verification report for: 2017-7872 proponent

Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (2012-2014) 2017-7872 December 2019

Verification Report for: Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (2012-2014)

2017-7872

Proponent: The City of Calgary

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd.

400 - 655 Tyee Road, Victoria BC V9A 6X5

Prepared for: The City of Calgary

P.O. Box 2100, Stn. M, Calgary, AB, T2P 1M5

Version:

Final

Date: December 30, 2019


of 49

Table of Contents 1.0 Summary – Offset Project ...................................................................................... 3 1.1 Summary – Facility ......................................................................................................... 6 2.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Objective ............................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Scope .................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 Level of Assurance ................................................................................................ 9 2.4 Criteria ................................................................................................................ 9 2.5 Materiality .......................................................................................................... 10

3.0 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Team ................................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Schedule ............................................................................................................ 15

4.0 Results .............................................................................................................. 16 4.1 Assessment of Internal Data Management and Controls ........................................... 16 4.2 Assessment of GHG Data and Information .............................................................. 17 4.3 Assessment against Criteria .................................................................................. 20 4.4 Evaluation of the GHG Assertion ............................................................................ 22 4.5 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 25 4.6 Opportunity for Improvement ............................................................................... 28

5.0 Closure .............................................................................................................. 28 5.1 Verification Statement ......................................................................................... 28 5.2 Limitation of Liability ........................................................................................... 28 5.3 Confirmations ..................................................................................................... 29

6.0 References ......................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A: Final Verification Plan and Sampling Plan ............................................................ 31 Appendix B: Statement of Qualifications................................................................................ 33 Appendix C: Findings and Issues .......................................................................................... 36 Appendix D: Statement of Verification .................................................................................. 41 Appendix E: Conflict of Interest Checklist .............................................................................. 45 Appendix F: Supplemental Diagrams/Tables/Figures ............................................................... 48

List of Tables Table 1: Offset Criteria Assessment ...................................................................................... 20 Table 2: Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 26 Table 3: Detailed Findings and Issues Log ............................................................................. 37

Instructions are in italics throughout and should not be deleted when report is complete. Some instructions are specific to the verification of facilities and for offset projects. The document is not restricted but do not alter the format, the layout, the headings or the overall ‘look and feel’ of the document. If if is more usefule to paste information outside of the text box, use the empty line just below the text box to drop text or tables int. This should not change the headings or the formats. There are several dropdown boxes in the document that must be completed.

• Complete report in Verdana 10pt font (no italics). • After the report is complete, right click the table of contents and ‘update field’ which will

update page numbers in Table of Contents. • If an instruction only applies to facilities or only applies to offsets indicate ‘not applicable’. • Appendix F is available for additional tables, diagrams etc.


of 49

1.0 Summary – Offset Project

Item Description

Project Title

Enter project title (must match the registry project title)

Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project

Project Description

Provide a brief description of the project and baseline conditions.

Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (Project) consists of capturing landfill gas (LFG) which is composed of 45% to 55% methane that would have otherwise been passively emitted from the landfill to the atmosphere. Once captured, the landfill gas (LFG) is combusted by a controlled flare or in a reciprocating generator to produce electricity. The Project represents actions that are beyond business as usual and results in emission reductions of a specified gas.

Project Location

Include the latitude and longitude for each unique location or installation. Include legal land location if applicable and other information identifying the unique location.

Address: 12111 68 ST SE, Calgary, AB

Lat / Long: 50.9, -113.9

LLD: Section 11-23-29-W4M and north half of Section 2-23-29-W4M.

Project Start Date

Enter the project start date.

The Project commissioning was in 2005 and operation began in January 2006

Offset Start Date

Enter the start date for offset credit generation.

February 1, 2006

Offset Crediting Period

Enter the offset crediting period, including the offset start date. Include day, month year.

February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2019. (8-year initial crediting period plus 5-year extension)

Reporting Period

Enter the reporting period being verified.

January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014


of 49

GHG Assertion (Actual Emission Reductions/Sequestration Achieved)

Enter the actual emissions reductions / sequestration for the reporting period. Enter serial numbers if available.

2012 (January 1 – December 31, 2012): 7,844 tCO2e

2013 (January 1 – December 31, 2013): 11,332 tCO2e

2014 (January 1 – January 31, 2014): 1,553 tCO2e.

Total: 20,729 tCO2e.

Protocol

Indicate the relevant protocol (if applicable)

Alberta Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, V1.0) (Protocol)

Ownership

Enter offset project owner.

The City of Calgary is the sole owner of the Shepard Landfill and the LFG capture and combustion infrastructure. During the Project reporting period, the City had a contract with CH2M Hill for the operation of the landfill gas capture and combustion equipment system.

No party or company other than the City of Calgary could reasonably claim entitlement to the environmental attributes supporting the emissions reductions.

Project Activity

State how the project activity meets the eligibility requirements

For the verification period, the Project activities as part of the Project are eligible under the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) to generate offsets as they meet the following conditions.

• Result from actions taken on or after January 1, 2002

• Be real, demonstrable, and quantifiable

• Not be required by law • Have clearly established ownership • Be counted once for compliance

purposes • Be verified by a qualified third party • Have occurred in Alberta

Project Contact Jessica Lajoie, P.Eng. The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Station. M, Calgary, AB, T2P 1M5


of 49

Enter contact name, company name, mailing address, phone number and email address.

(403) 268-1294 [email protected]

Tyler Ishii, P.Eng. The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Station. M, Calgary, AB, T2P 1M5 (403) 268-8421 [email protected]

Verifier

Verifier name, verifier’s company name, address, phone number email etc.

Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., CEM Stantec Consulting Ltd. 400 - 655 Tyee Road, Victoria BC V9A 6X5 (250) 217-9729 [email protected]

Verification Team Members

Include verification team members, roles, training, training dates and qualifications.

Lead Verifier: Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., CEM - completed ISO 14064 Training on February 18-20, 2009

Signing Authority and Quality Reviewer: Nicole Flanagan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. - completed ISO 14064 Training in Fall 2005

Independent Peer Reviewer: Vicki Corning, P.Eng. - completed ISO 14064 Training on January 21-23, 2008

Verifier: Orasa Webber, M.Eng.- completed ISO 14064 Training on September 17, 2012

Designated Signing Authority

Enter the designated signing authority for this verification.

Ms. Nicole Flanagan is the signing authority for the Verification Report. She is a professional engineer registered by the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) which satisfies Section 24(1)(a)(ii)(A) of the CCIR and Section 3(e)(iii) of the Standard for Validation, Verification, and Audit. Nicole has over 11 years of experience in GHG verification and validation in Alberta and has signing authority on behalf of Stantec.

Verification Strategy

Describe the verification strategy used for the verification, including rationale for the approach. Note, if a controls reliance is used, provide justification for how the project is able to support this approach.

