kipeto validation report

7/26/2019 Kipeto Validation Report

1/62

VALIDATION REPORT

Kipeto Wind Energy Project in

12 December, 2012

Japan Consulting Institute


2/62


3/62

Abbreviations

ACM0002The approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology A

baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation fromversion 13.0.0

Add Tool Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version

BM Build Margin

CAR Corrective Action Request

Carbon Africa Carbon Africa Limited

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CERs Certified Emission Reductions

CL Clarification Request

CM Combined Margin

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalentDNA Designated National Authority

DOE Designated Operation Entity

EB Executive Board

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Emission Tool Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Vers

ERPA Emission Reduction Purchase AgreementERs Emissions Reductions

FAR Forward Action Request

Galetech Galetech Energy Developments

GHG Greenhouse Gas

JCI Japan Consulting Institute

Kenya Republic of Kenya

Kipeto Energy Kipeto Energy Limited

KP Kyoto Protocol

KPLC Kenya Power and Lighting Company Limited

Kurrent Kurrent Technologies Limited


4/62

CONTENT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VALIDATION OPINION .............................

II. INTRODUCTION OF VALIDATION ......................................................

1. Objective of CDM validation ...................................................................

2. Validation approach ................................................................................

3. Means of validation .................................................................................

3.1 Corrective action requests, clarification requests and forward action

4. Global Stakeholder Consultation ..............................................................

III. VALIDATION WORK ..........................................................................

1. Validation Team ......................................................................................

2. Appointment certificate of the DOEs validation team member .............

3. Quality Control within the team of the validation process ......................

4. Desk Review ...........................................................................................

5. Follow-up actions (Interviews with relevant stakeholders in the host cou

IV. VALIDATION FINDINGS ...................................................................

1. Approval and authorization ......................................................................

2. Modalities of Communication ..................................................................

3. Project Design Document ........................................................................

4. Description of project activity ..................................................................

5. Application of the selected baseline and monitoring methodology ........

5.1 Applicability of the selected baseline and monitoring methodology t

5.2 Project boundary.................................................................................

5.3 Baseline scenario identification and description ................................

5.4 Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions ..

6. Additionality of project activity ...............................................................

6.1 Assessment of prior consideration of the clean development mechan

6.2 Identification of alternatives ................................................................

6.3 Investment analysis .............................................................................

6.4 Barrier analysis ...................................................................................

6.5 Common practice analysis ...................................................................

6.6 Conclusion of assessment of additionality .........................................

7. Monitoring plan .......................................................................................

7.1 Compliance with the requirements of the methodology ....................


5/62

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - VALIDATION OPINION

Japan Consulting Institute (JCI) has performed a validation of the Kipeto Wvalidation was performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the Clean Develohost country criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project opreporting.

The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-uprovided JCI with sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criter

The PDD reports only the host country and then the project is a unilateral pr

The host country is the Republic of Kenya that fulfils the participation criterproject and authorized the project participants. The DNA from the Republic of Kproject assists in achieving sustainable development.

The project correctly applies the approved consolidated baseline and monitoACM0002 - Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity gsources; version 13.0.0 and referenced Tool to calculate the emission factor for(Version 02.2.1)

JCI provides the validation opinion that the all of coverage for the project codeemed being validated through the validation process.

The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be on the aveyear over the selected 7 year crediting period. The emission reduction forecast hdeemed likely that the stated amount is achieved given that the underlying assum

Adequate training will be planned before commissioning of the project activcontracted CDM consultant and monitoring procedures will appropriately estab

In summary, it is JCIs validation conclusion that the Kipeto Wind Energy the PDD version 03 dated 12/12/2012 /2/ meets all relevant UNFCCC requiremrelevant host country criteria and correctly applies the ACM0002 version 13.0.0

JCI thus provides a positive validation opinion and requests for the registratiproject as a CDM project activity.

II. INTRODUCTION OF VALIDATION

Kipeto Energy Limited has commissioned JCI to perform the validation of tProject (hereafter called the project).

This report summarises the findings of the validation of the project, perform


6/62

Validation is a requirement for all CDM projects and is seen as necessary tstakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified(CERs).

2. Validationapproach

The validation approach is to determine whether the proposed project activrequirements of paragraph 37 of the CDM M&Ps, the applicability conditions omethodology and guidance issued by the Board and to assess the claims and assPDD.

The validation is not meant to provide any consultancy towards the project

However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may haimprovement of the project design.

3. Means of validation

JCI applies the means of validation specified throughout the VVS and wherauditing techniques, including, but not limited to:

(a) Document review, involving:

(i) A review of data and information;

(ii) Cross checks between information provided in the PDD and informatithan those used, if available, the DOEs sectoral or local expertise and,

background investigations.

(b) Follow-up actions (e.g. on-site visit and telephone or email interviews), in

(i) Interviews with relevant stakeholders in the host country, personnel wproject design and implementation;

(ii) Cross checks between information provided by interviewed personnelor other interviews) to ensure that no relevant information has been om

(c) Reference to available information relating to projects or technologies simCDM project activity registered and under validation; and

(d) Review, based on the approved methodology being applied, of the appropcorrectness of calculations.

3.1 Corrective action requests, clarification requests and forw

If, during the validation of a project activity, JCI identifies issues that needupon, researched or added to in order to confirm that the project activity meets tand can achieve credible emission reductions, JCI shall ensure that these issues discussed and concluded in the validation report.


7/62

JCI shall resolve or close out CARs and CLs only if the project participandesign, rectify the PDD or provide adequate additional explanations or evidence

concerns. If this is not done, the DOE shall not recommend the project activity fCDM Executive Board.

JCI shall report on all CARs, CLs and FARs in its validation report. This reundertaken in a transparent and unambiguous manner that allows the reader to uthe issue raised, the nature of the responses provided by the project participantsof such responses and clear reference to any resulting changes in the PDD or sup

The validation protocol consists of two tables. The different columns in the

followings:

alidation protocol tables

Table 1: Requirements checklist

Requirement (Checklist Question):The various requirements in Table 1 are checklist questions the project shoulorganised in different sections, following the logic of the latest VVS, the PDDscale PDD template, version 04.1- in effect as of:11 April 2012. Each section

Reference:Gives reference to documents where the checklist question or item is found. Preferred.

Check Comment:The column is used to elaborate and discuss the checklist question and/or thequestion.

ID No. of CAR, CL and FAR:

ID No. of CAR, CLandFARis described.

Corrective Action Request (CAR) is used due to non-compliance with the Clarification Request (CL) is used when the validation team has identified

clarification.

Forward Action Request(FAR) is used to highlight issues related to projecrequire review during the first verification of the project activity.

Table 2: Resolution of Corrective Actions, Clarification Requests and Forward A

Clarifications and corrective action requests:

If the conclusions from the draft Validation are a CAR,aCLor a FAR, thessection.

Ref. to checklist question in Table1:Reference to the checklist question number in Table1 where the CAR, CLor

Summary of project owner response:The responses given by the project participants during the communications wh ld b i d i hi i


8/62

JCI have discussed with the project participants regarding this commentsdescription in the PDD will be revised to make easy understanding for readers a

Energy has approved the project implementation of Kipeto Energy.

