mjis-pdd ver 1_0_0

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006

CONTENTS A. General description of project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 2 SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity: Waste Heat Recovery at Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel for Electricity Generation MJIS-PDD ver 1.0.0 26/08/2011 A.2. Description of the project activity: Power Generation from Waste Heat Recovery at Iron Making Plant of PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel, Indonesia (hereafter referred to “the project activity”), involves the construction of waste heat recovery and power generation system at PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel (PT MJIS). The project activity is located in Batulicin sub district, Tanah Bumbu Regency, South Kalimantan Province. The objective of the project activity is to recover the waste heat from two newly built sponge iron rotary kilns (hereafter referred to “the facility”) for generating electricity which will be utilized for on-site usage and the excess will be exported to the South and Central Kalimantan Grid (hereafter referred to “the grid”). All waste heat generated by the project activity would be released to the atmosphere and the electricity consumption by facility is purchased from the grid owned by PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (PT. PLN - state owned electricity company) in the absence of the project activity. Therefore the project activity would contribute to climate change mitigation efforts through the reduction of Green House Gases (GHG) emissions from the displacement of existing power generations connected to the grid which are dominated by fossil fuel based power plants. The project activity comprises the installation of two units of Waste Heat Recovery Boiler (WHRB) for 2x14 MW power generation, with the annual electricity generation of 161.280 GWh/year; 98.52 GWh/year will be consumed by the facility and power plant, while 62.76 GWh/year of excess power will be exported to the grid which has the emission factor of 1.273 tCO2/MWh. Hence the estimated emission reduction from the implementation of the project activity is approximately 166.936 tCO2/year. The project activity will contribute in sustainability development through the following criteria: Environmental aspect: The project activity is a power generation through the utilization of the waste heat produced by the sponge iron rotary kilns which has no significant environment impact and no emission occurred in the operation stage. Therefore the project activity would lead in the environment sustainability development in the region and globally contribute in the GHG emission mitigation. Social aspect: The excess of power generated by the project activity will be exported to the grid; the project activity is expected to contribute in the community social development through increasing the regional power generation capacity and its reliability. The corporate social responsibility program (CSR) holds by the project developer is to support the Local Government program to increase the social development of local area. Economical aspect: Rural industries, such as shops and food stalls, are required to fulfil the basic needs of community involved; those would stimulate local economic development during the construction stage

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 3 and expected would be continuously remain during the commercial operation stage. In addition, electricity generated by the project activity will also contribute in increasing the electricity capacity of the grid; this would stimulate the development of several types of industry and finally would bring regional economic development. Technological aspect: The sponge iron rotary kiln’s waste heat recovery for power generation is the first of its kind project implemented in Indonesia. Confirmation letter from Industrial Department of Republic of Indonesia1, which is intended to the Indonesian National Climate Change Council (Indonesian DNA), explains that the project activity is categorized as the first waste heat recovery for power generation in iron making business sector in Indonesia. It demonstrates that there will be a technology transfer with the objective to improve knowledge of local workers. A.3. Project participants: Name of party involved

(*)((host) indicates a host Party)

Private and/or public entity (ies) project participants (*)

(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project participants (Yes/No)

Indonesia (Host) PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel

(Private entity) No

Switzerland Bunge Emissions Holdings SARL

(Private entity) No

A.4. Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): Republic of Indonesia A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: South Kalimantan A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.: Tanah Bumbu Regency A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): The project activity is located in Batulicin sub district, Tanah Bumbu Regency, South Kalimantan Province. The location of the project activity is 270 km away from Banjarmasin, the capital city of South

1 Directorate General of Basic Industry Manufacture, Ministry of Industry No. 532/BIM.2/5/2011

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 4 Kalimantan. The project activity has a geographical coordinates of 03021’06.27”S and 115057’00.69”E. The map of the project activity is shown in the figure below:

Figure 1 Project Location

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity: The objective of the project activity is to recover the waste heat from two sponge iron rotary kilns for electricity generation, therefore the project activity falls into sectoral scope: 1 : Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources) 4 : Manufacturing industries A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity : Waste gas leaving the rotary kilns will be passed to WHRB (Waste Heat Recovery Boiler). The WHRB will produce steam which will be then to be used to generate electricity. The diagram of the project activity is depicted as follows:


Figure 2 Project activity diagram

Technical specification of waste heat recovery boiler technology is provided by Outotec GmbH. The major equipments of the project are imported from China manufacturer. Transfer of knowhow will be done during engineering stages to ensure the plant will be operated and managed by local employees. Main equipments specifications for 2 x 14 MW WHRB Power Plant are as follows:

Table 1 Main equipments specifications for 2x14 MW WHRB Power Plant

Equipment Specification Manufacturer Waste heat boiler Type of boiler: natural circulating single steam

drum, the centralized water supply down comer, all steel structure, open arrangement and the neutral draft Waste gas temperature: 1,000°C Waste gas capacity: 130,000 Nm3/h

Oschatz

Steam turbine Steam turbine pattern: single cylinder Steam turbine model: N15-6.2 Rated power: 14 MW

Qingdao Jieneng Steam Turbine Group Co., Ltd.

Generator Steam turbine model: QFW-15-2 Rated power: 14 MW

Shan Dong Ji Nan Power Equipment Factory

A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: Fixed crediting period (1x10 years) is adopted by the project activity. The annual emission reduction of the project activity is approximately 166,936 tCO2. The total GHG emission reduction over the fixed crediting period is 1,669,936 tCO2.


Table 2 Estimation of annual emission reductions

Years Estimation of annual emission reductions (tonnes of CO2e)

2012 (March to Dec) 125,202 2013 166,936 2014 166,936 2015 166,936 2016 166,936 2017 166,936 2018 166,936 2019 166,936 2020 166,936 2021 166,936

2022 (Jan to Feb) 41,734 Total estimated emission reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 1,669,360 Total number of crediting years 10 Annual average of the estimated reductions over the crediting period (tonnes of CO2e) 166,936

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity: There is no public funding involved on the project activity SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project activity : The applied references for the project activity can be summarized below: • Approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0012 version 04

“Consolidated baseline methodology for GHG emission reductions from waste energy recovery Projects”.

• “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” version 2.2, EB 61, annex 12. • “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” version 5.2.1, EB 39, annex 10. • “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”, version 02, EB 41,

Annex 11. B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: The applicability of the project activity with the approved methodology ACM0012 version 04 will be demonstrated below:


Table 3 Applicability of the project activity

Applicability Project Activity • The WECM (Waste Energy Carrying Medium) stream

may be an energy source for: � Generation of electricity � Cogeneration; � Direct use as process heat source; � Generation of heat in element process; � Generation of mechanical energy; or � Supply of heat of reaction with or without process

heating • In the absence of the project activity, the WECM stream:

a. Would not be recovered and therefore would be flared, released to atmosphere, or remain unutilized in the absence of the project activity at the existing or Greenfield project facility, or

b. Would be partially recovered, and the unrecovered portion of WECM stream would be flared, vented or remained unutilized at the existing or Greenfield project facility.

The project is a Greenfield project facility with activity in the utilization of waste heat from the Rotary Kiln plant and further as energy source for the generation of electricity. In the absence of the project activity the waste heat before vented to atmosphere had to be treated on instruments such as:

1. After Burning Chamber (ABC) (incinerator) and Dust Settling Chamber for Gas conditioning

2. Evaporation cooler for gas cooling

3. Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) For Gas cleaning

Furthermore, the project activity has to demonstrate the applicability based on parameter below:

Table 4 Applicability of the project activity per parameter

No Applicability as per ACM0012 Project Activity Applicability Yes/No

1 For project activities which recover waste pressure, the methodology is applicable where waste pressure is used to generate electricity only and the electricity generated from waste pressure is measurable;

The project activity does not apply waste pressure.

Yes

2 Regulations do not require the project facility to recover and/or utilize the waste energy prior to the implementation of the project activity;

There is no regulation in Indonesia that requires the facility to recover and/or utilize the waste energy prior project implementation.

Yes

3 The methodology is applicable to both Greenfield and existing waste energy generation facilities. If the production capacity of the project facility is expanded as a result of the project activity, the added production capacity must

Project is a Greenfield activity. Yes

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 8 No Applicability as per ACM0012 Project Activity Applicability

Yes/No be treated as a Greenfield facility;

4 Waste energy that is released under abnormal operation (for example, emergencies, shut down) of the project facility shall not be included in the emission reduction calculations.

Electricity will be generated alongside with operation of Rotary Kiln. No electricity can be generated under abnormal condition.

Yes

5 The methodology is not applicable to the cases where a WECM stream is partially recovered in the absence of the CDM project activity to supply the heat of reaction, and the recovery of this WECM stream is increased under the project activity to replace fossil fuels used for the purpose of supplying heat of reaction.