The strategy used in the verification is included in Section 3.0 of this Verification Report and in the Verification and Sampling Plan, which is provided in Appendix A.

mailto:[email protected]



of 49

1.1 Summary – Facility

Item Description

Facility Name and Company Name

List company name and facility name.

Not applicable

Facility Description

Provide a brief description of the facility.

Not applicable

Baseline Emissions Intensity Description

List the approved BEIA and the baseline years.

Not applicable

Reporter Contact

Enter contact name, company name, mailing address, phone number and email address.

Not applicable

GHG Assertion

Enter the actual emissions, production, emissions intensity and the reduction target being verified.

Not applicable

Verifier

Verifier name, verifier’s company name, address, phone number email etc.

Not applicable

Verification Team Members

Include verification team members, roles, training, training dates and qualifications.

Not applicable

Designated Signing Authority

Enter the designated signing authority for this verification.

Not applicable


of 49

2.0 Introduction Provide an introduction to the facility or project, the verification, and the background.

For Offset Project: summary of offset project baseline, changes to the baseline since project start date and summary of changes at the project since the offset project start date or baseline period.

For Facilities: Description of compliance or baseline report, facility/project boundary, facility identification information, GHG historical performance, summary of changes since the baseline or since the last compliance report.

The Project involves the operation of a landfill gas (LFG) capture system which captures LFG (with approximately 45% to 55% methane concentration) that would have otherwise been passively emitted by the landfill to the atmosphere in the absence of the Project. The LFG captured is combusted in a reciprocating generator to produce electricity for use onsite and export to grid or by a controlled flare when the generator is offline. There is one generator and one flare onsite.

The overall volume of LFG captured is metered by a volumetric flow meter with the tag FIT 102. The LFG volumetric flow rates from FIT 102 were used in the quantification of emission reductions from January 2012 to April 2013. The split between the volume of LFG combusted in flare and in the generator is calculated assuming a constant LFG flow rate (based on design values) to flare when the generator is operating. When the generator is offline, it is assumed that all LFG metered is flared as that is the operational practice. Since the combustion efficiency for the flare and generator is assumed to be the same at 98%, overall emissions from LFG combustion are not affected by the split between the two combustion units. FIT 102 was manufacturer calibrated in 2005 and the readings were checked by CH2M Hill against another temporary Kurz 454FT flow meter in 2012.

A second flow meter, FIT 103 was installed in September 2012, and measures the volume of LFG going to the flare. The flow rates from FIT 103 were used in the quantification of emission reductions from May 2013 to January 2014 because the generator was offline entirely during that period. FIT 103 was calibrated in 2012 and 2013. In 2013 the LFG system was also expanded to include 19 new vertical LFG wells and 4 horizontal wells. These changes have been noted in the Project Report.

The volume percent of methane in LFG was measured by an Ultramat 23 analyzer (tag AIT 202) and was calibrated daily. Daily volumes of LFG and percent methane were downloaded directly through the system interface to Excel spreadsheets which are used in the offset quantification. A methane density at 25 °C and 101.325 kPa is used in GHG emission calculations to convert volumetric flow to mass flow rate of methane.

Exported electricity was measured by Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) to which the data was pulled from AESO website. Imported electricity was based on two ENMAX meters onsite and the consumption data provided by the City of Calgary’s energy management office.

There were notable modifications to the quantification of GHG emission reductions when compared to the Project Plan. These included the change in report format for the raw flow meter data which reduced manual calculation, exclusion of outlier LFG compositional data from the calculation, and the change in global warming potentials (GWPs) in 2014 (applicable to 2014 data only).

Those changes are noted in the Project Report. No other notable changes to the Project were documented other than described above.


of 49

The City of Calgary was responsible for the collection of activity data used in the calculations, completion of the calculations, presentation of the information within the Project Report, and for the supporting technical documents. The City of Calgary had a contract with CH2M Hill for the operation of the landfill gas capture and combustion equipment system.

Stantec was responsible for planning and executing the verification to deliver an opinion to a reasonable level of assurance as to whether the Project Report and GHG Assertion are presented fairly and in accordance with the verification criteria.

The intended user of this verification is the Alberta Climate Change Office (ACCO).

2.1 Objective Describe the objective of the verification (should include expressing an opinion).

The objective of the verification was to assess whether the Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project Report and GHG Assertion, for the period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014, satisfies the Verification Criteria identified in Section 2.4 below.

2.2 Scope Define the scope in terms of: geographical, organizational, activities and processes, sources, sinks, categories and greenhouse gases included (considering the completeness of the inventory), GHG assertion time period.

For offset verifications: include the serial range (i.e. XXXX-XXXX-XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX to XXXX-XXXX-XXX-XXX-XXX-XXX) if assigned (i.e. in the case of government verification a serial range will be available, otherwise not applicable).

For Facilities: ensure all specified gases and source categories are evaluated. Include list of negligible emission sources and justification for Emission Performance Credits (EPCs). Include listing of end products.

The Project is located at 12111 68 St SE, Calgary, Alberta (Lat / Long: 50.9, -113.9; LLD: Section 11-23-29-W4M and north half of Section 2-23-29-W4M).

The GHG Assertion verified is for the Project reporting period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014.

The following GHGs were included within the scope of the verification as required by the CCIR:

• carbon dioxide (CO2) • methane (CH4) • nitrous oxide (N2O) • hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) • perfluorocarbons (PFCs) • sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) • nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)

The total equivalent GHG emissions are reported as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (t CO2e)


of 49

The Baseline emissions include:

• B6 Waste Decomposition (CH4): emissions which would have been emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes from the landfill in the absence of the Project. Assumed to be consistent with methane recovered by the LFG capture system in the Project case.

• B10 Offset Fossil Fuel Use (CO2, CH4, and N2O, presented as CO2e): emissions that would have been produced by burning fossil fuels for the generation of an equivalent amount of electricity as produced in the Project case (based on electricity exported to the grid for the Project).

The Project emissions include:

• P9 On-Site Co-Generation Systems (CH4 and N2O): combustion of LFG for electricity generation. Note that CO2 emissions from combustion of LFG are biogenic and not included in the Project.

• P11 Flaring (CH4 and N2O): flaring of LFG. Biogenic CO2 emissions from LFO flaring are not included in the Project.

• P14 Net Electricity Production / Usage (CO2, CH4, and N2O, presented as CO2e): emissions from imported electricity from the grid for the Project operation.

Propane was used for flare pilots which is deemed negligible by the Protocol. No other fossil fuels combusted on site.

2.3 Level of Assurance The verification was conducted to a reasonable level of assurance.

Choose type of verification from the dropdown box above.

Provide explanation on level of assurance.

The CCIR and ACCO require the verifier to conduct sufficient procedures to deliver a reasonable level of assurance. The verification was planned and executed accordingly.

2.4 Criteria Outline the program criteria used and relevant supporting documentation (acts, regulations, protocols, standards, guidance documents, project documentation etc).

