultation

D.1.3. Are all indicators of importance

• Clearly identified

• Marked with an asterix

• Included in the monitoring plan?

/PDD/

(D)

DR Yes, the employment quantity and quality is identified as crucial and included in the monitoring plan.

OK

D.3. Potential mitigation/compensation measures

Are possible mitigation measures discussed and planned for all indicators scored -1?

/PDD/

(D)

DR No indicator is scored negative. OK

D.3.2 Is a mitigation plan developed? /PDD/ DR Not necessary since EIA, stakeholder OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144




Concl. Final

Concl. (D)

consultation and SD matrix have not identified impacts/EIA//SD//ISC/.

D.3.3 Are compensation measures implemented for all negative impacts where mitigation is not feasible and could these compensations assessed as sufficient?

/PDD/

(D)

DR Not applicable, refer comment above. OK



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144


Table 3: Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarification requests and corrective

action requests by validation team Ref. To checklist

question in table 2 Summary of project owner

response Validation team

conclusion CAR A1 For the unique identification of the project site the longitude and latitude as well as the address should be included in section A.4.1.4 PDD.

A.1.1 An address (even though no official postal address exists) and the coordinates of the plant have now been included in the PDD. In addition, an additional technical feasibility study (Additional Document 1) gives a better understanding of the site, the plant and the location.

OK, the project site is uniquely identifiable.

CAR A2 Several documents which are necessary to provide a final assessment of the proposed project activity are pending. Kindly refer to the list of documents provided in section 5, table 5.1 of the draft report, for all pending documents regarding the project.

A.5.2, B.2.6, B.3.2, B.3.4, B.5.1, B.5.2, B.10.3 – B.10.9 , B.13.1-B.13.5 GS checklist: B.1.1-1.8, B.1.13, B.1.15, C.1.2, C.1.6

Several documents and information are provided to TUEV NORD (see separate list 0805029_Additional_Documents): - Technical description - Main Equipment - Technical control sheets - Job confirmation - Confirmation in terms of

public announcement - ER contract - Financial analysis to show

that ER funds were a part of the project start decision.

- Evidence of project start. - Institutional set up - EIA confirmation

OK, all required documents have been provided to the validator.



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144


Draft report clarification requests and corrective action requests by validation team

Ref. To checklist question in table 2


Validation team conclusion

- Stakeholder documents - Project description - Several documents

confirming the calculation assumptions.

Additionally different new clarifications are included in the PDD.

CAR B1 The project applies the small scale methodology AMS I.D. Version 10 (EB 33). Since this version has been revised, adaptation of all corresponding sections to the current available version is required; also for the calculation of the grid emission factor adaptation to ACM0002 version 6 is required.

B.1.1, B.2.3, B.5.1, B.5.2 GS checklist: A.1.3, B.1.11

Current available versions of UNFCCC and IPCC tools, guidelines and methodologies were used. For calculating the grid emission factor the “tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” is now used.

OK, the currently available version of the methodology AMS.I.D, i. e. version 13, has been used.

CAR B2 The justification of the SSC Methodology AMS.I.D in section B.1.1 of the PDD should be more specified according to all applicability criteria, hence revision is required.

B.1.2, GS checklist: B.1.11

The justification has been revised and extended. Now every aspect of the methodology is assessed.

All applicability criteria are ruled out now, OK.

CAR B3 However, as per the guidelines for completing the PDD all key parameters and information used for the estimation of the baseline scenario should be provided in table form. Furthermore clarification regarding the pre-

B.2.1, B.2.3, B.2.4 Key parameters and information are provided in table form in Section B.2. Several inconsistencies in terms

The emission factor is given in section B.2. All data used for the EF calculation are included in



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144






project scenario is required, because in the PDD are several inconsistencies whether households are provided with electricity or not. For the demonstration of the historical electricity generation a minimum of 5 years of these data are required.

of amount of households and baseline electricity delivery have been eliminated. The historical electricity generation was measure during the preparation and planning phase of the project. There are no documents showing the electricity generation of the past 5 years. But the baseline electricity production has no influence on additionality, monitoring and emission reductions. During the project emission reductions will be calculated only by multiplying the emission factor with the electricity supplied to the grid.

section E. This is accepted to reduce recapitulation of the same.

Since the ice factory and the households are connected directly to the hydro power plant before the electricity is supplied to the grid, i. e. this amount is not counted in the project activity, the deviation is accepted that historical data are not available for the last 5 years.

CAR B5 The additionality argumentation should be revised to the currently available version of the additionality tool. Furthermore all arguments should be referenced resp. the documents should be provided to the validator as evidences.

B.3.1, B.3.2 GS checklist: B.1.3-1.8

Version 05 is now used. Additional arguments and references have been added in the PDD and as additional documents. Unfortunately there are only few concrete evidences to provide.