In the absence of the CDM project activity, waste heat would be released to the atmosphere.

Yes

6 This methodology is also not applicable to project activities where the waste gas/heat recovery project is implemented in a single-cycle power plant (e.g. gas turbine or diesel generator) to generate power.

However, the projects recovering waste energy from single cycle and/or combined cycle power plants for the purpose of generation of heat only can apply this methodology.

The project activity is utilization of waste heat from Rotary Kiln Iron plant into electricity generation.

No

Assessment of the utilization of waste energy in absence of CDM project activity The ACM0012 version 04.0.0 further requests the project activity to demonstrate that the waste energy utilized in the project activity was flared or released into the atmosphere in the absence of the project activity at the existing facility by either one of the following ways: Option 1: Assessment of other existing facilities 1. The Greenfield (or new) facility generating the WECM used in the CDM project activity should be

categorized based on following criteria applicable to project facility: (i) industry sector; (ii) product manufactured, its specifications and applications; (iii) production capacity; (iv) quality of raw material used; (v) process flow or technology type; (vi) configuration of the facility; (vii) facilities implemented in the previous 10 years.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 9 2. Based on the literature from the recognized sources, or from surveys in the relevant industry sector,

these facilities which follow the criteria mentioned above should be listed. The selected facilities can vary by +/-10% in terms of capacity of the facility as compared to the proposed facility under CDM.

3. These facilities should not cover those which are already registered (or under validation) under CDM for waste energy recovery projects from the same source that is recovered under the proposed project under CDM.

4. The difference between the project facility and the selected facilities would be the use of waste energy from the source that is recovered under proposed project activity.

5. The facilities identified above should be studied for the use of waste energy. The following can be the possible uses of waste energy by these facilities: (i) the waste energy completely used, (ii) waste energy partially used, (iii) waste energy not used but incinerated, flared or released to atmosphere.

6. Analyze the practice of more than 75% facilities in the list. For example the following situations can apply: (i) if more than 50% of the facilities do not use waste energy, it can be decided that the proposed Greenfield facility also would have wasted the energy in the absence of waste energy recovery CDM project; (ii) if more than 50% of the facilities use the waste energy partially, the baseline emissions can be capped using the most conservative baseline practice factor (fpractice) based on the percentage of waste energy used in the baseline; for example a 50% usage of waste energy in these facilities results in to fpractice of 0.5; (iii) if more than 50% of the facilities recover the waste energy fully, the methodology is not applicable as it cannot be demonstrated that waste energy would not have been recovered in the absence of CDM project. Use operational information or manufacturer’s specification of the facilities.

7. In case none of the above practices are followed by more than 50% of facilities, the most conservative practice decides the baseline emissions practice factor (fpractice). For the use of Option 1, it is necessary that at least five facilities are analyzed to arrive at .reference facility (fpractice).

As the project activity is the first of its kind in Indonesia, thus option 1 to assess the extent of use of WECM and determination of baseline practice factor for CDM project activity implemented in Greenfield facilities using a reference waste energy generating facility can’t be used. Therefore to demonstrate the use of WECM, option 2 is chosen by the project activity. Option 2: Assessment of alternative design of the project facility: This option is to be used if the project participants are not able to arrive at five facilities of similar type as the Greenfield project facility. The manufacturer of the project facility will be invited to submit an alternative design including the usage of WECM that is recovered under project. The project participants have to demonstrate through investment analysis that the use (or no use) of WECM(s) of such alternative design would have been the baseline scenario for the waste energy generated in the Greenfield facility. The alternative design provides the value of factor fpractice that is referred in Option 1 above. The alternative design of WECM from the project manufacturer is releasing WECM fully to the atmosphere with additional gas treatment equipment. The additional equipment for the alternative design is the evaporation cooler, with the additional investment of 23 billion IDR. The additional investment is only 6% from the total investment cost of the project activity. This alternative design would have been the baseline scenario for the waste energy generated in the absence of the project activity. Since, the WECM would be released fully to atmosphere, therefore the fpractice is 1. Based on the analysis above, it can be concluded that the project activity meets all the applicability conditions required by the ACM0012 version 04.0.0.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 10 B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary: The ACM0012 version 04.0.0 defines that the project boundary shall include the relevant WECM stream(s), equipment and energy distribution system in the following facilities:

(1) The “facility”; (2) The “recipient facility(ies)”, which may be the same as the “facility”

Figure below shows the project boundary:

Figure 3 Project Boundary

The table below shows summary of gases and sources included in the project boundary, and justification explanation where gases and sources are not included.

Table 5 Summary of gases and sources included in the project boundary

Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation CO2 Included Main emission source. CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is

conservative.

Electricity generation from the grid

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is conservative.

CO2 Excluded No element process for thermal energy. Not applicable.

CH4 Excluded No element process for thermal energy. Not applicable.

Fossil fuel consumption in element process for thermal energy

N2O Excluded No element process for thermal energy. Not applicable.

CO2 Excluded No cogeneration plant. Not applicable.

Bas

elin

e

Fossil fuel consumption in cogeneration plant

CH4 Excluded No cogeneration plant. Not applicable.


Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation N2O Excluded No cogeneration plant. Not

applicable. CO2 Excluded No steam used in the flaring process.

Not applicable. CH4 Excluded No steam used in the flaring process.

Not applicable.

Generation of steam used in the flaring process, if any

N2O Excluded No steam used in the flaring process. Not applicable.

CO2 Excluded No fossil fuel consumption for supply of process heat and/or reaction heat. Not applicable.

CH4 Excluded No fossil fuel consumption for supply of process heat and/or reaction heat. Not applicable.

Fossil fuel consumption for supply of process heat and/or reaction heat

N2O Excluded No fossil fuel consumption for supply of process heat and/or reaction heat. Not applicable.

CO2 Excluded No supplemental fossil fuel consumption at the project plant. Not applicable.

CH4 Excluded No supplemental fossil fuel consumption at the project plant. Not applicable.

Supplemental fossil fuel consumption at the project plant

N2O Excluded No supplemental fossil fuel consumption at the project plant. Not applicable.

CO2 Included Main emission source CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification

Supplemental electricity consumption N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification

CO2 Excluded No captive electricity in the baseline is replaced by imported electricity. Not applicable.

CH4 Excluded No captive electricity in the baseline is replaced by imported electricity. Not applicable.

Electricity import to replace captive electricity, which was generated using waste gas in absence of project activity

N2O Excluded No captive electricity in the baseline is replaced by imported electricity. Not applicable.

CO2 Included Electricity consumed for gas cleaning already calculated in plant facility.

CH4 Excluded No cleaning of gas is required in the project. Not applicable.

Pro

ject

Act

ivity

Energy consumption For gas cleaning

N2O Excluded No cleaning of gas is required in the project. Not applicable.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 12 B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario: Based on ACM0012 version 04.0.0, the baseline scenario is identified as the most plausible baseline scenario among all realistic and credible alternative(s). Realistic and credible alternatives should be determined for:

• Waste energy use in the absence of the project activity; • Power generation in the absence of the project activity for each recipient facility if the project

activity involves electricity generation for that recipient facility; • Heat generation (process heat and/or heat of reaction) in the absence of the project activity, for

each recipient facility if the project activity involves generation of useful heat for that recipient facility; and

• Mechanical energy generation in the absence of the project activity, for each recipient facility if the project activity involves generation of useful mechanical energy for that recipient facility.

In determining the baseline scenario, project participant shall identify the realistic and credible alternatives to the project activity that would provide an output equivalent to the combined output of all the components of the project activity. These alternatives may comprise one or more component(s). Therefore any alternative identified for the project activity should provide the same heat, power or mechanical energy output that is provided by the project activity and should include the alternate use(s) of the waste energy that is recovered by the project activity. These alternatives shall be determined as realistic combinations of the following options (as identified in step 1). Since the project activity is a power generation from waste energy, therefore based on the methodology guidance above, the baseline scenario considers the option of power generation and waste energy in the absence of the project activity into consideration. Step 1: Define the most plausible baseline scenario for the use of waste energy and the generation of electricity using the following baseline options and combinations A. For the use of waste energy the realistic and credible alternative(s) may include, inter alia:

Table 6 Baseline scenario for the use of waste energy

Option Description Justification Conclusion

W1 WECM is directly vented to atmosphere without incineration

This option is not possible because the waste heat needs to be cleaned through an incineration which is the After Burning Chamber (ABC), an evaporating cooler, and an Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) to fulfil the government standard (South Kalimantan Governor Law No. 053 year 2007 for Ambient Standard).