Stantec conducted sufficient and appropriate procedures to express a reasonable level of assurance opinion as to whether the Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project Report (dated December 19, 2019) and GHG Assertion, for the period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014, satisfy the requirements of the

• Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.7

• The Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alberta Regulation 255/2017, with amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 96/2018 (Regulation or CCIR)

• Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (July 2018, V2.0) (Standard)


of 49

• Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, V1.0) (Protocol)

Further, Stantec conducted sufficient and appropriate procedures in order to express an opinion as to whether the GHG Assertion is free from material discrepancies, is fairly presented and is substantiated by sufficient and appropriate evidence.

2.5 Materiality Define the materiality of the verification.

ACCO has set the quantitative materiality threshold at 5% of the total reported GHG emission reductions or removals asserted. Materiality of qualitative misstatements were at the discretion of the verification body. Stantec executed the verification accordingly.

3.0 Methodology Statement that the verification is performed according to ISO 14064-3.

Summary of the assessments/tests/reviews/evaluations that were conducted during the verification.

The verification was conducted in accordance with ISO 14064:3, Stantec’s Standard Operating Procedures designed for accreditation to ISO 14065, and the Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (December 2018, V3.0).

For more information on the verification procedures, see Section 3.1 and the Verification and Sampling Plan provided in Appendix A.

3.1 Procedures Description of how the verification was conducted including: description of the nature, scale and complexity of the verification activity, confidence and completeness of the responsible party’s GHG information and assertion, assessment of GHG information system and its controls, assessment of GHG data and information, assessment of GHG information system and controls, assessment against criteria, evaluation of the GHG assertion.

Describe steps of the verification including planning, assessment, site visit, off-site verification, and report preparation.

Describe how the risk based approach was implemented in the sampling plan. Identify categories of risk including inherent risk, and detection risk (organization and verifier). Include the Verification Plan with the Sampling Plan in Appendix A. Paste the risk assessment table in this section.

Description of how the verification was conducted including: description of the nature, scale and complexity of the verification activity, confidence and completeness of the responsible party’s GHG information and assertion, assessment of GHG information system and its controls, assessment of GHG data and information, assessment of GHG information system and controls, assessment against criteria, evaluation of the GHG assertion.

Describe steps of the verification including planning, assessment, site visit, off-site verification, and report preparation.


of 49

Describe how the risk based approach was implemented in the sampling plan. Identify categories of risk including inherent risk, and detection risk (organization and verifier). Include the Verification Plan with the Sampling Plan in Appendix A. Paste the risk assessment table in this section.

The following verification procedures and sampling were conducted by Stantec.

Verification Procedures:

The verification team developed initial verification procedures and sampling plan during the initial desktop review, based on a review of the Project Report, Offset Plan, and available documentation and in consideration of the verification risk. The procedures were designed based on the verification guidance (e.g., tracing inputs to emission quantification, recalculation, and review data management system and applicable meter calibration records). Over the course of the verification, the verification team considered whether additional verification procedures or samples were required to achieve a reasonable level of assurance.

Stantec’s final sampling plan included reviewing LFG flow data, LFG compositions, exported electricity, imported electricity, all emission factors, as well as recalculating Baseline and Project emissions. This included recalculating the GHG Assertion, independently obtaining emission factors and assessing consistency with the Project Plan, Protocol, and ACCO guidance.

For more information, see the Verification and Sampling Plan provided in Appendix A.

Site Visit:

Stantec Verifier, Orasa Webber, conducted a site visit to the Project (Shepard Landfill) on November 5, 2019. During the site visit, the following staff members from the City of Calgary were interviewed:

• Jessica Lajoie, P.Eng., Project Developer Contact.

• Tyler Ishii, P.Eng., Project Developer Additional Contact.

• Brent Plesh, Operator, Environmental Specialist.

The site visit involved a site tour and review of data collection, tracking, and retention and transfer procedures. Activities associated with operations, record keeping, data management and emissions sources were also reviewed to better understand the quantification calculations, data treatment and data management. Through interviews, and by attending the site visit, the verifier evaluated the site boundaries to confirm their veracity. Stantec confirmed emission sources, sinks and reservoirs and evaluated the potential for additional sources that were excluded.

Verification Strategy and Risk:

Details of the verification activities undertaken as part of the verification strategy are set out in the Verification and Sampling Plan in Appendix A and summarized in Section 4.0 of this report.

The Verification and Sampling Plan for the Project was developed considering our initial assessment of the verification risk for the engagement. Stantec assessed the initial verification risk as medium. Using the Verification and Sampling Plan, Stantec assessed the control procedures surrounding the GHG data and information. Important components included: processes for collecting, processing, consolidating and reporting GHG data and information; systems and processes that ensure GHG data accuracy, documenting and monitoring processes; methods to identify errors and methods to identify and report deficiencies in the


of 49

reporting information and management system. Stantec verified equations used for quantification and monitoring purposes. Based on the results of the verification procedures undertaken, the final verification risk remains medium.

A summary of the final risk assessment and verification procedures is provided below.

Parameter/ Source

Inherent Risk

Control Risk

Detection Risk Description of Procedures

Greenhouse Gas Assertion Data Management Data Retention

Medium Medium Low

Conduct a site tour of the Project to confirm completeness and accuracy of the Baseline and Project emission sources. Assess Project eligibility for generating offsets under CCIR. Inquire on any changes to the Project during the reporting period from the Offset Project Plan (March 2012) Inspect Project Report for completeness and accuracy. Inspect Project Report for consistency with the Offset Project Plan and the criteria. Inquire on quality control for accuracy of data inputs and offset quantification. Inquire on data management and retention for data used for GHG Assertion. Assess cut-off of data inputs to the offset quantification for all sources. Assess the use of the LFG flow meter (FIT 102) as an additional contingency measure provided in Table 2.5 of the Protocol Review the deviation approval letter from ACCO.

B6 Waste Decomposition • volume of LFG

captured • % volume of

CH4 in LFG • density of CH4

Medium Medium Low

Confirm LFG flow meter and analyzer locations and identification numbers. Inspect calibration records for the total LFG flow meter (FIT 102). Inspect calibration records for the LFG flare meter (FIT 103). Inspect calibration records for the LFG methane analyzer (AIT 202). Trend LFG volume against electricity generation for reasonableness and completeness check.


of 49

Inquire as to whether the LFG volume used in offset quantification is corrected to the same temperature and pressure as methane density (25 ºC and 101.325 kPa) used in the quantification. Trace all volumes of LFG in the offset quantification to raw meter data. Trace % CH4 in LFG in the offset quantification to raw analysis data. Vouch density of CH4 in the offset quantification.

B10 Offset Fossil Fuel Use • exported

electricity • emission

factor for electricity grid displacement

Low Low Low

Inquire on the exported electricity meter maintenance and calibration. Trend exported electricity and inquire on potential anomalies. Trace all MWh of exported electricity in the offset quantification to AESO records. Vouch the emission factor for electricity grid displacement.