Secretariat of UNFCCC

Name Dr. Hans-Jurgen MielischDepartment International Climate Projects/Project DevelopmentPhone +4972 1 63 -231 10Fax +4972163- 23 119E-Mail [email protected] reference HJM

KIPETO WIND ENERGY PROJECT, KENYA, COMPLETION DATE

Dear Madam / Sir,

We comment on the above mentioned POD as follows.

1. We seriously doubt that the project area marked by the coordinates as per pmentioned POD is completely leased and thereby secured by the project applithrough our project company Esikipeto Power Generation Limited- signed andsubstantial amount of land lease contracts within the project area, claimed to bKipeto Energy Limited for wind farming

2. We want to point out that the project area defined by Figure 2 on page 4/5 agiven in table 1 on page 5 do not reflect the same area. The difference is consimisleading.

3. We emphasize on verifying in particular the land lease contracts for the promust ensure that the land lease contracts for the project area [as described andturbines, substation and project roads are located] is secured by valid land leaare registered at the land registrar's office as part of the Kenyan Ministry of LaEnergy Limited.

4. We request the DOE to ensure that the coordinates of the turbines, substatioas per the POD are located on a property for which a properly signed and regi

contract on behalf of the applying project company [Kipeto Energy Limited] e5. Due to the questionable secured project area, it is also our understanding thenvironmental issues have to be looked at closely. With regard to the EnvironAssessment [EIA] / Environmental and Social Impact Assessment [ESIA] it maccount that only part of the claimed secured project area is actually secured bLimited. Therefore, just the actual secured areas can be accounted for environ


9/62

JCI undertook the following process to validate the comment;

Process: Document review, follow-up action (on-site visit, interFollow-up action; Observation/inspection of the physical site during on-s

with the project participants, Ministry of Energy and K

Document review: Wind report, ESIA report, technical specifications, desletter issued by Ministry of Energy.

Regarding the comment the project owner has submitted the following clarDOE.

1. Kipeto Energy Limited is holding the sole rights to develop a wind pproposed area and evidenced by the letter from the Ministry of Energ

secured almost all parcels relevant for the development of the windsubstation, roads etc.) in the project boundary. Agreements for a fewundergoing negotiation and are expected to be finalized soon. Howevleased all land in the project boundary assigned to it by the Ministry them are not required to develop the wind power plant. Some parcels

be leased by Esikipeto Power who has however no rights to develop

those parcels. Kipeto Energy has made all land lease agreements andturbines and power plant equipment available to DOE.

2. The figure of the project boundary included in the PDD has been updPDD.

3. And 4. See answer 1.

4. Kipeto Energy has been granted the sole rights to develop a wind poindicated by the letter from the Ministry of Energy. The Environmen

Assessment has therefore been carried out for the whole project arealimit an environmental study to certain land parcels.

5. The EIA license was granted on 30 July 2012 by NEMA.

JCI has conducted interviews with Ministry of Energy and NEMA during confirmed that both Governmental Organizations have justified the adequate prodevelopment in accordance with Governmental regulations. And JCI confirmedMinistry of Energy that Kipeto Energy Limited has already been granted the sol

area. JCI have confirmed by interview with NEMA that the EIA license has beeLoA as CDM project was under processed and would be issued soon. The LoA

From above information JCI concluded that the proposed project could be cCDM project. The PDD has been revised the project area map in A.2.4.


10/62

CDM auditor /Team Member

Moritaka KATO Wind power (TA1.2)

Details of the technical reviewer are shown in below Table.

Name Qualified Technical Areas related to the Project

Masatoshi SHIBATA Wind power (TA1.2)

2.

Appointment certificate of the DOEs validation team mThe certificate of appointment of validation team member is attached in Ap

3. Quality Control within the team of the validation proce

The validation report worked out by the team underwent an internal reviewof being in compliance with the applicable requirement of the latest version of V

JCI applies internally established Quality Management Program for the req

which is defined as follows;

1) Internal Review for the interim check by the internal audit team and th

2) The evaluation of the validation work in the CDM evaluation committexperts

3) Internal review for the final check by the internal audit team and the t

The review and evaluation including the technical review are implementedby the competent personnel assigned in accordance with JCIs qualification sch

and verification.

4. Desk Review

Document review, involving:(i)Review of data and information to verify the correctness, credibility an

presented information;(ii) Cross checks between information provided in the PDD and informati

than that used, if available, and if necessary independent background iThe following table outlines the documentation reviewed during the val

Documents list


11/62

/8/Environment Impact Assessment Study Report for Kipeto Wind Energ

by Kurrent, 03/2012

/9/ Technical Description Report, by Galetech, 09/2011, 28/02/2012

/10/Feasibility Study for Grid Connection of Kipeto Wind Power Projec05/2012

Letter of Approval

/11/ Letter of Approval by Kenya DNA (NEMA), 03/09/2012

/12/ EIA Approval, by NEMA, 22/05/2012

/13/ Certificate of Incorporation for Kipeto Energy Limited, 04/06/2010

/14/ Project Approval Letter, by Ministry of Energy, 04/06/2012

/15/ MoC of Kipeto Wind Energy Project, by Kipeto Energy Limited, 18/0

/16/ EIA License, by NEMA, 30/07/2012

/17/Letter on Expression of Interest to construct a 100 Megawatt Wind Far

10/06/2009

/17a/Letter on Expression of Interest to construct a 100 Megawatt Wind FarEnergy, 12/08/2009

/18/ Letter on Development of Wind Farm in Kipeto, by Ministry of Energ

/19/ Letter on Expression of Interest to construct a 100 Megawatt Wind FaEnergy, 26/09/2012

Contracts, Agreements, Quotation

/21/ CDM Consultancy Contract between Kipeto Energy and Carbon Afric

/22/ Joint Development Agreement between General Electric and Craftskil

/23/ Budgetary estimate for the KIPETO Wind Farm (47xGE1.6-100+16xGEnergy, 01/09/2011

/24/ Budgetary estimate for the KIPETO Wind Farm of Full Service Agrem01/09/2011

/25/ EPC Cost Estimates, by Galetech, 03/09/2011/26/ Land lease Agreements, 09/09/2011

Documentary Evidence, Records

/31/ Resolution of Board of Directors to decide Project development and CKipeto Wind Energy Project, 08/09/2011


12/62

/38/ Invitation Letter to Local Stakeholder Consultation Meeting, by Kipeto

/39/ Publish on Newspaper of Local Stakeholder Consultation, by Kipeto E

/40/ Report on the CDM Local Stakeholder Consultation, by Kipeto Energy

/41/ Attendant List of the CDM Local Stakeholder Consultation

/42/ Monetary Policy Statement, by Central Bank of Kenya, June 2011,

/43/ Economic Projections of Federal Reserve Board Members and Federal ReservFed, April 2011

/44/ GHG Market Sentiment Survey, by International Emissions Trading Associat/45/ Evaluation Form (Questionnaire and Answer), Kipeto Energy, 06/02/2

/46/ Confirmation of model input for finance analysis by Standard Bank, 1

/47/ Kipeto Project Description, Kipeto Energy

/48/ Galtech Company Profile

/49/ On-site summary report of DOE, JCI, 18/07/2012

Methodology, Tools, Guidance, Guidelines and Manual of UNFCCC

/51/ The approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACMbaseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from reversion 13.0.0