Not a baseline.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 13 Option Description Justification Conclusion

W2 WECM is released to the atmosphere (for example after incineration) or waste heat is released (or vented) to the atmosphere or waste pressure energy is not utilized

The waste heat before vented to atmosphere has to be treated in an ABC (incinerator), an evaporating cooler and an ESP.

Might be baseline.

W3 Waste energy is sold as an energy source

Currently there is no other industry in the complex (surrounding area). Thus, there is no demand for waste heat as the energy source.

Not a baseline.

W4 Waste energy is used for meeting energy demand at the recipient facility(ies)

The potential of the waste heat for electricity generation is much bigger than energy demand at the recipient facility. And this not economic feasible to utilize waste heat only for the facility.

Not a baseline.

W5 A portion of the quantity or energy of WECM is recovered for generation of heat and/or electricity and/or mechanical energy, while the rest of the waste energy produced at the project facility is flared/released to atmosphere/unutilized

The potential of the waste heat for electricity generation is big. Therefore only a portion of waste heat is recovered for electricity generation, while the rest of waste heat produced at the facility is flared is not a realistic and credible baseline scenario. In addition, only a portion of waste heat is recovered for electricity generation is not economic feasible.

Not a baseline.

W6 All the waste gas produced at the industrial facility is captured and used for export electricity generation or stream

The facility needs electricity, therefore capturing waste heat produced at the facility and used it only for export electricity is not applicable.

Not a baseline.

From the analysis above, the plausible baseline scenario for waste energy is W2 as all waste heat released to atmosphere. B. For power generation, the realistic and credible alternatives are analyzed below:


Table 7 Baseline scenario for the electricity generation

Option Description Justification Conclusion P1 Proposed project activity not

undertaken as a CDM project activity This alternative is compliance with all law and regulations on Republic of Indonesia.

Might be baseline.

P2 On-site or off-site existing fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant

There is no on-site or off-site existing fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant, as the location is a newly developed and the project activity is the first tenant.

Not a baseline

P3 On-site or off-site Greenfield fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant

Since there is no identified plant on site or off site in surrounding area, thus there is no demand for energy. P3 is therefore excluded.

Not a baseline

P4 On-site or off-site existing renewable energy based cogeneration plant

There is no on-site or off-site existing renewable energy which could provide the equivalent annual power supplied.

Not a baseline

P5 On-site or off-site Greenfield renewable energy based cogeneration plant

Since there is no identified plant on site or off site in surrounding area, thus there is no demand for energy. P5 is therefore excluded

Not a baseline

P6 On-site or off-site existing fossil fuel based existing captive or identified plant

There is no on-site or off-site existing captive fossil fuel or identified plant. P6 is therefore excluded. In addition, in Indonesia, according to the Government Regulation No. 18 year 1972 only PLN is the authorized electricity distributor company. Therefore, even though there is a captive plant nearby, they can’t directly sell the electricity.

Not a baseline

P7 On-site or off-site existing identified renewable energy or other waste energy based captive power plant

There is no on-site or off-site existing identified renewable energy or other waste energy based captive or identified plant. In addition, in Indonesia, according to the Government Regulation No. 18 year 1972 only PLN is the authorized electricity distributor company. Therefore, even though there is a captive plant nearby, they

Not a baseline


can’t directly sell the electricity P8 On-site or off-site Greenfield fossil

fuel based captive plant There is no on-site or off-site Greenfield fossil fuel based captive plant as the Project is the first tenant in the area. In Indonesia, according to the Government Regulation No. 18 year 1972 only PLN is the authorized electricity distributor company. Therefore, even though there is a captive plant nearby, they can’t directly sell the electricity.

Not a baseline

P9 On-site or off-site Greenfield renewable energy or other waste energy based captive plant

There is no on-site or off-site Greenfield renewable energy or other waste energy based captive plant. As there is no reliable renewable energy or other waste energy in the project location that could be utilized for Greenfield captive plant. Until this PDD, there are no wind, solar or biomass power plant that had similar capacity or nearly with project activity. Also, if there is captive renewable plant, they can’t sell electricity directly to the customer.

Not a baseline

P10 Sourced Grid-connected power plants

Importing electricity from the grid is a plausible scenario. In addition, this alternative complies with legal and regulatory requirement.

Might be baseline

P11 Existing captive electricity generation using waste energy (if the project activity is captive generation using waste energy, this scenario represents captive generation with lower efficiency or lower recovery than the project activity)

There is no existing power generating equipment before the project activity. Therefore, this option is not plausible to the proposed project activity.

Not a baseline

P12 Existing cogeneration using waste energy, but at a lower efficiency or lower recovery

There is no existing power cogeneration using waste energy before the project activity. Therefore, this option is not

Not a baseline.


plausible to the proposed project activity.

The analysis above shows that the plausible baseline scenarios for power generation are P1 which is the project activity is not undertaken as a CDM Project and P10 which is electricity from the grid-connected power plants will be imported to fulfill the electricity demand for the project activity. From two analysis above of the use of waste energy and power generation we can sum up the plausible baseline combination that shown by matrix below.

Table 8 Combination of baseline scenarios

Baseline Options Scenario

Waste Heat Power Generation Description

1 W2 P10 Waste heat is directly vented to atmosphere after incineration and PLN Grid provides the equivalent electricity.

2 W2 P1 Waste heat is directly vented to atmosphere after incineration, and project activity is not undertaken as a CDM project activity. This combination is not plausible because there is no source of energy to generate power for P1.

In summary, the possible combination of baseline scenario is:



1 W2 P10 Waste heat is directly vented to atmosphere after incineration and PLN Grid provides the equivalent electricity.

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality): CDM Consideration Prior consideration of the CDM is demonstrated in accordance with the Guidelines on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM, version 04, EB 62, annex 13. Paragraph 2 of the Guidelines states that for the project activities with a starting date on or after 2 August 2008, the project participant must inform a Host Party designated national authority (DNA) and the UNFCCC secretariat in writing of the commencement of the project activity and of their intention to seek CDM status. Such notification must be made within six months of the project activity start date and shall contain the precise geographical location and a brief description of the proposed project activity, using the standardized form F-CDM-Prior Consideration.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 17 Prior consideration forms were submitted to EB and the Indonesian DNA on 02/06/2010 and the acknowledgements received on 07/06/2010 from UNFCCC and on 25/06/2010 from the Indonesian DNA. The emails and letters will be provided to the DOE during validation. According to the Guidelines for competing the project design document (CDM-PDD) and the proposed new baseline and monitoring methodologies (CDM-NM), version 07, EB 41, annex 12, page 17, if the starting date is earlier than the date of publication of the CDM-PDD for global consultation by a DOE, section B.5 should contain a description of how the benefits of the CDM were seriously considered prior to the starting date. Therefore, the table below shows the key events of the project activity prior to the starting date:

Table 9 Key events of the project activity

Activity Date Evidence Environmental Impact Analysis (ANDAL)

20/03/2009 Approval letter by the Head of Tanah Bumbu Regency

Environmental Management Plan and Environmental Monitoring Plan (UKL/UPL)

20/03/2009 Approval letter by the Head of Tanah Bumbu Regency

Communication with TUV NORD Indonesia

26/08/2009 Communication email with TUV NORD

Feasibility Study Report of 2x14 WHRB Power Plant

06/11/2009 Feasibility Study Report

PT MJIS Board of Director Meeting 20/11/2009 Board of Director document Communication with Ecosecurities 29/12/2009 Communication email between

PT MJIS and Ecosecurities Communication with PT Asia Carbon Indonesia

31/12/2009 Communication email between PT MJIS and PT Asia Carbon Indonesia

Communication with Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy

06/01/2010 Communication email between PT MJIS and Danish Ministry of Climate and Energy

Kick off meeting between PT MJIS and PT Asia Carbon Indonesia

12/03/2010 Minutes of kick off meeting between PT MJIS and PT Asia Carbon Indonesia

Contract agreement with PT Asia Carbon Indonesia

22/03/2010 Contract agreement between PT MJIS and PT Asia Carbon Indonesia

The additionality of the project activity shall be demonstrated and assessed using the latest version of the Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality agreed by the CDM Executive Board, The project participants are required to use investment analysis for demonstrating additionality for the following three cases.

(1) Where, for an existing project facility, the WECM utilized by the project activity was totally or partially recovered in the absence of the CDM project activity.


(2) Where the CDM waste energy recovery project is implemented in a Greenfield project facility. The investment analysis for the Greenfield projects include the cost of the fuel that would have been used by the recipient facility(ies) in the absence of the CDM project. The fuels for such analysis should include all the fuels available in the host country, including those, which can be imported in the host country.

(3) Where the CDM waste energy recovery project is implemented in an existing facility to supply the useful energy generated to a Greenfield recipient, and therefore the likely baseline scenario is based on a .reference energy generation facility. The energy generation for such a reference facility, including the fuel (either available in host country or imported without any supply constraint), should be determined based on the investment analysis.