P9 On-Site Co-Generation Systems • volume of LFG

combusted in the generator

• % volume of CH4 in LFG

• generator combustion efficiency

• N2O emission factor

Low Low Low

Trace volume of LFG combusted in the generator in offset quantification to the estimation of the combusted LFG volume. Sample 6 random months in the reporting period for the estimation of LFG combusted in the generator. Inspect generator offline periods in the 6 random sampled months (i.e., indication of all LFG goes to flare). Trace % CH4 in LFG in the offset quantification to raw analysis data. Vouch the generator combustion efficiency (assumed to be 98%) and N2O emission factor.

P11 Flaring • volume of LFG

flared • % volume of

CH4 in LFG • flare efficiency • N2O emission

factor

Low Low Low

Trace volume of LFG flared in offset quantification to the estimation of the flared LFG volume. Sample 6 random months in the reporting period for the estimation of LFG flared volume. Inspect generator offline periods in the 6 random sampled months. Trace % CH4 in LFG in the offset quantification to raw analysis data.


of 49

The verification team assessed whether the Project resulted in emission reductions in a manner consistent with the Project Plan. During the verification, the verification team considered the level of audit risk noted above and incorporated necessary procedures to mitigate the audit risk. These procedures included:

• assessing conformance with applicable verification criteria, including the principles and requirements of relevant standards or GHG programs within the scope of verification;

• evaluating the establishment, justification, and documentation of the Project Report;

• assessing the GHG Project's quality assurance and controls; and

• assessing the information for consistency with our knowledge of the Project’s operations.

3.2 Team List verification team members including peer reviewer(s).

Describe the qualifications and training of the team members and peer reviewer(s) including dates of training and certifications.

For Offsets: fill in the sample Statement of Qualification provided and included in Appendix B.

For Facilities: include the Statement of Qualifications from the facility compliance form in Appendix B.

The verification team is provided the table below.

Name Role ISO 14064 Training

Completion Responsibilities

Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., CEM

Lead Verifier February 18-20, 2009

Lead desktop review, sampling plan execution and working paper completion, and prepare verification documentation.

Nicole Flanagan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Quality Reviewer and Designated Signing Authority

Fall 2005 Review verification deliverables technical soundness and compliance with Stantec’s internal processes and ACCO criteria. Designated Signing Authority on verification documents.

Vicki Corning, P.Eng.

Independent Peer Reviewer

January 21-23, 2008

Independent review of verification activities and concludes on the outcome

Vouch the flare efficiency (98%) and N2O emission factor.

P14 Net Electricity Production / Usage • imported

electricity • emission

factor for electricity consumption

Low Low Low

Trace imported electricity in offset quantification to third party electricity bills/records. Trend imported electricity data against generator downtime records. Vouch the emission factor for electricity consumption.


of 49

Name Role ISO 14064 Training

Completion Responsibilities

of the verification. The independent reviewer confirms the verification activities have been completed and that the activities provide the required level of assurance.

Orasa Webber, M.Eng.

Verifier September 17, 2012

Lead site visit and assist with desktop review, sampling plan execution and working paper completion, and prepare verification documentation.

Ms. Nicole Flanagan is the signing authority for the Verification Report. She is a professional engineer registered by the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) which satisfies Section 24(1)(a)(ii)(A) of the CCIR and Section 3(e)(iii) of the Standard for Validation, Verification, and Audit. Nicole has over 11 years of experience in GHG verification and validation in Alberta and has signing authority on behalf of Stantec.

With respect to the technical knowledge required under Section 24(1)(b)(i-iii), each member of the team has the required technical knowledge of GHG emission quantification methodologies, and all have experience in completing third party GHG verifications. Please refer to the team profiles included in the verification plan in Appendix A.

3.3 Schedule Provide a list or table of verification activities and dates. Indicate when the verification was completed.

The verification schedule is provided in the table below.

Verification Activity Responsible Party Date of Completion

Kick-Off Meeting with The City of Calgary Stantec / The City of Calgary October 29, 2019

Receive the City of Calgary Documentation The City of Calgary October 25, 2019

Initial Desktop Review Stantec October 28-30, 2019

Provide Verification Plan to The City of Calgary Stantec October 31, 2019

Site Visit Stantec / The City of Calgary November 5, 2019

Receive Additional Information The City of Calgary December 17, 2019

Draft Verification Report Stantec December 19, 2019

Address Follow-Up Items Stantec / The City of Calgary December 30, 2019

Finalize Verification Report and Statement of Verification Stantec December 30, 2019


of 49

4.0 Results Add introduction to results section here, if desired.

4.1 Assessment of Internal Data Management and Controls Provide a summary the information system(s) and its controls for sources of potential errors. Include information on the selection and management of data, process for collecting and consolidating data, data accuracy systems, design and maintenance of the GHG system, the systems and processes that support the GHG information system and results from previous assessments if applicable.

The overall volume of LFG captured is metered by a volumetric flow meter with the tag FIT 102. The LFG volumetric flow rates from FIT 102 were used in the quantification of emission reductions from January 2012 to April 2013. The split between the volume of LFG combusted in flare and in the generator is calculated assuming a constant LFG flow rate (based on design values) to flare when the generator is operating. When the generator is offline, it is assumed that all LFG metered is flared as that is the operational practice. Since the combustion efficiency for the flare and generator is assumed to be the same at 98%, overall emissions from LFG combustion are not affected by the split between the two combustion units. FIT 102 was manufacturer calibrated in 2005 and the readings were checked by CH2M Hill against another temporary Kurz 454FT flow meter in 2012.

A second flow meter, FIT 103 was installed in September 2012, and measures the volume of LFG going to the flare. The flow rates from FIT 103 were used in the quantification of emission reductions from May 2013 to January 2014 because the generator was offline entirely during that period. FIT 103 was calibrated in 2012 and 2013.

The volume percent of methane in LFG is measured by an Ultramat 23 analyzer (tag AIT 202) which was calibrated several times per week. Daily volumes of LFG and percent methane are downloaded directly through the system interface to Excel spreadsheets which are used in the offset quantification. Methane density at 25 °C and 101.325 kPa is used in GHG emission calculation to convert volumetric flow to mass flow rate of methane.

Exported electricity is measured by AESO and data are pulled from AESO website. Imported electricity is based on two ENMAX meters onsite and the consumption data are provided by the City of Calgary’s energy management office.

Stantec assessed the internal data management system and quality controls for the Project; the results of this assessment are provided in the table below.

Parameter Procedures Sampling Plan Result

GHG Data Management and Quality Control

Reviewed the City of Calgary’s data management system through a review of on-site management systems, personnel interviews, and inspecting the quantification

Not applicable. Satisfactory

Stantec found that the City of Calgary’s data management system adequately collects and aggregates Project data and performs checks on the inputs to emission quantification.


of 49


spreadsheet, Offset Project Plan, Offset Project Report, and supporting information.

GHG Data Retention

Assessed whether there is sufficient document storage and retention.