/52/ Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version

/53/ Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 0

/54/ Guideline for completing the project design document form (Version

/55/ Guidelines on the assessment of investment analysis (Version 05.0)

/57/ Glossary of CDM terms (Version 07.0)

/58/ CDM validation and verification standard (Version 03.0)

/59/ Guidelines for the reporting and validation of plant load factors (Versi

/60/ Tool to determine the remaining lifetime of equipment (Version 01)/61/ Modalities and procedures for a clean development mechanism, as def

Kyoto Protocol

/62/ Procedures for processing and reporting on validation of CDM project

Drawings


13/62

/82/ Updated Least Cost Power Development Plan, by Ministry of Energy,

/83/ Kenya Vision 2030, by Government of the Republic of Kenya, 2007

/84/ The Energy Act, Approval of Schedule of Tariff for Supply of Electric

/85/ Feed-In-Tariff Policy (1strevision), by Ministry of Energy, 01/2010

/86/ KenGen web site, http://www.kengen.co.ke,

/87/ Kenya Electricity Grid Code, by Energy Regulation Commission, 03/2

/88/ Power System Operation Statistics for 7 years (2004 to 2010), by KPC

/89/ The Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003

/90/ The Income Tax Act, 2010

/90a/ Income Tax at a Glance, by Kenya Revenue Authority, 2011- 2012

/91/ The Electricity Power Act, by Government of the Republic of Kenya,

/92/ The Energy Act, by Government of the Republic of Kenya, 2006

/93/ Guide for Investors regarding Feed-in-Tariffs, by Ministry of Energy,

/94/ Act No.8 of 1999 Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act

/95/ Inflation Adjustment by KPMG, 03/17/2012

/96/ The Economics of Wind Energy, by European Wind Energy Associati

Main changes in the PDDs between the version published for the 30 days staperiod and the final version submitted for registration:

Table 3 Major Changes in the Content of the PDDs

Subject and section

in the PDD

Original content in the

PDD version 01 /1/

Revised content in the

PDD version 03 /2/

Project area map, A.2.4 Only Kenya map Kenya map and Project aremap

Project description, A.3 Original plant design(base condition for theproposed project)

Original plant design (basecondition for the proposedproject) and alternative


14/62

Emission Factor, B.6 OM = 0.66BM = 0.49CM = 0.62

OM = 0.6613BM = 0.4928CM = 0.6213

Emission reduction 253,469 tCO2/year 254,125 tCO2/year

Sketch diagram formonitoring plan, B.7.

Not provided. Provided.

5. Follow-up actions (Interviews with relevant stakeholder

country)The on-site visit and interviews with project stakeholders were held from 16

project site in the Republic of Kenya.

The names of interviewees are listed as follows

Table 4 List of interviewees

No. Date Name Organization

/101/ 16/07/201 Dr. Kenneth NamunjeMr. George Njenga

Mr. Simon M. Guyo

Ms. Joyce Kimani

Ms. Juliana Kainga

Mr. Willy Ireri

Kipeto Energy

GE Energy

Interview w

Outline of Outline of Confirmat

itemsTimelineExecutiv

/102/ 16/07/2012 Mr. Adriaan Tas

Mr. Carsten Jung

Carbon Africa Interview w

Discussion Project tim Document

/103/ 16/07/2012 Mr. Sanjay Gandhi Kurrent Interview w

Preparatio Environm

/104/ 16 & 18

/07/2012

Mr. Herman Busschots

Mr. Cormac Philips

Galetech Interview w

Design ba Investmen Financial A Organizati

/105/ 16/07/2012 Eng. Isaac N. Kiva Ministry ofE

Interview w


15/62

Mr. Lesicar Lantei

Mr. John Sironka

Mr. Mayon Turume

Mr. Moses Kiria

Mr. Nashar Toimasi

Mr. Kudate Nkurayia

Mr. Mukue Pulei

Ms. Naomi Letuya

/107/ 18/07/2012 Mr. Sammy Muita KPLC Interview wOperation

Electricity Electricity Electricity

/108/ 18/07/2012 Ms. Anne N Omambia

Ms. Wilkister Magangi

NEMA Interview w

Environm Approval

IV. VALIDATION FINDINGS

The findings of the validation are stated in the following sections. The valid(requirements), the means of verification and the results from validating the idendocumented in more detail in the validation protocol in Appendix A.

The final validation findings relate to the project design as documented and

and resubmitted project design documentation.

Findings issued through the validation

JCI issued the four (4) CARs, thirty one (31) CLs and one (1) FAR as shownProtocol, Appendix A of this report.All the four CARs and thirty one CLs wereas shown in the Table 2 of the Appendix A. One FAR has been remained as not until the starting operation of the project.

Major issues and its resolution process through the CARs and CLs are descr

according to VVS /58/.

1. Approvaland authorization

1) Approval

The project is without an Annex I Party being involved at the stage of regist


16/62

5) The LoA refers to the precise proposed CDM project activity title in the Pregistration.

6) The DNA of Kenya issued the LoA to Kipeto Energy Limited.

There found no indication during the validation process that the project usesassistance funding for Kenya.

JCI concludes that the LoA is credible and fully comply with the requiremen

2) Authorization

JCI confirmed that the project participant is Kipeto Energy Limitedof Republin the table of section A.4 in the PDD /2/, and also confirmed that this informaticontact details provided in Annex 1 of the PDD /2/. It is also confirmed that no entity approved as project participants are included in these sections of the PDD

As described above, the project participants are authorized with the LoA issuRepublic of Kenya as a voluntary participant to the project activity.

3) Contribution to sustainable development

The PDD /2/ states the following points of contribution to the Kenyas susta

The project is expected to provide reliable electricity to the national elecline with Kenyas Vision 2030, which recognizes reliable and cheap enefoundations for economic growth and essential for making Kenya a mid2030.

The project is expected to provide local employment opportunities durinoperation phase.

The project is expected to contribute to Kenyas fiscal revenues throughattract foreign direct investment.

The project will improve the hydrocarbon trade balance through reductielectricity generation.

The project will have a positive impact on the transfer of wind energy tewell as know-how skills of local workers. The transfer of technology andirectly replicable to other future wind energy projects.

The project will reduce the consumer price of electricity: In line with th

Tariffs for Supply of Electricity by the Kenya Power and Lighting Comelectricity tariffs in Kenya are liable to a Fuel Cost Charge, which is cal

published in the Kenya Gazette. The Fuel Cost Charge is transferred dirdepends directly on the specific fuel consumption of the thermal power fuel consumption (and fuel price) by the thermal power plants, the highand, therefore, the higher the electricity bill for the consumer. It is expe


17/62

2. Modalities of Communication

JCI has validated the corporate identity of all project participants and focal pMoC statement, as well as the personal identities, including specimen signaturesof their authorized signatories, through directly checking the evidence for corpoalso through interview with the relevant personal of project participants.

JCI has confirmed in writing that it has performed due diligence on the MoCwith the requirements established in the VVS. And also JCI has confirmed in wrstatement complied with all relevant forms and requirements.

3.

Project Design Document

Through desk reviews and Q&A sessions with the PDD author, JCI confirmdescribed based on and referring to the following relevant tools, guidance, guideaddition to the applied methodology; ACM0002, Consolidated baseline methodelectricity generation from renewable sources (Version 13.0.0) /51/:

(1) Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02(2) Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (Version 06.1

(3) Guideline for Completing the Project Design Document Form (Version 0(4) Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis (Version 05.0) /55(5) Glossary of CDM terms (Version 07) /57/(7) CDM VVS (Version 03.0) /58/

The project design was described using the latest Project Design Document Version 04.1 as shown in the PDD /2/, which was confirmed through comparisoon the UNFCCC website.