Based on the previous section B.4, the purposed project activity is in-line with situations No. 2. The investment analysis includes the electricity saving where the electricity is supplied by the grid prior to the implementation of the project activity. The tool further explains the step-wise approach to demonstrate and assess additionality, as follows: Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations Define realistic and credible alternatives

to the project activity(s) through the following Sub-steps: Sub-step 1a: Define alternatives to the project activity: Alternatives to the waste energy are: W1: WECM is directly vented to the atmosphere without incineration; W2: WECM is released to the atmosphere (for example after incineration) or waste heat is released (or

vented) to the atmosphere or waste pressure energy is not utilized; W3: Waste energy is sold as an energy source; W4: Waste energy is used for meeting energy demand at the recipient facility(ies); W5: A portion of the quantity or energy of WECM is recovered for generation of heat and/or electricity

and/or mechanical energy, while the rest of the waste energy produced at the project facility is flared/released to atmosphere/ unutilized;

W6: All the waste energy produced at the facility is captured and used for export electricity generation or steam.

Based on the previous discussion at section B4, the most realistic and credible alternative(s), are: W2: WECM is directly vented to the atmosphere after incineration. Alternatives to the power generation are: P1: Proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity; P2: On-site or off-site existing fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant;

P3: On-site or off-site Greenfield fossil fuel fired cogeneration plant;

P4: On-site or off-site existing renewable energy based cogeneration plant;

P5: On-site or off-site Greenfield renewable energy based cogeneration plant;

P6: On-site or off-site existing fossil fuel based existing identified captive power plant; P7: On-site or off-site existing identified renewable energy or other waste energy based captive power

plant; P8: On-site or off-site Greenfield fossil fuel based captive plant;

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 19 P9: On-site or off-site Greenfield renewable energy or other waste energy based captive plant; P10: Sourced from grid-connected power plants; P11: Existing captive electricity generation using waste energy (if the project activity is captive

generation using waste energy, this scenario represents captive generation with lower efficiency or lower recovery than the project activity);

P12: Existing cogeneration using waste energy, but at a lower efficiency or lower recovery. According section B.4 the realistic and credible alternative for power generation are: P1: Proposed project activity not undertaken as a CDM project activity; P10: Sourced from grid-connected power plants Outcome of Sub-Step 1a: Based on discussion above the realistic and credible alternative scenarios to the project activity is combination of alternative:

Table 10 Combination of plausible baseline



1 W2 P10 Waste heat directly vented to atmosphere after incineration and PLN Grid provides the equivalent electricity.

2 W2 P1 Waste heat is directly vented to atmosphere after incineration, and project activity is not undertaken as a CDM project activity. This combination is not plausible because there is no source of energy to generate power for P1.

The objective of this step is to define the most realistic and credible alternatives of the project activity. Since identification of the alternatives have been carried out in detail in section B.4 above, therefore the realistic and credible alternatives of the project activity is:

Table 11 Combination of plausible baseline



1 W2 P10 Waste heat directly vented to atmosphere after incineration and PLN Grid provides the equivalent electricity.

Sub-step 1b: Consistency with mandatory laws and regulations According to the section B.4, alternative 1 is in compliance with the Republic of Indonesia regulation and laws, and not the compulsory project by national or local regulation and laws. Step 2: Investment analysis The objective of this step is to determine whether the project activity is not economically attractive or economically attractive, without the revenue from the sale of certified emission reduction (CER). In order to conduct the investment analysis, following sub-steps are applied:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 20 Sub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method Option I. Apply simple cost analysis. As the project activity and the alternatives identified in Step 1

generates financial or economic benefits other than CDM related income, then this option cannot be use.

Option II. Apply investment comparison analysis. The only remaining alternative to the project is waste heat directly vented to atmosphere after incineration and PLN Grid provides the equivalent electricity. Thus this option is not appropriate.

Option III. Apply benchmark analysis, thus this is the appropriate option. Sub-step 2b: Option III. Apply benchmark analysis Since the project activity receives economic benefits other than CDM income and there are no remaining alternatives to the project activity, therefore option III is the appropriate analysis method for determining attractiveness of the investment analysis, therefore option III is chosen for assessing the project attractiveness in financial term. The benchmark for the project is the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) that has been calculated by using a valid and reliable sources at the time of Board of Director (BOD) decision. The calculation shows that Project WACC is 17.14%2. Sub-step 2c: Calculation and comparison of financial indicators (only applicable to Options II and III): The project information for the financial calculation is explained below:

Table 12 Project information

Parameter Value Source Installed capacity (MW) 28 Annual Electricity Generation (GWh) 161.28

Feasibility Study Report

Power consumption for power plant (GWh) 30.14 MJIS-IRR ver 1.0.0 spreadsheet Power consumption for facility (GWh) 68.37 MJIS-IRR ver 1.0.0 spreadsheet Electricity exported to the grid annually (GWh) 62.76 MJIS-IRR ver 1.0.0 spreadsheet Project lifetime (years) 20 Feasibility Study Report Depreciation (years) 20 Feasibility Study Report Yearly inflation 9% Feasibility Study Report Total initial investment (million IDR) 392,179.68 MJIS-IRR ver 1.0.0 spreadsheet

Income tax 25% Law No. 36 year 2008 for tax rate, article 17 (2a)

Electricity sales tariff (IDR/kWh) 852.8 Ministry Decree No. 31 year 2009

Electricity purchase tariff (IDR/kWh) 698.96 PLN Statictic South & Central Kalimantan year 2008

Operational & Maintenance cost (IDR/MW) 462.22 MJIS-IRR ver 1.0.0 spreadsheet CER Price (EUR) 8 http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx

?articleID=1705.

2 Calculation is available in the MJIS-IRR ver 1.0.0 spreadsheet

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 21 Based on the calculation with above parameters, the project activity with the time span of 20 years will result in 14.51% of IRR. This number is below the benchmark which company WACC is 17.14%. Thus, the project activity without CDM is not economically attractive. By applying the CDM scheme, the project activity will result on higher IRR of 19.05%. Sub-step 2d: Sensitivity analysis (only applicable to Options II and III) The purpose of the sensitivity analysis is to show whether the conclusion regarding the financial / economic attractiveness is robust to reasonable variations in the critical assumptions. Four factors to be included on the sensitive analysis are:

1. Project cost 2. Operation & Maintenance cost. 3. Electricity Tariff (sell price) 4. Electricity Tariff (purchase price)

Variations of +/- 10% used for the sensitive analysis on the major parameters, and summarized below:

Table 13 Sensitivity Analysis

Factor -10% Base Case 10% Project Cost 16.53% 14.55% 12.81%

O&M Cost 15.05% 14.55% 13.95%

Tariff (sales) 13.26% 14.55% 15.71%

Tariff (purchase) 13.40% 14.55% 15.58%

Figure 4 Sensitivity chart

From the graphic above shows: 1. Even the project cost is reduced by 10%, the IRR is still below benchmark. This scenario could

not be accepted because of the actual cost is already based on contract between PT MJIS and the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractor.


2. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) cost: the fluctuation factor between -10% and +10% is sensitized on this parameter. It shows that even tough the O&M cost is reduced by 10% the IRR is still below the benchmark. However, the O&M cost is impossible to reduce because every year O&M cost will go higher due to the inflation.

3. Electricity sales tariff: when the electricity sales tariff is reduced by 10%, the project IRR will be below the benchmark and then when the electricity sales tariff is increase by 10% the project IRR is still below benchmark. However the 10% increase of the electricity sales tariff is unlikely to be happened because the electricity sales tariff is based on the agreement between PT MJIS and PT PLN.

4. Electricity purchase tariff: When the electricity purchase tariff is reduced by 10%, the project IRR is below the benchmark and when the electricity purchase tariff is increase by 10% the project IRR results is still below the benchmark. However the 10% increase of the electricity sales tariff is difficult to be happened because electricity tariff is a very sensitive issue in Indonesia. The change of electricity purchase tariff should be approved by the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat).