The City of Calgary’s data management system can meet the data retention requirement per the Regulation for the Project records.

4.2 Assessment of GHG Data and Information Provide a summary of the information found during the verification of the GHG data and a summary of the GHG Assertion that was assessed.

For Facilities: Confirm that the quantification methodologies that were used in the compliance report are the same as those reported in the BEIA.

For Offset Projects: Confirm that the quantification methodologies that were used by the project proponent are the same as those described in the project plan. Indicate which quantification methodologies were used by the project proponent.

The GHG Assertion verified is 20,729 tCO2e for the Project reporting period January 1, 2012 – January 2014.

The following quantification methodologies were used for the Project:

• B6 Waste Decomposition (CH4): Volume of LFG captured was measured by the flow meter FIT 102 or FIT 103 as described previously. The % volume of CH4 in LFG was measured by the analyzer AIT 202. The density of CH4 (at 25 ºC and 101.325 kPa) was calculated assuming ideal gas.

• B10 Offset Fossil Fuel Use (CO2, CH4, and N2O, presented as CO2e): Exported electricity was per AESO reports. Emission factor for electricity grid displacement of 0.65 kgCO2e/kWh was used.

• P9 On-Site Co-Generation Systems (CH4 and N2O): Volume of LFG combusted in the generator was calculated as described in Section 4.1. Generator combustion efficiency was assumed to be at 98%. N2O emission factor is per NIR 2010. The % volume of CH4 in LFG and density of CH4 are as described in B6.

• P11 Flaring (CH4 and N2O): Volume of LFG flared was calculated as described in Section 4.1 for the period of January 2012 to April 2013 and was measured using FIT 103 for the period of May 2013 to January 2014. Flare combustion efficiency was assumed to be at 98%. N2O emission factor is per NIR 2010. The % volume of CH4 in LFG and density of CH4 are as described in B6.


of 49

• P14 Net Electricity Production / Usage (CO2, CH4, and N2O, presented as CO2e): Imported electricity was per ENMAX reports. Emission factor for electricity consumption of 0.88 kgCO2e/kWh per NIR 2011 was used.

Stantec’s assessment of the Project’s GHG data and information is provided in the table below.


Quantification and Monitoring

Assessed whether the following parameters were quantified and monitored per the Protocol and Offset Project Plan:

• volume of overall LFG captured (B6)

• volume of LFG combusted in the generator (P9)

• volume of LFG flared (P11)

• % volume of CH4 in LFG (B6, P9, P11)

• density of CH4 (B6, P9, P11)

• generator combustion efficiency (P9)

• flare combustion efficiency (P11)

• exported electricity (B10)

• imported electricity (P14)

Entire reporting period (January 2012 to January 2014)

Satisfactory

All parameters were quantified and monitored per the Protocol and Project Plan (where applicable):

• volume of overall LFG captured was from continuous direct measurement (FIT 102) and reconciled monthly.

• volume of LFG combusted in the generator was derived from meter data of overall LFG capture.

• volume of LFG flared was derived from meter data of overall LFG capture or from continuous direct measurement (FIT 103) and reconciled monthly.

• % volume of CH4 in LFG were from daily direct measurement (AIT 202) and averaged monthly on a volumetric basis.

• density of CH4 was calculated at the same temperature and pressure as LFG flow.

• generator and flare combustion efficiency used was at 98%.


of 49


• exported and imported electricity was from direct continuous measurement by third party.

Assessed the Project for inconsistent quantification methodologies.

All methodologies (including baseline emissions, project emissions, and emission reductions).

Satisfactory

The quantification methodologies used were consistent with the Offset Project Plan and the Protocol.

Assessed whether emission factors and conversion factors were appropriate and agree with the source.

All emission factors:

• electricity displacement factor (CO2e);

• electricity use factor (CO2e);

• N2O emission factor for LFG combustion (based on natural gas);

• Global Warming Potentials (GWP) and other conversion factors.

Satisfactory

All emission factors used in quantification of emission reductions are consistent with the Offset Project Plan and are allowed as this reporting period is in the first 8-year crediting period.

The GWPs applied in the GHG Assertion are appropriate.

Consistency with Project Offset Plan

Reviewed the Project Report against the Offset Project Plan for the following criteria:

• deviation of the Project from the Offset Project Plan;

• same baseline and project boundaries for the Project and the Offset Project Plan; and

Not applicable. Satisfactory, with 1 resolved immaterial qualitative discrepancy

The Project Report is consistent with the Project Plan. The change from Project Plan are noted in the Project Report.

There is 1 immaterial qualitative discrepancy noted which was resolved – see item 12-14-01 in Table 3 below.


of 49


• similar emission reductions claimed compared to Offset Plan.

Completeness and Accuracy of Project Report

Reviewed Project Report for completeness and accuracy and whether correct template was used.

Not applicable Satisfactory, with 3 resolved immaterial qualitative discrepancies

The Project Report is complete and accurate, and per the current report template.

There were 3 immaterial qualitative discrepancies noted which were resolved – see items 12-14-02 through 12-14-04 in Table 3.

4.3 Assessment against Criteria Provide a description of how eligibility criteria is met or not met.

For Offset Project: Complete Table 1 to indicate if the GHG Assertion conforms to the Regulation and Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers eligibility criteria.

For Facilities: Delete Table 1 and Indicate if verification criteria are met or not met and explain.

Table 1: Offset Criteria Assessment

Offset Eligibility Criteria

Assessment

Reduction or sequestration occurs in Alberta

Satisfactory - the Project is physically located in Alberta.

Result from actions not required by Law at the time the action is taken

Satisfactory - the Project is not required by any current or proposed law.

Result from Actions taken on or after January 1, 2002

Satisfactory - the Project began operation after this date.


of 49

and occur on or after January 1, 2002

Reduction or sequestrations is real and demonstrable

Satisfactory - the Project has been verified according to the Verification Criteria, listed in Section 2.4 of this report.

Quantifiable and measurable

Satisfactory – the Project has an Offset Project Plan which indicates quantification and measurement per the ACCO Protocol. Note that the City of Calgary is using the September 2007 Protocol per Section 4 (1) and Section 6 (3) of the Standard. The use of the September 2007 Protocol is also per the Extension Approval Letter dated February 3, 2016, issued by ACCO.

Verified by a third party verifier that meets the requirements in Part 1 for the Standard for Verification.

Stantec is a qualified third-party verifier, as defined in Section 24 of the CCIR. Stantec is accredited with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a member of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), in accordance with ISO 14065 (Accreditation ID #0805 issued to Stantec Consulting Ltd. for greenhouse gas (GHG) verification and validation).


of 49

4.4 Evaluation of the GHG Assertion The verification assessment is that the GHG Assertion meets the requirements of the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation

Provide an assessment of the evidence collected during the verification. Determine if the data and information available support the GHG assertion. Provide a conclusion on whether the assertion meets the materiality requirements and the level of assurance agreed to at the beginning of the verification process.