As described above, JCI concluded that the PDD was compiled with use of twas described based on appropriate tools, guidelines, manual and guidance whicrequested by the CDM procedures.

4. Description of project activity

JCI undertook the following process to validate the accuracy and completendescription;

Process: Document review, follow-up action (on-site visit, interDocument review: Findings (CARs, CLs), FSR, ESIA report, technical sp

data/drawings, relevant laws/regulations/codes, interne

Follow-up action; Observation/inspection of the physical site and/or equiand interviews with stakeholders


18/62

Estimated emission reductions: 254,125t-CO2e/yearProject lifetime: 20 years (Operation period)

1st crediting period: 7years

JCI has confirmed the accuracy and completeness of the project description

5. Application of the selected baseline and monitoring met

5.1 Applicability of the selected baseline and monitoring metho

project activity

JCI concluded from the following steps that ACM0002 Grid Connected rengeneration Version 13.0.0 /51/ was appropriately applied to the project activity

Steps: Document review, follow-up action (on-site visit, interDocument review: Findings (CARs, CLs), FSR, ESIA report, technical sp

data/drawings, relevant laws/regulations/codes, interneFollow-up action; Observation/inspection of the physical site and/or equi

and interviews with stakeholders

1) Document review

JCI has reviewed the Wind Report /5/ and other documents considered as FSof the project and confirmed that the proposed project would be newly introducwind resources in the relevant region would be utilized for the power generation

2) On-site visit on 16 to 18 July 2012

JCI has confirmed the area for the wind power plant would be installed but thas not started yet. By the documents JCI has confirmed that the total installed

MW (GE1.6-100 x 47 units and GE 1.6-82.5 x 16 units). The operation start of tAugust 2014.

3) Confirmation of the Applicability

JCI has confirmed about applicability of the project to the applied methodol

Table 5-1 Applicability of the selected methodology to the proj

Applicability criteria PDD Comments

This methodology is applicable to grid-connectedrenewable power generation project activities that:(a) install a new power plant at a site where norenewable power plant was operated prior to theimplementation of the project activity (greenfield

The proposed project actmeets the applicability cr(a). It is a grid-connected

power generation projectthat will install a new pow


19/62

In the case of capacity additions, retrofits or

replacements (except for wind, solar, wave or tidalpower capacity addition projects which use Option2: on page 10 [of the methodology] to calculate the

parameter EGPJ,y): the existing plant startedcommercial operation prior to the start of aminimum historical reference period of five years,used for the calculation of baseline emissions anddefined in the baseline emission section, and nocapacity expansion or retrofit of the plant has been

undertaken between the start of this minimumhistorical reference period and the implementationof the project activity.

n/a. The project activity i

greenfield activity.

In case of hydro power plants one of the followingconditions must apply:

The project activity is implemented in anexisting single or multiple reservoirs, with no

change in the volume of any of the reservoirs; orThe project activity is implemented in an

existing single or multiple reservoirs, where thevolume of any of reservoirs is increased and the

power density of each reservoir, as perdefinitions given in the Project Emissionssection, is greater than 4 W/m

2; or

The project activity results in new single or

multiple reservoirs and the power density of eachreservoir, as per definitions given in the ProjectEmissions section, is greater than 4 W/m2.

n/a. The project activity ihydro power plant.

In case of hydro power plants using multiplereservoirs where the power density of any of thereservoirs is lower than 4 W/m

2all of the

following conditions must apply:

The power density calculated for the entireproject activity using equation 5 is greater than 4W/m2;

Multiple reservoirs and hydro power plantslocated at the same river and where are designedtogether to function as an integrated project that

ll ti l tit t th ti it f

n/a. The project activity ihydro power plant.


20/62

In addition, the project meets the applicability criteria of the Tool to calculatan electricity system (version 02.2.1) /22/ as follows:

Table 5-1 Applicability of the selected Tool (Emission Factor) to th

Applicability criteria PDD Comments

This tool may be applied to estimate the OM,BM and/or CM when calculating baselineemissions for a project activity that substitutesgrid electricity, i.e. where a project activitysupplies electricity to a grid or a project activity

that results in savings of electricity that wouldhave been provided by the grid (e.g. demand-sideenergy efficiency projects).

This tool is applicable sinproposed project activity the generation of electriciwind energy and its supplKenyan national grid syst

The tool is not applicable if the project electricitysystem is located partially or totally in an Annex-I

The project electricity systhe Kenyan national-grid-K i I

The methodology is not applicable to thefollowing:

Project activities that involve switching fromfossil fuels to renewable energy sources at thesite of the project activity, since in this case the

baseline may be the continued use of fossil fuelsat the site

Biomass fired power plants

A hydro power plant that results in the creationof a new single reservoir or in the increase in anexisting single reservoir where the power densityof the reservoir is less than 4 W/m2.

n/a. The project activity iconnected wind powergeneration project.

In the case of retrofits, replacements, or capacityadditions, this methodology is only applicable ifthe most plausible baseline scenario, as a result ofthe identification of baseline scenario, is thecontinuation of the current situation, i.e. to use the

power generation equipment that was already inuse prior to the implementation of the projectactivity and undertaking business as usualmaintenance.

n/a. The project activity igreenfield plant


21/62

Follow-up action; Observation/ inspection of the physical site and/or equiand interviews with stakeholders

The PDD /2/ defines correctly the system boundary to include the project acsource and gases, which are shown in the Figure 3 in the PDD.

The electricity generated by the project activity will be finally transmitted toreplace part of electricity from KPLC which has many fossil fuel-fired power pl

The emissions sources are summarized in the Table in B.3 of the PDD, accomethodology ACM0002. As shown in the Table, the project does not discharge

project boundary as a result of implementation of the project activity, which wa

onsite assessment.

JCI concluded that the identified project boundary and selected sources and defined in the PDD /2/ and fully complied with the ACM0002 /51/.

JCI validated all potential sources of GHG emissions within the boundary ofconcluded that all sources, which are expected to contribute more than 1% of thannual emissions reductions are included in the estimation of the PDD.

5.3 Baseline scenario identification and description

JCI has confirmed that the baseline identification of the project was conductby confirming of following steps and sources;

Steps: Document review, follow-up action (on-site visit, intervDocument review: Findings (CARs, CLs), plant layout, FSR, ESIA report,

design data/drawings, Contracts, Grid baseline emissionFollow-up action; Observation/ inspection of the physical site and/or equi

and interviews with stakeholders

Identification of baseline scenario should be comply with Identification of the methodology ACM0002 (version 13.0.0) /51/. The PDD identified the basel

project as follows:

Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwiseoperation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generationthe combined margin (CM) calculations described in the Tool to calculate the eelectricity system.

JCI concluded the baseline scenario for the project was identified appropriatapplied Methodology.