OK, the additionality substantiation is referenced and evidenced sufficiently now/ADD/.

CAR B6 It is not clearly stated which kind of calculation for the OM is used. It should be clearly stated, whether the

B.5.1, B.5.2, B.8.1, B.10.1, B.10.3 – B.10.9

It is now written in the PDD that the emission factor is calculated on an ex ante approach.

OK, emission factors are not publicly available and PLN



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144






calculation of the grid emission factor is used ex-ante (fixed) or ex-post (annually update) over the 15 year crediting period. Furthermore the data used for the ex-ante estimation should be revised to the actual available data, i. e. the year 2004 – 2006 and the data should be referenced with official available data sources.

The official sources are mentioned in the document or provided to Tuev Nord (see additional documents 15, 16 and 17). There are no 2006 data publicly available, as far as we could find out. As you can see we got some 2005 information directly from PT. PLN but it is always hard to get such specific information and it takes a long time. We have only used conservative values for the calculation (for example: 41 % efficiency for the diesel generators). Thus it is absolutely not thinkable that emission reductions could have been overestimated.

has provided only data till 2005.

CAR B7 The whole monitoring section need revision esp. within the following points:

• It is not clearly stated whether the net electricity is meant in section D.2.1.4. To be most accurately, the electricity generation and the auxiliary consumption could be included to

B.8.1, B.10.3 – B.10.9, B.13.1 – B.13.5

The whole Section D and Annex 3 has been revised: - The net power is metered. A

specific explanation has been included in Section D.2.1.4.

- Continuously measured and

OK, the monitoring is in line and traceable.



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144






calculate the net generation which should be also monitored.

• The recording frequency should be continuously with monthly recording frequency.

• A cross check with sales of receipt is required. • The quality procedure should be described more

precisely. Calibration periods should be included. • During on-site visit it was detected, that no back-

up meters were installed. Quality procedures should be described for the blackout of equipment.

• The measurement equipment should be described, incl. addressing of accuracy.

• Procedures for the data handling and measurements should be included.

• Responsibilities should be explained to ensure the data handling and accuracy. The provision of the management and operational structure might be helpful.

recorded monthly - There is a crosscheck with

PLN data (also measured) - The monitoring plan in

Annex 3 gives now more detailed information about the monitoring process.

- In case meters don’t work the energy production of the specific period will be calculated according to the average production of the last 3 months.

- Measurement equipment, procedures and responsibilities are described mainly in Annex 3.

CAR C1 The starting date of the project activity is diverted into the three different phases. However revision is necessary, since during the site visit it was detected that the time schedule is delayed

C.1, C.2 The section has been revised. OK, the starting date is revised, only 2 phases are planned now.

CR A1 The description of the system boundary in PDD section A4.1.4. should be more precisely. Information about the

A.1.2 Address, longitude and latitude are described in the PDD. The technical report (see

Technical drawings with all information are provided /LP/, OK.



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144






dam (e.g. length, heights, intakes etc), the submerged area and if the project includes a reservoir or is run-of-river should be provided. A technical drawing as additional annex might be helpful.

Additional Document 1) is provided to Tuev Nord. There are several description, pictures and drawings of the plant.

CR A2 As per discussion during the site visit, clarification is necessary whether PT.entec is also a project participant and should be included in the corresponding section. Confirmation of PT.entec is required regarding their participation.

A.2.1 If necessary a written statement could be procured. As PT.AMS is the owner of the plant it seems accurate that this company is the project participant. Commentary of Oliver Froend, PT. entec:

However, I would also think that basically our position is in the shadow or behind AMS and that therefore alone we do not need to be mentioned here.

OK, PT.entec is only the technical provider and responsible for operation/MOU/.

CR B1 Clarification is requested if training is required over the crediting period to ensure accuracy of the monitored data.

B.13.2 The monitoring procedure is mainly described in Annex 3. As mentioned under “Organisation / Responsibility” the director of the plant is responsible that an engineer in charge is trained appropriately.

OK, the employees are well trained, mostly on the job.

CR B2 In the PDD in section A.2 is stated, that the whole equipment comes from Indonesia, clarification is requested.

GS checklist: B.1.16

Clarification is given in Section A.2. (“Technological self-reliance”) and in the additional documents 1 and 2.

OK, only the generator and controller are not indigenious.



P-No: 8000352890 – 07/144






CR E1 More clarification regarding the invitation procedure, stakeholder procedure as well as the e-mail consultation is required.

E1, GS checklist: C.3.2, C.3.4

All documents in terms of the stakeholder consultation are provided to Tuev Nord.

OK, the DOE received all documents.

Minor issues to be corrected:

2008-12-10 FVR Salido rev1 fileThe review of the project design documentation and additional...

Documents

Transcript of 2008-12-10 FVR Salido rev1 fileThe review of the project design documentation and additional...