From the discussion above, it demonstrates that the project activity is financially unattractive without the additional revenue from CER Step 3: Barrier analysis Sub-step 3a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of the proposed CDM project activity: The project activity has a barrier due to prevailing practice because the implementation of the technology which is used in the project activity is the first of its kind implemented in the sponge iron industry in Indonesia3. Therefore the project activity is not the common practice to be implemented in Indonesia. Step 4: Common practice analysis Since the project is the first of its kind, the analysis of the common practice is not required. Conclusion CDM Meth Panel in their Thirty-fourth meeting Report Annex 10, stated that if a project activity is “first-of-its-kind”, no additional assessment steps are undertaken to confirm additionality. The projects that can demonstrate “first-of-its-kind” pass the additionality test by default. B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: The baseline emissions for the year y shall be determined as follows:

...Equation 1

Where: 3 Directorate General of Basic Industry Manufacture, Ministry of Industry No. 532/BIM.2/5/2011

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 23 BEy = The total baseline emissions during the year y in tCO2 BEEn,y = The baseline emissions from energy generated by the project activity during the year y in

tCO2 BEflst,y = Baseline emissions from fossil fuel combustion, if any, either directly for flaring of waste

gas or for steam generation that would have been used for flaring the waste gas in the absence of the project activity (tCO2). This is relevant for those project activities where in the baseline steam is used to flare the waste gas

Due to no fossil fuel combustion for flaring of waste gas or for steam generation, therefore the baseline emission equation will be:

...Equation 2

Baseline emissions from energy generated by the project activity (BEEn,y) The project activity is the utilization of waste heat to generate electricity. The waste heat would be vented to atmosphere in the absence of the project activity. Based on previous discussion on section B.4, the project activity is classified in Baseline scenario-1. The baseline emission from electricity generation is described below:

...Equation 3 Where: BEelec,y = Baseline emissions due to displacement of electricity during the year y (tCO2) EGi,j,y = The quantity of electricity supplied to the recipient j by generator, which in the absence of

the project activity would have been sourced from source i (the grid) during the year y in MWh.

EFelec,i,j,y = The CO2 emission factor for the electricity source i (gr for the grid, and is for an identified source), displaced due to the project activity, during the year y (tCO2/MWh)

fwcm = Fraction of total electricity generated by the project activity using waste energy. This fraction is 1 if the electricity generation is purely from use of waste energy.

fcap = Factor that determines the energy that would have been produced in project year y using waste energy generated at a historical level, expressed as a fraction of the total energy produced using waste source in year y. The ratio is 1 if the waste energy generated in project year y is the same or less than that generated at a historical level. For Greenfield facilities, fcap is 1.

According to the methodology of ACM0012 04.0.0, fwcm is a fraction of total electricity generated by the project activity using waste energy. In the methodology is also mentioned that the fraction is 1 if the electricity generation is purely from use of waste energy. According to the methodology of ACM0012 04.0.0, fcap is 1 because the project activity is a Greeenfield. Determination of EFelec,i,j,y The calculation of emission factor is determined with the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” version 2.2, EB 61 annex 12.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 24 The Tool further explains that to determine the CO2 emission factor for the displacement of electricity generated by power plants in an electricity system, by calculating the combined margin (CM) Emission factor of the electricity system. The CM is the result of a weighted average of two emission factors pertaining to the electricity system: the operating margin (OM) and the build margin (BM), that calculated following in six steps: Step 1. Identify the relevant electric power system Based on data from the grid authority, PT. PLN, the project activity is connected to the South and Centre Kalimantan grid. Step 2 Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional) Project participant may choose between the following two options to calculate the operating margin and build margin emission factor: Option I: Only grid power plants are included in the calculation. Option II: Both grid power plants and off-grid power plants are included in the calculation. In this case, Option I is chosen. Step 3 Select an operating margin (OM) method Calculation of OM emission factor should be based on one of the following four methods: (a) Simple OM, or (b) Simple adjusted OM, or (c) Dispatch Data Analysis OM, or (d) Average OM. (a) Simple OM. The simple OM method can only be used if low cost/must-run resources constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in: 1) average of the five most recent years, or 2) based on long-term averages for hydroelectricity production. The simple OM may be calculated: Option A: Based on data on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission of each power unit; or Option B: Based on data on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and

the fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system. As the available data only constitute for the previous 3-year data, thus this option can’t be chosen. (b) Simple adjusted OM. The simple adjusted OM emission factor (EFgrid,OM-adj,y) is a variation of the simple OM, where the power plants / units (including imports) are separated in low-cost/must-run power sources (k) and other power sources (m). Under Option A of the simple OM, it is calculated based on the net electricity generation of each power unit and an emission factor for each power unit. As the available data was not all completed with fuel consumption each power plant, thus this option can’t be use. (c) Dispatch Data Analysis OM. This method use the year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity and updates the emission factor annually during monitoring Since the reliable and valid data of the purpose year for the electricity generation usually issued in y+2, thus this option is not preferable. (d) Average OM The average OM emission factor (EFgrid,OM-ave,y) is calculated as the average emission rate of all power plants serving the grid, using the methodological guidance as described under (a) above for the simple

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 25 OM, but including in all equations also low-cost/must-run power plants. Option B should only be used if the necessary data for Option A is not available. For the emissions factor can be calculated using either of the two following data vintages:

a. Ex-ante. For grid power plants, use a 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation.

b. Ex-post. If the ex post option is chosen, the emission factor is determined for the year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring.

The PDD chose option (d) Average OM to calculate the Operation Margin as it is suit with the available data and ex-ante option to accommodate the available data vintage. Step 4: Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method The Average Operating Margin is calculated based following equation:

...Equation 4

Where: EFgrid,OMsimple,y = operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) EGm,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh) EFEL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) m = All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost / must-run power units y = the relevant year as per the data vintage chosen The emission factor of each power unit m should be determined as follows:

• Option A1. If for a power unit m data on fuel consumption and electricity generation is available, the emission factor (EFEL,m,y) should be determined as follows:

...Equation 5

Where: EFEL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) FCi,m,y = Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power unit m in year y (Mass or volume

unit) NCVi,y = Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or

volume unit) EFCO2,i,y = CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ) EGm,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in

year y (MWh) m = All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost/must-run power units i = All fossil fuel types combusted in power unit m in year y y = The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen


• Option A2. If for a power unit m only data on electricity generation and the fuel types used is available, the emission factor should be determined based on the CO2 emission factor of the fuel type used and the efficiency of the power unit, as follows

...Equation 6

Where: EFEL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) EFCO2,m,i,y = Average CO2 emission factor of fuel type i used in power unit m in year y

(tCO2/GJ) ηm,y = Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m in year y (ratio) m = All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost/must-run power units y = The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen

According equation above, the Operation Margin ex-ante is calculated below:

Table 14 Operation Margin Emission Factor

Installed Capacity

Net Electricity Generation

Emission Generation

Average OM (yearly)

Average OM 2008 Year

(MW) (MWh) (tCO2) (tCO2/MWh) (tCO2/MWh)

2006

308.75

1,331,355.26

1,454,834.18 1.093

2007

271.00

1,413,773.92

1,503,026.71 1.063

2008

308.75

1,513,982.26

1,662,972.71 1.098

1.085

Step 5: Calculate the build margin In terms of data vintage, the project activity is using option 1 as follows:

- For the first crediting period: the build margin emission factor ex ante is calculated based on the most recent information available on units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD submission to the DOE for validation.

- For the second crediting period: the build margin emission factor should be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE.

- For the third crediting period, the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period.

The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin should be determined as per the following procedure, consistent with the data vintage selected above:


(a) Identify the set of five power units, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities, that started to supply electricity to the grid most recently (SET5-units) and determine their annual electricity generation (AEGset-5-units, in MWh);

(b) Determine the annual electricity generation of the project electricity system, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities (AEGtotal, in MWh). Identify the set of power units, excluding power units registered as CDM project activities, that started to supply electricity to the grid most recently and that comprise 20% of AEGtotal (if 20% falls on part of the generation of a unit, the generation of that unit is fully included in the calculation) (SET≥20%) and determine their annual electricity generation (AEGSET≥20%, in MWh)

(c) From SET5-units and SET≥20%, select the set of power units that comprises the larger annual electricity generation (SETsample) Identify the date when the power units in SETsample started to supply electricity to the grid. If none of the power units in SETsample started to supply electricity to the grid more than 10 years ago, then use SETsample to calculate the build margin Set of power units that build recently are shown below:

Table 15 Power units that build recently

Power Plant Operating Year Net Power Generation

EGm,2008

(MWh) PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa 2006 20,639.27 PT. BJP (rent) 2001 27,074.91 PLTU Asam-asam 2000 430,087.17 PLTU Asam-asam 2000 399,949.89

Total Generation 877,751.24 The total net generation from all power plant/unit connecting to the grid for the year of 2008 is 1,513,982.26 MWh, therefore the power units that have been built most recent comprise of 57.98% of the system generation.