JCI has confirmed the followings according to CDM VVS ver. 03 paragraph

(a) All the assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed itheir references and sources;


22/62

5.4 Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission red

JCI has validated and concluded that the algorithms and/or formulae includito determine the emission reductions of the proposed project in the PDD /2/ andspreadsheets /3/ /4/, complied with the methodology /51/ and relevant tool /52/ tconsideration on following steps in accordance with the paragraphs 96, 97, 98 a

1) Step-1 Validation work:

JCI has verified the data and parameters used in the equations, including refsources used.

2) Step-2 Results of Validation work (Providing the opinion of validation):JCI has provided the opinion by taking following steps to assess whether the

formulae used to determine emission reductions for CO2emission of the projectnot.

(a) All assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in threferences and sources are appropriate.

(b) All documentation used by project participants as the basis for assumpti

correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD.(c) All values used in the PDD are considered reasonable in the context of t

activity.

(d) The baseline methodology has been applied correctly to calculate projecemissions, leakage and emission reductions.

(e) All estimates of the baseline emissions can be replicated using the data aprovided in the PDD.

JCI confirmed the emission reduction calculation through the excel spread sand concluded that the ER calculation was correctly conducted.

5.4.1. Application of baseline and monitoring methodology

JCI confirmed that the PDD /2/ fully complied with the methodology and ththe baseline defined as per the applied methodology of ACM0002 /51/. The calcfirst to work out work out the project emissions based on the applied methodolothe baseline emissions were calculated including the emission factor calculationspecified by the relevant tool /52/. Finally the emission reductions were calculatemissions and the baseline emissions (no leakage in the project).

JCI also confirmed that the data and parameters used in the calculations werapplied, through cross-checks with comparison of the data given by KPCL /86/.component are summarized in the tables in Appendix 4 of the PDD /2/ and the dshown in the emission reduction calculation Spread Sheet /4/.


23/62

According to the relevant tool /52/, the PDD has identified the Kenyan natioproject electricity system. The KPCL is only one electricity grid system in Keny

related to the electricity grid system and the power generation data of the conne

Step 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity

The project activity has selected Option I, therefore only the grid power planoperating margin and build margin emission factor calculation of the project.

Step 3. Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM)

The Dispatch data analysis OM method option c) in the relevant tool is selec

cost/must-run resources constitute more than 50% of total grid generation in Kebe updated annually using the data which actual project electricity generation w

Step 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected

The PDD selected the Dispatch data analysis OM according to the relevant tfactor of the grid power units n (EFEL,DD,h) was determined as per the guideline fOption A1. As a result, the OM emission factor EFgrid,OM,yis calculated to be 0.6shown in B.6. of the PDD /2/ and emission reduction calculation spread sheet /4the methodology /51/ and the tool /52/.

Step 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor (BM)

According to the relevant tool, Option 2 is chosen for the vintage of data. Reof power unit, SET20% is chosen as the SETsample.

Since for a power unit data on fuel consumption and electricity generation ischosen. The factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor of all powmost recent year. As a result, EFgrid,BM,yhas been correctly worked out to be 0.49complying with the relevant methodology, and the tool which are shown in B.6.emission reduction calculation spread sheet /4/.

Step 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor

The default weights of wOM= 0.75 and wBM= 0.25 are applied to both OM for calculation of CM emission factor EFgrid,CM,yfor the first crediting period accJCI has confirmed that CM emission factor EFgrid,CM,ywas calculated appropriattCO2e/MWh in the PDD /2/.

(b) Baseline emission; BEyAccording to the applied methodology /51/ and based on the above seven ste

BEyis calculated as follows:

BEy= EGPJ,y EFgrid,CM,y

Where:


24/62

EGPJ,y = 410,476 MWh/y

Where:

Net full load operation hours = 4,021.91 h (= 410,476 MWh/y / 102.06 MW

Plant load factors = 45.9122 % (= 410,476 MWh/y / 102.06 MW / 24hr / 36

In-house consume rate = 4 % (Energy efficiency of 96.0 % in the Table 3 of

Transmission loss rate = 0 %*

* The PDD shows that the Sales of Electricity (electricity supplied to the G

net electricity generation (electricity generated in the project). It means 0% for tconcluded those are conservative assumption for demonstration of CDM additio

And then the baseline emission BEyis calculated as follows;

BEy = EGfacility,y EFgrid,CM,y

= 410,476 x 0.6191

= 254,125 tCO2e/year

JCI issued the finding of CL-3 to clarify the above calculation procedure. It appropriately and then the finding of CL-3 has been resolved and closed.

5.4.4. Leakage; LEy

JCI confirmed that the PDD stated no leakage considered for the project appthe applied methodology.

5.4.5. Emission reductions; ERy

The total emission reduction is calculated as follows.

ERy = BEy PEy

= 254,125 0

= 254,125 tCO2e/y

In conclusion, JCI has concluded that the emission reductions are appropriatcomplying with the methodology /51/ and the relevant tool /52/, and the paramecalculations are sourced from the proper documents.

6. Additionality of project activity

JCI assessed the additionality of the project activity with the following stepswith following Standard, tool and Guidelines;

(1) Clean Development Mechanism validation and verification standard (Ver


25/62

Table 5 Timeline of major key activity

Date Key Activity

10/06/2009Expression of Interest to construct a 100 Megawatt Wind farmto the Ministry of Energy by Craftskills Wind Energy

12/08/2009Letter of first rights of Refusal for the site area for 100MW as

per Feed In Tariff

04/06/2010Kipeto Energy registered as a company the Special PurposeVehicle

02/2011 Environmental and social Impact Assessment (ESIA) studybegins by Kurrent Technologies

04/02/2011Joint Development Agreement) signed between GeneralElectric International (Benelux) B.V. (GE) and CraftskillsWind Energy International Limited (Craftskills)

07/03/2011 First Stakeholders meeting

23/04/2011 Installation of metrological masts and start of capturing data

06/06/2011 Submission of CDM Prior Consideration to UNFCCC(published on 14/06/2011)

06/06/2011 Submission of CDM Prior Consideration to Kenya DNA

03/09/2011 Completion of Wind Report by Galetech Energy

08/09/2011Board meeting of Kipeto Energy for investment decision andCDM application

09/12/2011 CDM consultant contract with Carbon Africa

06/02/2012 CDM stakeholder meeting at Bounty Hotel Ngong

03/2012 ESIA report completion

22/05/2012 Approval letter for ESIA report by NEMA

01/06/2012 Contract with JCI as DOE

26/07/2012Updated wind assessment report by Galetech based on newturbine layout.

30/07/2012 Issuance of EIA license

03/09/2012 Issuance of host country LoA by NEMA

02/2013 PPA signing with KPLC (expected)

01/03/2013 Turbine Supply Contract (CDM Project Start date) (expected)

08/2013 Kipeto wind farm construction start (expected)


26/62

The evidence provided to JCI by Kipeto Energy is the resolution of Board oconsideration of CDM application was clearly reported. The project participant

notifications on 06/06/2011 of intention to seek CDM status to both UNFCCC a(published on 14/06/2011) /32//33/, before the project activity start date (expect

From above timeline JCI has concluded that the CDM was seriously consideimplementation of the project activity by the project participant. And JCI has cotime between completion of the Wind Report /5/ and the investment decision wisufficiently short, and the decision were made based on the Wind Report and thAnd also JCI confirmed the notifications for consideration of CDM project to KUNFCCC /33/ according to the stipulation for prior consideration in para. 107 o

(3) Project starting date

JCI has assessed that the project starting date with the following issues.