Stantec’s assessment of the Project’s GHG Assertion is provided below.


GHG Assertion and Boundaries

Conducted a site tour to confirm completeness and accuracy of the Baseline and Project emission sources.

Confirmed LFG flow meter and analyzer locations and identification numbers.

Assessed cut-off of data inputs to the offset quantification for all sources.

All on-site GHG sources.

Satisfactory Baseline and Project emission sources are consistent with on-site sources. No missing emission sources identified. No issues noted on metering locations and identification numbers.

The cut-off dates align with the reporting period.

GHG Emission Quantification

Trended volume of LFG captured and combusted versus exported electricity.

All monthly data for the entire reporting period (January 2012 to January 2014).

Satisfactory

Exported electricity corresponded with volume of LFG captured and combusted when applicable. Potential outliers were reasonably justified.

Traced volume of overall LFG captured in the emission reductions quantification to raw meter data.


Satisfactory, with 2 resolved immaterial quantitative discrepancies

Volume of overall LFG captured in the emission quantification is supported by raw meter data (FIT 102 for January 2012 to April 2013 and FIT 103 for May 2013 to January 2014).

There were 2 immaterial quantitative discrepancies noted which were resolved –


of 49


see items 12-14-05 and 12-14-06 in Table 3 below.

Sampled the split of LFG combusted in the generator and flare.

Reviewed generator operational records.

Six random months in the reporting period (January 2012 to January 2014).

Satisfactory

No issues found for the calculation of the volume splits.

Traced volume of LFG flared in the emission reductions quantification to raw meter data.

All monthly data from May 2013 to January 2014.

Satisfactory

Volume of LFG flared in the emission quantification is supported by raw meter data (FIT 103).

Traced % volume of CH4 in LFG in the emission reductions quantification to raw analysis data.

All monthly average (from daily data) for the entire reporting period (January 2012 to January 2014).

Satisfactory, with 1 resolved immaterial quantitative discrepancy

The percentage volume of CH4 in LFG in the emission reductions quantification is supported by analyzer data.

There was 1 immaterial quantitative discrepancy noted which was resolved – see item 12-14-07 in Table 3 below.

Recalculated density of CH4


The density of methane used in the emission reductions quantification is consistent with the Project Plan and at the same temperature and pressure as the LFG volume.

Traced generator and flare combustion efficiency.


The generator and flare combustion efficiency used in the emission reductions quantification are consistent with the Project Plan.

Traced exported electricity kWh in the emission reductions

All monthly data for the entire reporting period (January 2012

Satisfactory

The exported electricity kWh in the emission reductions


of 49


quantification to AESO reports.

to January 2014).

quantification is supported by AESO reports.

Traced imported electricity kWh in the emission reductions quantification to ENMAX reports.


Satisfactory, with 1 resolved immaterial qualitative discrepancy

The imported electricity kWh in the emission reductions quantification is supported by the records from third party (ENMAX).

There was 1 immaterial quantitative discrepancy noted which was resolved – see item 12-14-08 in Table 3 below.

Inspected calibration for LFG flow meters FIT 102 and FIT 103 and analyzer AIT 202.

All records for FIT 102 and FIT 103.

Sample daily records for AIT 202.

Satisfactory, with 1 immaterial qualitative discrepancy

Stantec reviewed the calibration records and determined they are valid for the reporting period.

There is 1 immaterial qualitative discrepancy noted regarding accuracy of FIT 102 – see item 12-14-11 in Table 3 below.

Recalculated Baseline emissions.

All Baseline emissions.

Satisfactory

The Baseline emission execution is appropriate.

Recalculated Project emissions.

All Project emissions

Satisfactory, with 2 resolved immaterial quantitative discrepancies

The Project emission execution is appropriate.

There were 2 immaterial quantitative discrepancies noted which were resolved – see items 12-14-09 and 12-14-10 in Table 3 below.


of 49

4.5 Summary of Findings Provide a summary of material and immaterial discrepancies expressed in tonnes and as net and absolute error in Table 2. Include whether the discrepancy was an understatement or an overstatement.

Include a more detailed description and log of results in Appendix C the “Issues Log”. This log will include both resolved and unresolved issues from the verification. Unresolved issues should be brought forward to Table 2.


of 49

Table 2: Summary of Findings

Number the finding with the year and provide a unique # for each finding. Note: A detailed description of all material and immaterial findings should be provided in Table 3 of Appendix C. Provide only a summary statement (1-4 sentences) for each unresolved immaterial finding and each material finding (resolved or unresolved). If the finding is a resolved material finding, then put the tonnes net and absolute in the summary description column and indicate n/a in the net and absolute columns. Do not include the tonnes in the total error calculation. Indicate the type of error (qualitative or quantitative). Indicate the Source Category (for facilities) or the Source/Sink (for offsets). Indicate if the finding is an understatement or overstatement. Provide both net and absolute error in tonnes of CO2 eq and as a % of the assertion. Provide the total net error and the total absolute error in tonnes of CO2 eq and as a % of the assertion.

Result #

Type Summary Description of Finding Source Category or Source/Sink

Understatement/Overstatement

Tonnes CO2 eq % net

Tonnes CO2 eq % absolute

12-14-11

Material qualitative

Material qualitative discrepancy. The LFG flow meter (Kurz 454FT model, tag FIT 102) used for the period of January 1, 2012 to April 2013 was out of calibration with manufacturer calibration having occurred in 2005. The meter readings were in-line checked against a temporary meter by CH2M Hill in April 2012 (24-hour readings) and compared to a secondary meter (FIT 103) in April 2013 (approximately 10-day meter readings) by the City of Calgary and found to be conservative. The resulting uncertainty around meter readings are likely in excess of the 5% materiality threshold; however, there is evidence that LFG volumetric flow data recorded by FIT 102 is under reporting and the overall assertion is conservative.

The City of Calgary has demonstrated conservativeness of LFG volumetric flow data from FIT 102 and obtained a deviation approval from ACCO (dated December 17, 2019) which permits the use of

Understatement N/A, resolved discrepancy

N/A, resolved discrepancy


of 49

underreported data from the FIT 102 meter as an additional contingency measure provided in Table 2.5 of the Protocol. Thus, this discrepancy is noted as resolved.

Total Error 0% 0%


of 49

4.6 Opportunity for Improvement Provide feedback on the data management system and controls, transparency, completeness of the inventory, additions to the quantification methodology document or diagrams, etc. Include positive considerations and observations also.

Identify strengths and weaknesses that may help to improve the report/s for the current facility, sector, and compliance program. Identify ways in which the project/facility could be more easily verified.

The opportunity for improvement is listed below.

• Currently the calibrations/checks for the analyzer AIT-202 (used for landfill gas composition measurement) are recorded in operator logbooks which are also used for other purposes onsite. Dedicated logbooks for the analyzer calibrations/checks would increase transparency and could result in a more efficient verification.