The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated as follows:

...Equation 7

Where: EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) EGm,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh) EFEL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) m = Power units included in the build margin y = Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 28 From the equation 7 can be calculated that the build margin emission factor for the year 2008 is:

Table 16 Build Margin Emission Factor

Power Plant Operating

Year

Power Generation Nett - EGm,2008

(MWh)

EFEL,m,2008 (tCO2)

EFgrid,BM,2008

(tCO2/MWh)

PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa 2006

20,639.27 0.692

PT. BJP (rent) 2001 27,074.91 0.844 PLTU Asam-asam 2000 430,087.17 1.443 PLTU Asam-asam 2000 399,949.89 1.563

1.461

Total Net Generation (BM) 877,751.24 Total Net Generation Grid 1,513,982.26

Step 6: Calculate the combined margin emissions factor The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as follows:

...Equation 8

Where: EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) EFgrid,OM,y = Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) WOM = Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%) WBM = Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%) The value of WOM and WBM is chosen using default value for power generation activity except wind and solar power generation. The default value are wOM = 0.5 and wBM = 0.5 Therefore, combined margin emission factor is calculated below: EFgrid,CM,y = 1.085 * 0.5 + 1.461 * 0.5 = 1.273 tCO2/MWh In the PDD, the emission factor of the grid is updated with the latest tool “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”, version 2.2, EB 61, Annex 12. The latest calculation has the same result with the previous version used by the Indonesian DNA, because the difference between the current (version 2.2, EB 61, Annex 12) and the previous version (version 2.0, EB 50, Annex 14) is in identifying the group of power units used to calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor (step 5). Since the set of power units remain the same, therefore the emission factor of the grid year 2008 which is stipulated by the Indonesian DNA through the letter No.B-25/DNPI/03/2010 dated 17 March 2010 is still valid. Project will use ex-ante emission factor of the grid calculated above for the whole crediting period. Project emissions

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 29 Project proponent has to considered project emission if the project activity includes emissions due to: (1) combustion of auxiliary fuel to supplement waste gas/heat and (2) electricity emissions due to consumption of electricity for cleaning of gas before being used for

generation of energy or other supplementary electricity consumption. The formula to calculate the project emission is:

...Equation 9

Where: PEy = Project emissions due to the project activity (tCO2) PEAFy = Project activity emissions from on-site consumption of fossil fuels by the unit process(es)

and/or co-generation plant(s) if they are used as supplementary fuels due to non-availability of waste energy to the project activity or due to any other reason (tCO2)

PEEL,y = Project activity emissions from on-site consumption of electricity for gas cleaning equipment or other supplementary electricity consumption (tCO2)

Project activitiy doesn’t involve any fossil fuels consumption for supplementary fuels due to non-availability of waste energy to the project activity, nor gas cleaning equipment or other supplementary electricity consumption. Therefore there is no project emission on the project activity. PEEL,y = 0 However, project installed a diesel generator unit in order to meet supporting facilities' electricity request (lamp, building etc) due to accident condition. Since the use of the diesel Genset is only for accidental purpose, therefore the project emissions from on-site consumption of fossil fuels for emergency case will be included into the calculation. The project emissions due to consumption of fossil fuels by the emergency case will be calculated as per “Tool to calculate project or leakage CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion”, version 02 by using the following equation:

yFCyAF PEPE ,, = ….Equation 12

∑ ×=i

yiyjiyFC COEFFCPE ,,,, ….Equation 13

Where: PEFC,y = CO2 emissions from diesel combustion in process, during the year y (tCO2/yr) FCy = Quantity of diesel combusted in the process, in year y (mass or volume unit/yr) COEFy = CO2 emission coefficient of diesel, in year y (tCO2/mass) Option B of the tool is chosen to calculate the CO2 emission coefficient COEFy based on net calorific value and CO2 emission factor of the fuel type, as follows:

yiCOyiyi EFNCVCOEF ,,2,, ×= …..Equation 13

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 30 Where: NCVy = Weighted Average net calorific value of diesel in year y (GJ/mass or volume unit) EFCO2,y = CO2 emission factor of diesel (tCO2/GJ) i = the fuel type combusted during the year y Leakage In line with ACM0012, no leakage is applicable under the approved methodology. Emission reductions Emission reductions due to the project activity during the year y are calculated as follows:

...Equation 10 Where: ERy = Total emissions reductions during the year y in tons of CO2 PEy = Emissions from the project activity during the year y in tons of CO2 BEy = Baseline emissions for the project activity during the year y in tons of CO2

B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation:

Data / Parameter: EFelec,i,j,y Data unit: tCO2/MWh Description: CO2 emission factor for South and Central Kalimantan grid in year 2008 Source of data used: Please mention all sources used in the calculation Value applied: 1.273 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

The data is used for to estimate the emission reduction. It is ex-ante calculation based on “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”.

Any comment Data / Parameter: NCVi,y Data unit: GJ/Kg Description: Net calorific value of diesel fuel Source of data used IPCC 2006 default values as provided in Table 1.2, Chapter 1, Volume 2

Energy Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in

0.043

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 31 section B.6 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

-

Any comment: IPCC guidelines/good practice guidance provide for default values where local data is not available. The value will be used in the calculation of project emissions (PEFF,y) from diesel fuel. This value has been fixed ex-ante.

Data / Parameter: EFCO2,y Data unit: tCO2/GJ Description: CO2 emission factor for diesel Source of data to be used:

Table 1.4, Chapter 1, Volume 2, IPCC 2006

Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.6

0.0748

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

The IPCC data which converted to tCO2/GJ at upper limit of the uncertainty at a 95% confidence.

Any comment: This value has been fixed ex-ante

B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions:

Based on the feasibility study, the electricity annual generation is 161.28 GWh, with the annual internal consumption of 30.14 GWh, the annual net generation is 131.14 GWh. According to the step-wise formula presented in the previous section, the baseline emission is equal to baseline emission from the electricity that can be calculated as follow: BEy = BEEn,y = BEElec,y = fcap * f wcm * Σj Σi (EGi,j,y * EFEleci,j,y)

According to the calculation and explanation on the section B.6.1, the value of fcap and fwcm is 1. Therefore the baseline emission is: BEy = 1 * 1 * (131,140 MWh * 1.273 tCO2/MWh) = 166,936 tCO2/y PEy = PEAF,y + PEEL,y PEy = PEAFy PEAFy = PEFC,y PEFC,y = ∑FCy x COEFy

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 32 COEFy = NCVy x EFCO2,y = 0.043 GJ/kg x 0.078 tCO2/GJ = 0.0033 tCO2/kg PEAF,y = PEFC,y

= 0 kg/y x 0.0033 tCO2/kg = 0 tCO2 With the value of project emission is 0 and no leakage, therefore the emission reduction is equal to baseline emission on the given year which is: ERy = BEy – PEy = 166,936 – 0 = 166,936 tCO2e

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Years Estimation of

project activity emissions

(tonnes of CO2e)

Estimation of baseline

emissions (tonnes of

CO2e)

Estimation of leakage

(tonnes of CO2e)

Estimation of overall emission

reductions (tonnes of CO2e)

2012 (March to Dec) 0 125,202 0 125,202 2013 0 166,936 0 166,936 2014 0 166,936 0 166,936 2015 0 166,936 0 166,936 2016 0 166,936 0 166,936 2017 0 166,936 0 166,936 2018 0 166,936 0 166,936 2019 0 166,936 0 166,936 2020 0 166,936 0 166,936 2021 0 166,936 0 166,936

2022 (Jan – Feb) 0 41,734 0 41,734 Total 0 1,669,936 0 1,669,936

B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: Data / Parameter: QWCM,y Data unit: Nm3 Description: Quantity of waste gas used for energy generation during year y. Source of data to be used:

Flow meter

Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in

1,872 x 10^6

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 33 section B.5 Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied

The parameter will be monitored continuously with flow meter.

QA/QC procedures The instrument will be calibrated on regular intervals. Any comment: The data will be kept at least for two years after the end of crediting period.

Data / Parameter: EGGEN,y Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of gross electricity generation by the project activity during the year y Source of data to be used:

Electricity meter


161,280

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied

The quantity of gross electricity generation by the project activity is measured on a continuous basis and monthly recording.

QA/QC procedures The electricity meter will be calibrated by third party. Any comment: The data will be kept at least for two years after the end of crediting period.

Data / Parameter: EG,j,y Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of net electricity supplied to the recipient facility by the project

activity during the year y Source of data to be used:

Electricity meter


68,373


The quantity of net electricity supplied to the recipient facility by the project activity is measured on a continuous basis and monthly recording.

QA/QC procedures The electricity meter will be calibrated by third party. Any comment: The data will be kept at least for two years after the end of the last crediting

period.

Data / Parameter: EGi,j,y Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of net electricity generation supplied to the grid during the year y

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 34 Source of data to be used:

Electricity meter


62,763


The quantity of net electricity generation supplied to the grid is measured on a continuous basis and monthly recording.

QA/QC procedures The electricity meter will be calibrated by third party. Any comment: The data will be kept at least for two years after the end of the last crediting

period.