According to the Glossary of CDM terms (version 07.0) /57/ the start date ois the earliest date at which either the implementation or construction or real act

begins. Furthermore it shall be considered to be the date on which the project pato expenditures related to the implementation or related to the construction of th

In case of the project, there is no date fallen under above category by now buexpected in 01/03/2013 which is the main equipment procurement contract. It isreal action and first commitment on expenditure of the project activity.

JCI has concluded that above project starting date was considered to match wterms /57/.

(4) Activities/events to achieve CDM

Key activities and events regarding continuing and real actions taken by the

secure CDM status are tabulated in the Table in B.5 of the PDD.

JCI has confirmed that all milestones listed in the Table were evidenced witwere provided by the project participants. Then JCI concluded that continuing ato secure CDM status for the project activity.

In conclusion, JCI confirmed that the above timeline explained the actions/eparticipants were appropriate in achieving CDM.

6.2 Identification of alternatives

JCI reviewed that as described in the above section of 5.3 Baseline identificPDD /2/ of the proposed project activity identified appropriately the baseline scethe selected methodology ACM0002 version 13.0.0 /51/.

JCI has assessed through the finding of CL-14 based on the document reviewto confirm the contents in the related documents such as the Wind report /5/ for


27/62

4. Project activities that apply this tool in context of approved consolidatACM0002, only need to identify that there is at least one credible and feas

be more attractive than the proposed project activity.

Due to the following reasons detailed in section B.5 of the PDD /2/, Alternabaseline scenario mentioned in 5.3 was appropriately identified.

Alternative 1: It is a technically credible alternative but is not realistic alterfinancially attractive as demonstrated in the investment analy

As result, Alternative 2 (Continuation of the current situation, i.e. electricitygenerated by the operation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition o

was identified as the credible and feasible baseline scenario to the project activit

6.3 Investment analysis

The PDD/2/ selected Investment analysis specified in the Tool for demonstradditionality (Version 06.1.0) /53/.

(1) Benchmark Analysis

The PDD /2/ selected the benchmark analysis method for investment analys

with the following justifications:1) Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality /53/ provides

of investment analysis. The baseline scenario for the project activity is thefrom a grid. Therefore, the baseline scenario does not necessarily require the control of the project developer. Option III, benchmark analysis is, thappropriate analysis method for the project activity.

2) The PDD /2/ selected the post-tax nominal Return on Equity as an appropinvestment analysis. In Kenya, the average cost of equity for renewable ecommonly used as the appropriate benchmark for comparison with the Eqinvestors and shareholders are mostly interested in after tax cash flows.

The paragraph 12 of the Guidelines on the assessment of investment analyaverage cost of equity is stipulated as one of appropriate benchmark for cEquity IRR. The project has calculated the EIRR based on the CDM defaGuidelines on the assessment of investment analysis (version 05) for equienergy investments in Kenya. The benchmark of 18.25 % is calculated w

13.25% specified in the Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment AnaKenya inflation target of 5% which was reported by the Central Bank of K

3) JCI reviewed the calculated average cost of equity input value and then coappropriately calculated and fully complies with the relevant tool /53/ and

4) There are no references of the application of the benchmark analysis to ot


28/62

The detailed validations for the Project CAPEX, electricity Tariff, MaintenantheNet Energy Productionare described in the following item (3). And as for the

discussed in the following item (4).Table 6 Comparison of parameters of investment anal

Parameters Unit

Parameter atInvestmentdecision

*1

Parameter ofalternative

layout (For reference)

Wind Turbines -47 GE 1.6-100

16 GE 1.6-82.563 GE 1.6-100

Gross Capacity MW 102.06 102.06

Net Energy Production MWh 410,476 425,009

Plant Load Factor % 45.9122 47.5377

Tariff cost USD/kWh 0.12 0.12

Corporate Tax % 30 30

Debt/Equity Ratio %/%70/30 70/30

Interest rate % 10.00 10.00

Project CAPEX USD 286,579,393 298,021,192

Maintenance parameter(Year 1) USD 3,874,500 3,874,500

OPEX parameter(Year 1) USD 6,350,696

*2 6,431,494

*2

Price per CER EUR/CER 24.44 24.44

EIRR without CER % 14.41 14.38

EIRR with CER % 20.75 20.69

*1 it is a base data for investment decision at the directors board meeting on 08/09are reported in the PDD ver. 01 for GSC.

*2 OPEX parameter includes the Maintenance cost of 3,874,500 USD shown in Ma

The PDD version 03 shows two kind of financial parameters. One is the parabase data for the investment decision (47 GE 1.6-100 and 16 GE 1.6-82.5 wind

decision at the directors board meeting on 08/09/2011. The base documents forreport for technical mattersand GE Energy quotations and so on / 23//24//25 / for fi

After the directors board meeting the project decided minor project modificmatter to use the GE 1.6-100 for all site locations (alternative layout) in accordareport after the Mechanical Loads Analysis conducted by GE Energy on the 23/Table 6 the total capacity of project was not changed but the expected net energ


29/62

conducted yet but the cost has agreed with contractor. That cost, which is 86 % will not be varied any more, and then the project CAPEX is not expected to dec

Table 7 Comparison of cost by FSR and actual cost

No. ItemsCost in PDD ver03

(at investmentdecision)

*1(USD)

Expected finalactual cost as of

Nov 2012*2

(USD)

1Project development,management and legal cost

1,500,000 1,866,391

2 Equipment cost 245,646,608 255,594,716

3 Contingencies 4,912,932 5,111,894

4Interest DuringConstruction (IDC)

11,033,307 11,488,759

5 Financing fee 5,015,139 5,222,163

6 Working capital 6,157,136 6,375,132

7 Debt reserve 12,314,272 12,750,264

Total 286,579,393 298,409,318

*1 47 GE 1.6-100 and 16 GE 1.6-82.5 wind turbines*2 Kipeto Energy has decided already to construct 63 GE 1.6-100 wind turbines, thereforethat plant design case.

There is only one large scale CDM registered projects of wind power plant iadditionality as first-of-its-kind technology and investment analysis. And its c

is out range of +/- 50 % of the project. The Table 8 shows comparisons of the fibetween the project and the registered project.

The investment cost/Generator capacity of the project is 2,807 USD/kW whreference project of Ref. 4513 of CDM. Main reason of such difference is supposite conditions since the project capacity is only 1/3 of the reference project (310

Table 8 Summary of Cross-check

Item

Investment cost*2 /

Generator capacity

Operating cost*3

/Investment cost*2Electricity

USD / kW % USD / k

The Project 2,807 2.52 0.12

Ref. No 4513 in Kenya *1 2,319 2.92 0.10


30/62

prescribed as maximum 0.12 USD/kWh for 0.5 to 100 MW capacity. The PDD of the Policy. It is a conservative assumption for CDM additionality.

PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) has not contracted yet and will be contracbefore financial close of the project. During the on-site assessment, JCI has conwith KPLC that the electricity tariff of 0.120 USD/kWh was reasonable and app

4) Net energy production (Electricity generation)

Wind resource assessment

The Kipeto installed 81m Metrological Mastson April 23, 2011 and began csite. The Galetech prepared and reported the wind report for Kipeto project areawhich included about four month wind data at the site. After that it goes on capt

Power generation

Base on the wind data of both the measurement data by 3 81m Metrologicalweather predication data the Galetech predicted the wind speed and gross energ63 turbines of which locations were shown in the Wind report /5/.