5.0 Closure 5.1 Verification Statement Include the signed verification statement in Appendix D.

Instructions to insert a pdf: 1. Click Insert>Object 2. In the Object dialog box click Create from File and then click Browse. 3. Find the pdf you want to insert then click Insert. 4.Click OK.

For Offset Projects: fill in the sample Verification Statement provided, sign, scan and paste.

For Facilities: paste a signed version of the Verification Statement from the facility compliance form. Include the conclusion on the GHG assertion and any qualification or limitations and the level of assurance.

Provide the verification conclusion in the drop down box below.

The verification conclusion is:

Positive

5.2 Limitation of Liability Include signed Conflict of Interest Checklist in Appendix E.

For Offset Projects: fill in the sample Conflict of Interest Checklist provided, sign, scan and paste.

For Facilities: paste the signed Conflict of Interest Checklist from the facility compliance form.

Insert limitation of liability statement and include information in an Appendix F if applicable.

Stantec has undertaken all assignments in its role as an environmental engineering consulting firm using professional effort consistent with the Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (July 2018, V2.0) (the Standard); and the Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (December 2018, V3.0). Stantec has assessed the Project Report (dated December 19, 2019) submitted by the City of Calgary for the Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and


of 49

Combustion Offset Project (January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014) using reasonably ascertainable information, as defined by ISO 14064-3, obtained from a review of operational records and supporting documents and available literature, the Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, V1.0). The assessment represents the conditions in the subject area at the time of the assessment. Stantec did not conduct direct monitoring or measurement or other physical sampling and analysis in conjunction with this verification report. Stantec disclaims liability for use by any other party and for any other purpose.

Stantec will retain all Project documents for a minimum of seven (7) years.

5.3 Confirmations Document information confirmed, including any discrepancies or inconsistencies, as per the Confirmations section in the Standard for Greenhouse Gas Verification.

For this Project, Stantec also confirmed that:

• the Project information contained in the Project Plan was consistent with the Project Report and GHG Assertion;

• the Project location is as indicated in the Project Report; • the Project Plan contains the monitoring and quantification procedures applied to this

Project for the period verified; • the Project proponent, report date, emission reduction numbers and other related

information are accurate for the verification period verified; and the Project’s information systems are consistent with the descriptions contained in the Project Plan.

6.0 References Author. Year. Title. (no hyperlinks)

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2003. Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.7.

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018. The Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alberta Regulation 255/2017, with amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 199/2018.

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2018. Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (July 2018, V2.0).

Alberta Environment and Parks. 2011. Technical Guidance for Offset Protocol Developers (January 2011, Version 1.0).

Aberta Environment and Parks. 2007. Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion, Version 1.0.

Environment Canada.2010. National Inventory Report Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990 -2008.


of 49

Environment Canada.2011. National Inventory Report Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990 -2009.

The City of Calgary. 2012. Offset Project Plan for the Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (March 2012).

The City of Calgary. 2019. Offset Project Report for Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (2012-2014).

of 49

Appendix A: Final Verification Plan and Sampling Plan


of 49

Information to be included in the Verification Plan and Sampling Plan:

Revisions to the sampling plan

Date originally sent to Facility/project

Level of assurance agreed with the facility/project developer

Verification scope

Verification criteria

Amount and type of evidence (qualitative and quantitative) necessary to achieve the agreed level of assurance

Methodologies for determining representative samples

Sampling Plan and Procedures

Risk Assessment: Risks of potential errors, omissions or misrepresentations that are identified throughout the verification process including:

- Details of site visit

-offset/facility boundaries

- Methodologies, emissions factors and conversions used

- Comparability with the approved baseline

- Conformance to the program criteria

- Integrity for the responsible party’s data management system and control (organization chart, GHGH management plan, personnel/consultant training, protocols used, control system documentation, software/program documentation/certifications)

- Greenhouse gas data and information, including the type of evidence collected, verification testing and crosschecking, inventory of emission sources

- Discussion of data management, (measurement, fuel sampling, calibration, consistent use of standard conditions, data storage, procedures to fill missing data; procedures to repair inconsistent data, adjustment of variables and factors)

- Other relevant information

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 400 - 655 Tyee Road Victoria BC V9A 6X5 Tel: (250) 388-9161

Template version 3.0 August 2018

VIA EMAIL <[email protected]> December 19, 2019 File: 123221462

Attention: Jessica Lajoie, P.Eng The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Station. M, Calgary, AB, T2P 1M5

Dear Jessica,

RE: VERIFICATION AND SAMPLING PLAN – CARBON COMPETITIVENESS INCENTIVE REGULATION VERIFICATION OF THE SHEPARD LANDFILL GAS CAPTURE AND COMBUSTION OFFSET PROJECT

INITIAL VERIFICATION

INTRODUCTION

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) provides this initial Verification and Sampling Plan for the Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (the Project), which consists of the landfill gas (LFG) capture system, located at 12111 68 St SE, Calgary, Alberta.

The verification is being completed under the Alberta Climate Change Office (ACCO) Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR). The Verification and Sampling Plan outlines the terms of the engagement and the planned verification procedures. The Verification and Sampling Plan also contains a list of data and documentation required to complete the planned procedures.

The Project period to which offset credits will be generated are January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014. One Verification Report will be prepared for this reporting period.

The Project consists of capturing LFG which is composed of 45% to 55% methane that would have otherwise been passively emitted from the landfill to the atmosphere. Once captured, the landfill gas is combusted by a controlled flare or in a reciprocating generator to produce electricity.

In this work, The City of Calgary is responsible for the collection of activity data used in the calculations, completion of the calculations, presentation of the information within the Project Report, and for the supporting technical documents. The City of Calgary has a contract with CH2M Hill for the operation of the landfill gas capture and combustion equipment system.

Stantec is responsible for planning and executing the verification to deliver an opinion to a reasonable level of assurance as to whether the Project Report and GHG Assertion are presented fairly and in accordance with the verification criteria. Stantec is a qualified third-party verifier, as defined in Section 24 of the CCIR. Stantec is accredited with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a member of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), in accordance with ISO 14065 (Accreditation ID #0805 issued to Stantec Consulting Ltd. for greenhouse gas (GHG) verification and validation).

December 19, 2019 The City of Calgary Page 2 of 17

RE: VERIFICATION AND SAMPLING PLAN - CARBON COMPETITIVENESS INCENTIVE REGULATION VERIFICATION OF THE SHEPARD LANDFILL GAS CAPTURE AND COMBUSTION OFFSET PROJECT

OFFSET PROJECT SUMMARY AND VERIFICATION FUNDAMENTALS

The summary of the Project, verification objectives, criteria, standards, level of assurance, and materiality threshold are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Offset Project Summary and Verification Fundamentals Item Description Project Title Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project (Project) Project Description The Project consists of capturing landfill gas (LFG) which is composed of

45% to 55% methane that would have otherwise been passively emitted from the landfill to the atmosphere. Once captured, the landfill gas is combusted by a controlled flare or in a reciprocating generator to produce electricity. The Project represents actions that are beyond business as usual and results in emission reductions of a specified gas.