Data / Parameter: FCi,m,y Data unit: Mass or volume unit Description: Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power unit m in year y Source of data used: Actual measurement with flow meter and recorded in logbook Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

-


Fuel flow meter in liters and converted into tons using the density value.

QA/QC procedures The measurement device is recalibrated according to the instructions (schedules, procedures) for QA of the manufacturer’s recommendation. Diesel fuel log book measurement data will be logged in CDM monitoring book.

Any comment: Fuel consumption will only occur in emergencies when power plant is not operational which is expected to be very rare.

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:


Figure 5 Monitoring instrument

Where:

EGGEN,y = Quantity of gross electricity generation by the project activity during the year y EGj,y = Quantity of electricity supplied to the recipient facility by the project activity

during the year y EGi,j,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied to the grid during the year y

The monitoring plan as according to the approved methodology can be explained below: Parties involved in monitoring Project will appoint persons responsible for implementing the monitoring plan. The following management structure which is responsible for the monitoring and maintaining QA/QC for the project activity:


Figure 6 CDM monitoring hierarchy

Power plant operators will be in charge in daily operation of the power plant and in daily recording of all meters. They will be also in charge to conduct the maintenance, to ensure the reliability and to prepare the calibration schedule of the measuring devices. Power plant Manager, the person in charge in running the power plant, will check and verify the data reported by operators and prepare the monthly report to the CDM coordinator and carbon copy to monitoring plant officers. Administration provides assistance in preparing daily, monthly and annually report of the power plant. Monitoring plant officers are in charge in non-operation field. They will calculate the emission reduction based on verified data provided by power plant manager, analyze the calculation and prepare the emission reduction report in monthly and annual basis to the CDM coordinator. The management is in charge in giving the approval for the monthly and annual emission reduction report. Document controller will be in charge in filling the documents. On site procedures All personnel will receive proper training in order to conduct an appropriate monitoring, operation, and maintenance to minimize risks during the operation of the project activity. The data monitored and required for verification activities will be archived electronically and paper, this document will be retained for a minimum of two years after the end of the crediting period. Quality Assurance and Quality Control A kWh meter of a digital type will be installed at the transaction point on a medium voltage of 20 kV and it will record electricity supplied to the grid on a continuous basis. This meter will also serve as a tool to

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 37 measure the electricity that the project activity exports and consequently as the basic for calculating the emission reduction. Measuring instrument, the kWh meter, will be subject to calibration performed by the authorized and accredited entity, in order to comply with the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or regulations. Procedure for corrective action In case that the main kWh meter fails to operate properly, then the electricity exported and imported to/from the South and Central Kalimantan grid will be based on the cross-check meter belongs to the first party (PLN) or according to other method agreed by both parties (PLN and Project). kWh meter for facility will be calibrated annually to ensure working properly, in case the instrument fails, the Project will fixed or replace with the spare instrument Procedure for internal audits of emission reduction The CDM Monitoring plant officers will report the monthly emission reduction calculation to the CDM coordinator. The emission reduction will be based on the metering records. The report will be reviewed by the CDM project coordinator who will take a lead for the corrective action that should be taken. The implementation of the corrective action by the CDM Monitoring plant officer and/or power plant employees will be included in the annual final report to the Project management. Requirement of an annual final report or monitoring report for verification, the management may appoint other party for assisting in verification for the given crediting years as stated in the PDD. The CDM focal point as stated in Annex I is in charge for the communication with EB, DOEs and the CER buyers. B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies): Date completion of the current study 26/08/2011 The name of the responsible person/entity:

Name : PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel (Project Participant) Address : Jl. Gatot Subroto Kav 54

P.O. BOX 1174 Jakarta - Indonesia

Tel : +62-21-521 0062 , +62-21-521 0072 Fax : +62-21-2521 660 Email : [email protected]

Name : PT Asia Carbon Indonesia Address : Palma One Building, 3rd floor, R. 311

Jl. Rasuna Said Kav. X2 No 4 Jakarta 12950 – Indonesia

Tel : +62-21-52907112 Fax : +62-21-52907114 Email : [email protected]


SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1. Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: 23/03/2010 The day of contract signing between Project proponent and the EPC Company. C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 20 years and 0 month C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period: C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: Not applicable C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: Not applicable C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: Chosen crediting period C.2.2.1. Starting date: 01/10/2011 or the date of registration, whichever is later C.2.2.2. Length: 10 years and 0 month SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: The project activity has already conducted the environmental impact assessment (EIA) by the third party. The EIA was approved by The Environmental Impact and Control Agency in 27/05/2009. Environmental impacts possibly caused by the project activity are analyzed as follows:

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 39 Impact on Micro Climate During the construction process, land clearing will increase the temperature will decrease air humidity. This is caused by the opening of land for project activity. Yet the impact occurred due to project activity is very small and not significant. Ambient Air Impact There will be elevated level of dust in ambient air caused by the rotary kiln operation. Environmental supervision will be carried out by PT MJIS by closing the conveyor of raw materials to reduce dust, doing water spray and trees planting, and the use electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that would collect dust from waste heat recovery boiler. Besides that, there will be increase in noise at the project site. PT MJIS will do maintenance on the machine that would emit noise and do the planting around project site. These activities can cope with ambient air impact. Ambient air impact occurred from project activity is relatively small. Impact on Water Quality The domestic waste water will be treated by using aerobic pond before being discharged to river. PT MJIS will do the recycle of water cooling. Water then will be used again for cooling process. Therefore the impact on water usage of the project activity is small. D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: The impacts of the project activity will not result in significant impact to the environment. SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: Stakeholder consultation was held on 26/11/2010 at PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel office, Batu Licin, South Kalimantan. PT MJIS as the project developer invited people who live in villages where the project is located. These are stakeholders who would directly relate to the presence of the project socially and environmentally. The attendees for the stakeholder meeting were invited by an invitation letter. The attendance list of the stakeholder meeting shows 32 attendees. The audiences are listed as follows:

- Representative of local government - Representative of local community - Representative of religious figure - Representative of State-Owned Electricity Company, Tanah Bumbu Regency - Representative of local military agency - Representative of police agency

The objective of the meeting was to inform to stakeholders about the project activity which will be implemented under the CDM scheme, to explain the stakeholders about contribution of the project activity to the sustainable development, and to receive comments from the stakeholders.

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 40 The stakeholder meeting was begun by the opening speech by Mr Hofman as Operational and Commercial Director of PT MJIS and followed by presentation of the project activity. The presentation material encompasses of:

- Global warming and climate change - World community action - Kyoto Protocol - Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - Project activity of PT MJIS and its correlation to CDM process

Attendees were allowed to give comments concerning the project activity. Any comments, questions, and expectations were delivered by interactive dialog in question and answer (Q&A) session. E.2. Summary of the comments received: >> The summary of the comments received during the stakeholder meeting are listed as follows:

- The use of waste gas to the surrounding community. - Community expresses grateful by the implementation of project activity because it will improve

job opportunity and improve the standard living in Tanah Bumbu Regency. - Concerning the implementation of power plant whether it was still a plan or had been a business

of PT MJIS - In the process of iron making, the coal washing and disposal of water should be considered by PT

MJIS. The activity should not harm the environment. E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: After the project developer gathered questions and comments from the attendees, they responded to the questions and comments. Following are the corresponding replies towards comments shown in the previous section:

- Waste gas has temperature of 1000°C. This could be utilized for electricity generation. Bapedalda (The Environmental Impact and Control Agency) has conducted an examination technically concerning to the environmental impact. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) document which has been issued by Bapedalda would be used as one of the requirement to build power plant.

- As an early stage, PT MJIS will perform a combination of local manpower and personal experience. Training will be held in the receiving of local personnel. The project activity could improve the standard living of community since it could create business opportunity (ex: shops and food stalls). Other effect of PT MJIS activities would create next industrial business such as limestone industry, as a raw material for iron making.

- The implementation of power plant has been a business and will be implemented by PT MJIS. It also can be seen from the commitment of PT MJIS by taking part of the CDM process. The project activity will be certified by an independent team of international auditors of UNFCCC.

- Raw material provided for the process of iron making is ready to be processed. Therefore no washing material is needed and water used in the project activity is used only for the cooling tower.


Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel Street/P.O.Box: Jl. Gatot Subroto Kav 54

P.O. BOX 1174 Building: Krakatau Steel Building City: Jakarta Selatan State/Region: Jakarta Postcode/ZIP: - Country: Indonesia Telephone: +62-21-521 0062 , +62-21-521 0072 FAX: +62-21-2521 660 E-Mail: - URL: www.meratusjaya.com Represented by: - Title: Operational & Commercial Director Salutation: Mr. Last name: Tambunan Middle name: - First name: Hofman Department: - Mobile: - Direct FAX: +62-21-2521 660 Direct tel: +62-21-521 0062, +62-21-521 0072 Personal e-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 42 Organization: PT Meratus Jaya Iron and Steel Street/P.O.Box: Jl. Gatot Subroto Kav 54

P.O. BOX 1174 Building: Krakatau Steel Building City: Jakarta Selatan State/Region: Jakarta Postcode/ZIP: - Country: Indonesia Telephone: +62-21-521 0062 , +62-21-521 0072 FAX: +62-21-2521 660 E-Mail: - URL: www.meratusjaya.com Represented by: - Title: Manager Commercial & Production Planning Salutation: Mr. Last name: Syaroni Middle name: - First name: Anang Department: - Mobile: - Direct FAX: +62-21-2521 660 Direct tel: +62-21-521 0062, +62-21-521 0072 Personal e-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 43 Organization: Bunge Emissions Holdings SARL Street/P.O.Box: Route de Florissant 13 P.O BOX 518 Building: - City: - State/Region: Geneva Postcode/ZIP: CH-1206 Country: Switzerland Telephone: - FAX: - E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.bunge.com Represented by: - Title: - Salutation: Mr Last name: Evans Middle name: - First name: Alfred Department: - Mobile: - Direct FAX: - Direct Tel: - Personal e-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 44 Organization: Bunge Emissions Holdings SARL Street/P.O.Box: Route de Florissant 13 P.O BOX 518 Building: - City: - State/Region: Geneva Postcode/ZIP: CH-1206 Country: Switzerland Telephone: - FAX: - E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.bunge.com Represented by: - Title: - Salutation: Mr Last name: Gigante Middle name: - First name: Francois Department: - Mobile: - Direct FAX: - Direct Tel: - Personal e-mail: [email protected]


Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

THERE IS NO PUBLIC FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT ACTIVIT Y


Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

Year 2006 Electricity Generation

FC1,m FC2,m

No Power Plant Owner

Power Generation-Nett

EGm,2006

(MWh) Fuel Type

Usage Unit Fuel Type

Usage Unit

1 Ir. PM Noor PLN 38,593.41



4 PLTU Asam-asam PLN 455,684.33 HSD 160.44 Kilo Litre COAL 342,511.00 Tonne

5 PLTU Asam-asam PLN 425,778.97 HSD 220.33 Kilo Litre COAL 322,038.00 Tonne

6 PT. Wijaya IPP 15,685.96 COAL - Tonne

7 PT. Gunung Meranti IPP 11,312.25 COAL - Tonne

8 PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa IPP 10,755.38 COAL - Tonne

9 PLTD Trisakti 1 PLN 8,530.25 HSD 2,233.09 Kilo Litre










FC1,m FC2,m



EGm,2006

(MWh) Fuel Type


Usage Unit

18 PLTD Kapuas 1 PLN 2,390.59 HSD 667.82 Kilo Litre

19 PLTD Kapuas 2 PLN 350.29 HSD 111.23 Kilo Litre

20 PLTD Barabai 3 PLN 3,645.92 HSD 986.66 Kilo Litre

21 PLTD Barabai 4 PLN 4,458.82 HSD 1,203.40 Kilo Litre

22 PLTD Panangkalaan 1 PLN 1,949.19 HSD 546.16 Kilo Litre



25 PLTD Panangkalaan 4 PLN 11,180.32 HSD 2,961.16 Kilo Litre

26 PLTD Maburai 1 PLN 1,653.93 HSD 446.42 Kilo Litre


28 PLTD Kahayan 1 PLN 4,269.41 HSD 1,153.21 Kilo Litre

29 PLTD Kahayan 2 PLN 3,050.27 HSD 842.26 Kilo Litre



32 PT. BJP (rent) PLN 30,314.61 HSD 8,255.49 Kilo Litre

33 PT. Sewatama Tjg (rent) PLN 33,608.01 HSD 9,224.00 Kilo Litre

34 PT. Musesa (rent) PLN 6,989.20 HSD 1,992.21 Kilo Litre

35 PT. Sewatama Kps (rent) PLN 1,104.61 HSD 294.52 Kilo Litre

36 PLTG Trisakti PLN 1,377.92 HSD 715.69 Kilo Litre

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 49 Year 2007 Electricity Generation

FC1,m FC2,m



EGm,2007

(MWh) Fuel Type


Usage Unit




4 PLTU Asam-asam PLN 432,827.33 HSD 189.92 COAL 337,915.00

5 PLTU Asam-asam PLN 388,744.17 HSD 303.83 COAL 306,253.00

6 PT. Wijaya IPP 42,257.55 COAL -

7 PT. Gunung Meranti IPP 4,571.22 COAL -

8 PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa IPP 21,610.02 COAL -

9 PT. Hendratna IPP 5,994.03 COAL

10 PLTD Trisakti 1 PLN 13,245.18 HSD 1,278.38 Kilo Litre MFO 2,147.80 Kilo Litre







FC1,m FC2,m



EGm,2007

(MWh) Fuel Type


Usage Unit




19 PLTD Kapuas 1 PLN 4,745.03 HSD 1,351.84 Kilo Litre













32 PT. BJP (rent) PLN 28,172.66 HSD 2,779.69 Kilo Litre MFO 4,712.27 Kilo Litre


34 PLTG Trisakti PLN 4,050.64 HSD 1,964.50 Kilo Litre

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 51 Year 2008 Electric generation

FC1,m FC2,m



EGm,2008

(MWh) Fuel Type


Usage Unit




4 PLTU Asam-asam PLN 430,087.17 COAL 341,632.00 Tonne

5 PLTU Asam-asam PLN 399,949.89 COAL 344,189.00 Tonne

6 PT. Wijaya IPP 45,680.97

7 PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa IPP 20,639.27

8 PT. Hendratna IPP 1,683.84

9 PLTD Trisakti 1 PLN 12,960.77 HSD 636.64 Kilo Litre MFO 2,814.55 Kilo Litre


11 PLTD Trisakti 3 PLN 7,728.47 HSD 335.55 Kilo Litre MFO 1,938.95 Kilo Litre






FC1,m FC2,m



EGm,2008

(MWh) Fuel Type


Usage Unit

















32 PT. BJP (rent) PLN 27,074.91 HSD 675.06 Kilo Litre MFO 6,692.58 Kilo Litre


34 PLTG Trisakti PLN 39,026.06 HSD 18,053.33 Kilo Litre

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 53 Default Emission Factor4

Fuel Type Effective CO2 emission

factor (kg/TJ)

IDO (Industrial Diesel Oil) 74,100 HSD (High Speed Diesel) 74,100 MFO (Marine Fuel Oil) 77,400 PPO (Pure Plant Oil) 79,600 NATURAL GAS 56,100 COAL 96,100

Fuel Spesification5

Type of Fuel Density (kg/m3)

GCV (TJ/Gg)

Differencies (TJ/Gg)

NCV (TJ/Gg)

IDO 880.00 44.52 2.56 41.96

HSD 845.00 45.52 2.79 42.73

MFO 990.00 43.35 2.33 41.02

PPO 900.00 27.40

NATURAL GAS 48.00

COAL 18.90

4 1)Source : IPCC 2006 Volume 2 Energy, table 1.4, page 1.23-1.24 5 Source : PERTAMINA, BAHAN BAKAR MINYAK, ELPIJI dan BBG, May 2003

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 54 Calculating Operation Margin Average OM

Year EFgrid,AverageOM,y (tCO2/MWh)

EFgrid,AverageOM,2008 (tCO2/MWh)

2006 1.093 2007 1.063 2008 1.098

1.085

Calculating Build Margin The set five power units that have been built most recently

Power Plant Operating

Year

Power Generation Nett - EGm,2008

(MWh)

PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa 2006 20,639.27

PT. BJP (rent) 2001 27,074.91

PLTU Asam-asam 2000 430,087.17

PLTU Asam-asam 2000 399,949.89

- - - Power Generation (5 power units) (MWh) 877,751.24

Total Generation (MWh) 1,513,982.26 Percentation 57.98%

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 55 Option a

Power Plant Power Generation

Nett - EGm,2008

(MWh)

EGm,2008 x EFEL,m,2008 (tCO2)

EFgrid,BM,2008

(tCO2/MWh)

PT. Tanjung Alam Perkasa 20,639.27 14,280.72

PT. BJP (rent) 27,074.91 22,840.73

PLTU Asam-asam 430,087.17 620,502.79

PLTU Asam-asam 399,949.89 625,147.04

- - -

1.461

Combine Margin

EFgrid,OMsimple,2008

(tCO2/MWh) WOM

(%) EFgrid,BM,2008

(tCO2/MWh) WBM (%)

EFgrid,CM,2008 (tCO2/MWh)

1.085 0.5 1.461 0.5 1.273


Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

- - - - -

mjis-pdd ver 1_0_0

Documents