The wind report reported the expected power generation based on the above

the net annual power production was estimated 410,476 MWh.Plant load factor;

The figure of the project activity is 45.9122 % which is calculated from net calendar hours of year. The net power generation was estimated by the FSR au

Net power generation (Electricity supply to the Grid)

The Galetech calculated the Net power generation from the power generatiofactors and efficiencies /5/;

Topographic factor 101.9 %Array efficiency 96.0 %Electrical efficiency 96.0 %Availability 96.1 %Substation availability 99.0 %Icing and blade degradation 99.0 %Power curve 99.0 %Hysteresis 99.8 %

Grid curtailment 100.0 %

From the factors and efficiencies, the Galetech calculated 410,476 MWh/yegeneration. JCI validated the net power generation was estimated by Galtech as wind power generation.

From above crosscheck, JCI has concluded that the input data for investmen


31/62

JCI has confirmed that IRR calculation is in compliance with Guidelines on Investment Analysis /55/ as stated below:

-It is an Equity IRR calculation result.-The IRR has been calculated on after-tax and on nominal cash flow basis-The bank loan is 70 % of the total investment of the project.-The interest rate is 10.00 % which is a commercial lending rate of Kenya

interest rate was payable and prevailing commercial interest.-The depreciation is calculated using turbine lifetime of 20 years and scrap

Then JCI has considered the calculation of EIRR in the PDD /2/ is appropriaaccording to Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis /55/. In concthat the investment analysis in the PDD /2/ was appropriate.

(5) IRR after modification of plant design

As explained above the plant design has been updated after the investment d03 showed the IRRs after design update as follows.

DesignBase design at

investment

decision

*1

Updated

Equity IRR without CDM revenues 14.41 % 14.38

Equity IRR with CDM revenues 20.75 % 20.69*1 47 GE 1.6-100 and 16 GE 1.6-82.5 wind turbines

*2 63 GE 1.6-100 wind turbines

As a result, the IRR without CDM revenues of the Updated design (63 GE 1slightly decreased from the base design (47 GE 1.6-100 and 16 GE 1.6-82.5 win

concluded that the project activity was financially unattractive even in case of th(6) Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis has been validated with the following two steps: 1) assesvariation analysis and 2) assessment of likelihood of variations to reach the bencwith the UNFCCC rules.

1) (+)/(-)10% variation analysis is conducted using the following four paramete(a) Electricity generation

(b) Operating costs(c) Investment costs(d) Tariff

The PDD /2/ shows the result of the analysis that IRRs do not exceed the benany of those three parameters vary within the (+)/(-)10% range.


32/62

2) Assessment of likelihood of variation to reach the benchmark IRR

JCI has conducted to check the likelihood of the four parameters at the time

benchmark, result is shown in Table 9.

Table 9 Parameter changes when project IRR is equal to be

ParameterElectricitygeneration

Operating costs Investment

Critical variation to reachthe benchmark 18.25 %

+ 10.90 % 79.30 % 11.13

Variation from the base

410,476

455,218 MWh

7,208,768

1,492,215 USD

286,579

254,683,106

To increase the electricity generation, it needs to increase the average poweroperation hours. Higher average electricity generation and operation hours are pit is hard to consider higheraverage electricity generation and operation hours csuch as 10.9 % as stated in the above.

The operation costs need to lower by 79.3 % and it is impossible.

If the IRR would cross the benchmark IRR, the investment cost (Project CAP11.13 %. This scenario is actually not possible considering the increase of the acconstruction because of the increase of the materials, labour wage, etc. which isthe official publication on the web-site of the Kenya Government.

The electricity Tariff is regulated by the Government. The electricity Tariff 10.9 % and it is impossible.

JCI has validated that the above arguments clearly demonstrate that it is unli

exceed the benchmark within reasonable variations of financial parameters. JCIthat the result of the above investment analysis with use of the benchmark analy

project activity is financially unattractive.

6.4

Barrier analysis

With the above 6.3 Investment analyses it was concluded that the project actunattractive and additional as CDM project activity, since then the barrier analydemonstration and assessment of additionality was skipped.

6.5 Common practice analysis

Common practice analysis in the PDD was conducted in accordance with thversion 06.1.0 /53/. JCI interprets that a wind power project is the measure of S


33/62

1) Applicable geographical area

Kenya is reasonable and appropriateas applicable geographical area.

2) Plants that deliver the same output or capacity as the project

As shown in Step1above, the plants that deliver the same output or capacity MW and 153.09 MW. JCI cross checked power generation plants in Kenya fromThe PDD identifies the plants between such ranges appropriately.

3) Plants have started commercial operation before the start date of the project.

The starting start date of the project activity is expected on 01/03/2013. The

appropriately the plants that have started commercial operation after the start da

4) CDM project activities

The PDD excluded appropriately the registered CDM project activities and aundergoing validation located in Kenya.

The Table 21 in Step 2 of Common Practice Analysis of PDD shows totally generation in Kenya. From above four criteria, the PDD identified 14 power pro

projects out of output range and CDM projects.

Step 3: Within plants identified in Step 2, identify those that apply technologiestechnology applied in the proposed project activity. Note their number Ndiff.

The PDD discussed the technology different from the project as followings iparagraph 9 (Different technologies) of the Additionality Tool.

In the Nall, there are 1 geothermal project, 6 hydropower projects and 7 thermtechnologies different from wind power project unquestionably. And then Ndiffi

Step 4: Calculate factor F = 1 - Ndiff/ Nallrepresenting the share of plants using ttechnology used in the proposed project activity in all plants that deliver the samthe proposed project activity.

F = 1 - Ndiff/ Nall= 1- 14 / 14 = 0Nall- Ndiff= 14 - 14 = 0

And then JCI concluded that the proposed project activity is not a common pthe applicable geographical area since both the following conditions are not fuAdditionality Tool (version 06.1.0).

(a) The factor F is greater than 0.2, and(b) Nall- Ndiffis greater than 3.

JCI issued that finding of CL-21 was regarding selection of similar project wby unit base. The PDD was revised appropriately to apply project by project bas


34/62

7. Monitoring plan

7.1 Compliance with the requirements of the methodologyJCI has confirmed that the monitoring plan of the project was complied with

methodology /51/.

7.2 The steps for monitoring arrangements

The monitoring implementation plan of the project was described in the PDDitems were divided to two categories as follows;

1) Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit t

2) The items for determination of emission factor in year y.

(1) Monitoring:

1) Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the

Regarding the quantity of net electricity supplied by the project plant to the monitored data of EGfacility,yand EGPJ,hin the Monitoring Plan. There are main minstalled at the outlet of the project activity of wind farm to measure the electric

the project. The backup meter will be used in trouble of main meter and cross chthe data will be cross checked with receipt of sales/invoices from KPLC. The m

project will confirm to the requirements including its accuracy of the Kenya Elealso of the international standards.

2) The items for determination of emission factor in year y

The project has selected a method of dispatch data analysis for determinatiofactor EFgrid,OM,y. This method requires annual monitoring so then the Monitorin

monitoring items as follows;EGn,yand EGn,h; Net electricity generated by power plant / unit nin year y FCi,n,y; Amount of fossil fuel type iconsumed by power plant n in yeary, a

NCVi,y; Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year yEFCO2i,y; CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y

Those are necessary for calculation of emission factor EFgrid,CM,y.

JCI concluded that the monitoring items in the Monitoring Plan were approp

(2) Organization:

The project owner plans to set up the operational and management structurethe project implementation including monitoring as shown in B.7.3 in the PDD

The project owner will appoint a carbon manager, who will be responsible f


35/62

The staffs related to the CDM project in the t project owner will be trained b

monitoring by the carbon manager. The training will conducted in order to en

understanding of the CDM monitoring procedures and requirements befo

7.3 JCIs opinion on monitoring plan

JCI has validated the monitoring plan in the PDD /2/ by step of document rethe project owner and the related participants. And JCI concluded that the monitwas compliant with methodology /51/ and that the monitoring arrangement of thfeasible within the project design and also the project participant was able to im

plan including management organization and operational.

8. Environmental impacts

The Kurrent Technologies Ltd. carried out the Environmental and Social Imand completed it in March 2012 /8/. The ESIA report has submitted to NEMA, KEnvironment Management Authority, in April 2012 and NEMA has issued the LESIA) /16/ just after JCIs on-site assessment to interview with NEMA.

The ESIA report for the project activities was conducted to ensure that the p

relevant national, regional and local regulations. The ESIA reports referred to animpacts by the project activities both during the construction period and after threcommendation on mitigation measures against visual impacts on natural sceniimpacts, impact on ecology, surface water quality, impact on geology and soil dcollision problems, noise problem, and so on. No significant ecological impact oanticipated.

The ESIA report showed recommendable mitigation measures of which eighreported in the PDD. And also the PDD reported the summary of ESIA in Appe

significance (evaluation result) of each environmental impact in stages at constrdecommissioning without and with mitigation. All significant impacts were reduthe recommended mitigation measures.

Through the observation of the project site and interview with the stakeholdassessment, JCI confirmed that appropriate mitigation measures would be taken/2/ and no serious issues were found. JCI has concluded that, given the project pnecessary mitigation measure with the same level of concern as currently being environmental impacts by the project activity would be controlled at a minimum

start.

9. Local stakeholder consultation

On 6 February 2012, the project owner had carried the CDM stakeholder colocal stakeholders attended. Approximately 25 participants in those attendees w


36/62

They say regarding the land lease fee that it is a little.

The advantage of the project for them is improvement of their life style an

jobs and new facilities for community.Based on the above information, JCI has concluded that the project activity

stakeholders, gave no significant adverse impacts on local environment, and is ethe development of local economy and the improvement of living conditions of


37/62


38/62


39/62


40/62


41/62


42/62


43/62


44/62


45/62


46/62


47/62


48/62

JCI CDM Center Appendix A CDM Validation P


49/62

P

TABLE-1 REQUIREMENTS CHECKLISTPDDNo.

Requirement

Name of contact person

Appendix2

Affi rmation regarding public funding

AP.2.1 Confirm that the project funding is not applied for diversification of Official Developme

If applicable, has the affirmation obtained from Parties providing public funding to the

Appendix3

Appl icabi li ty of the selected methodology(ies)

AP.3.1 Confirm that the further background information on the applicability of the selected me

Appendix4 Further background information on ex ante calculation of emission red

AP.4.1Confirm that the further background information on the ex ante calculation of emisinclude data, measurement results, data sources, etc.

Appendix5

Further background information on monitoring plan

AP.5.1Confirm that the further background information used in the development of the minclude tables with time series data, additional documentation of measurement equipm

Appendix6

Summary of post regist ration changes

AP.6.1 Confirm that the summary of the post registration changes is provided.



50/62

P

TABLE-2 Resolution of Corrective Actions and Clarifica

No.

CAR,CL

Clarifications and corrective action requests byvalidation team

Sec.

No. inTABLE-1

CAR Corrective Action Requests

CAR

-1

LoA of Kenya (host country) shall be provided to JCI if thoseare issued.

It is required to clarify that the project is a unilateral projector the Annex 1 county will be determined within validationperiod.

F.1

KipeLette(NEMhas bnon A

CAR

-2

MoC from the Project Participant shall be provided.

G.1.

The

CAR

-3

The active spread sheet for ER calculation shall be providedto JCI.

B.6.3.3

The on 13

CAR

-4

The active spread sheet for IRR calculation of investmentanalysis shall be provided to JCI.

B.5.3.4

The JCI o



51/62

P


No.

CAR,CL


Sec.

No. inTABLE-1

CL Clarification Requests

CL

-1

In A.1 it is described that the project will reduce theconsumer price of electricity. It is difficult for the reader tounderstand it since the power generation cost of wind poweris usually higher than that of the thermal power. So someadditional explanation is required such that, e.g., a windpower is supported by a subsidy from the government.

A.1.5

The yearsemer

The that tcost

adjusfixed

The of TaDepaKenyimple530 Mtheresubs

chargelectbe co

CL

-2

In A.1 two referential documents are shown in the footnotesof 3 and 4. Those documents shall be submitted to JCI. Incase that those are big documents, only the related portionto the project shall be provided.

A.1.5

Foot


52/62


53/62


54/62


55/62


56/62


TABLE 2 R l ti f C ti A ti d Cl ifi


57/62

P


No.

CAR,CL


Sec.No. inTABLE

-1

CL

-21

In B.5 the Table 20 shows the similar project candidates forcommon practice analysis and the selected similar project islisted up unit by unit base. It is required to explain aboutselection criteria.

B.5.5.2

Com02).

CL-22

The sketch diagram for monitoring plan shall be added inB.7.3 for easy understanding of the readers. The location ofMeters (project side or grid site) and the role of Meter shall

be shown clearly in the sketch. The layout drawing to showthe position of meters is shown in the B.7.3 but it is difficultto understand the position.

B.7.0.2

Drawrequ

CL-23

The Monitoring Manual and Training Manual shall beprovided to JCI during the on-site assessment.

B.7.0.2

It is rRequimple

CL-24

In D.1 the ESIA report shall be provided to JCI. And if thereis an approval by governmental organization, it shall besubmitted to JCI.

D.2.1

The ESIA


TABLE 2 R l ti f C ti A ti d Cl ifi


58/62

P


No.

CAR,CL


Sec.No. inTABLE

-1

CL-25

In E-1 the local stakeholder consultation is explained. Theevidential documents related to it shall be provided to JCIduring on-site assessment. E.1.1

Evideasse

CL-26

The questionnaire/answers will be reviewed by JCI duringthe On-site Assessment.

E.1.4

Quesasse


59/62


TABLE 2 Resolution of Corrective Actions and Clarifica


60/62

P


No.

CAR,CL


Sec.No. inTABLE

-1

CL

-29

In B.7 Monitoring Plan, two monitoring items are added;NCVi, yand EFCO2i,yin the revised PDD version 02. Thereason of additions shall be clarified.

B.7.0.2 The sinceaccoelectfactoof the

CL

-30

The revised PDD dated 24/08/2012 has changed the Project

Participants from one company to three companies and thenthe revised PDD dated 28/09/2012 has backed to onecompany. The reason of extraordinary changes shall beclarified.

A.4.1 The

KipesharePartibeenTher


61/62


62/62