Project Location Address: 12111 68 ST SE, Calgary, AB Lat / Long: 50.9, -113.9 LLD: Section 11-23-29-W4M and north half of Section 2-23-29-W4M.

Project Start Date Project commissioning was in 2005 and operation began in January 2006

Offset Start Date February 1, 2006

Offset Crediting Period February 1, 2006 to January 31, 2019. (8-year initial crediting period plus 5-year extension)

Reporting Period January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014

GHG Assertion (Actual Emission Reductions/Sequestration Achieved)

2012 (January 1 – December 31, 2012): 7,827 tCO2e 2013 (January 1 – December 31, 2013): 13,527 tCO2e 2014 (January 1 – January 31, 2014): 1,553 tCO2e

Ownership The City of Calgary is the sole owner of the Shepard landfill and LFG capture and combustion infrastructure. During the Project reporting period, The City had a contract with CH2M Hill for the operation of the landfill gas capture and combustion equipment system. No party or company other than the City of Calgary could reasonably claim entitlement to the environmental attributes supporting the emissions offsets. Land title records indicating ownership by The City of Calgary will be available to demonstrate entitlement.

Project Activity For the verification period the Project activities as part of the Project are eligible under the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) to generate offsets as they meet the following conditions. • Result from actions taken on or after January 1, 2002 • Be real, demonstrable, and quantifiable • Not be required by law • Have clearly established ownership



Table 1 Offset Project Summary and Verification Fundamentals Item Description

• Be counted once for compliance purposes • Be verified by a qualified third party • Have occurred in Alberta

Project Contact Jessica Lajoie, P.Eng. The City of Calgary P.O. Box 2100, Station. M, Calgary, AB, T2P 1M5 (403) 268-1294 [email protected]

Verification Objective and Criteria

Stantec will be conducting sufficient and appropriate procedures in order to express an opinion as to whether the Project Report for the period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014 is materially in accordance with the requirements of:

• Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.7;

• The Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alberta Regulation 255/2017, with amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 96/2018 (Regulation or CCIR);

• Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (July 2018, V2.0) (Standard);

• Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, V1.0) (Protocol); and

• Environment Canada, National Inventory Report Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990 -2008.

• Environment Canada, National Inventory Report Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990 -2009.

Further, Stantec will be conducting sufficient and appropriate procedures in order to express an opinion as to whether the GHG assertion is free from material discrepancies, is fairly presented and is substantiated by sufficient and appropriate evidence

Verification Standards The verification will be performed in accordance with the following standards:

• ISO 14064 Part 3 – Greenhouse Gases: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (ISO 14064-3);




Table 1 Offset Project Summary and Verification Fundamentals Item Description

• ISO 14065 - Requirements for greenhouse gas validation and verification bodies for use in accreditation or other forms of recognition (ISO 14065); and

• Standard for Validation, Verification and Audit, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (June 2018, V2.0) (Verification Standard).

Note that The City of Calgary used the September 2007 Protocol per the Extension Approval Letter dated February 3, 2016, issued by ACCO.

VERIFICATION SCOPE

Stantec understands the Project is described in the following manner. The reasonableness of this Project description is subject to verification by Stantec.

The Project is the landfill gas (LFG) capture system, located at 12111 68 St SE, Calgary, Alberta, which captures landfill gas (with approximately 45% to 55% methane concentration) that would have otherwise been passively emitted from the landfill to the atmosphere in the absence of the Project. The landfill gas captured is combusted in a reciprocating generator to produce electricity for use onsite and export to grid or by a controlled flare when the generator is offline.

The following GHGs were included within the scope of the verification as required by the CCIR:

• carbon dioxide (CO2) • methane (CH4) • nitrous oxide (N2O) • hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) • perfluorocarbons (PFCs) • sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) • nitrogentrifluorid (NF3)

The total equivalent GHG emissions are reported as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (t CO2e).

The Baseline emissions include:

• Waste decomposition (CH4): emissions from methane recovered by the LFG capture system which would have been emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes from the landfill in the absence of the Project. Per the Protocol, these emissions are quantified under B6 Waste Decomposition.

• Exported Electricity (CO2, CH4, and N2O, presented as CO2e): emissions that would have been produced by burning fossil fuels for the generation of an equivalent amount of electricity. Per the Protocol, these emissions are quantified under B10 Offset Fossil Fuel Use.



The Project emissions include:

• Combustion of LFG for electricity generation (CH4 and N2O). Per the Protocol, these emissions are quantified under P9 On-Site Co-Generation Systems. Note that CO2 emissions from combustion of LFG are biogenic and not included in the Project emission quantification.

• Flaring of LFG (CH4 and N2O). Per the Protocol, these emissions are quantified under P11 Flaring. Biogenic CO2 emissions from LFO flaring are not included in the Project emission quantification.

• Imported Electricity (CO2, CH4, and N2O, presented as CO2e): emissions from imported electricity from the grid for the Project operation which include site electricity consumption during downtime for the generator, biocells, and bi-direction meters. Per the Protocol, these emissions are quantified under P14 Net Electricity Production / Usage.

ASSERTION

The fundamental GHG Assertion to be verified for the Project is that it meets the verification criteria for the Project reporting period January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014. The initial GHG Assertion (i.e., reductions being claimed) is:

• 2012 (January 1 – December 31, 2012): 7,827 tCO2e

• 2013 (January 1 – December 31, 2013): 13,527 tCO2e

• 2014 (January 1 – January 31, 2014): 1,553 tCO2e

LEVEL OF ASSURANCE

Sufficient procedures are being conducted in order to express a reasonable level of assurance opinion as required by ACCO.

MATERIALITY

ACCO has set the quantitative materiality threshold to 5% of the asserted emission reductions and removals for offset Projects. The materiality will be assessed on the net and absolute values of discrepancies. The identification of material qualitative discrepancies is at the discretion of the verification body. Stantec will execute the verification accordingly.

VERIFICATION SCHEDULE

Table 2 presents the verification schedule.

Table 2 Planned Verification Schedule

Verification Activity Responsible Party Date of Completion Kick-Off Meeting with The City of Calgary Stantec / The City of Calgary October 29, 2019



Verification Activity Responsible Party Date of Completion Receive the City of Calgary Documentation The City of Calgary October 25, 2019

Initial Desktop Review Stantec October 28-30, 2019

Provide Verification Plan to The City of Calgary Stantec October 31, 2019

Site Visit Stantec / The City of Calgary November 5, 2019

Receive Additional Information The City of Calgary Week of November 12, 2019

Draft Verification Report Stantec Week of November 25, 2019

Address Follow-Up Items Stantec / The City of Calgary 2 Business days of the draft report

Finalize Verification Report and Statement of Verification Stantec 2 Business days of receipt all

follow-up items

VERIFICATION TEAM: QUALIFICATIONS, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

As part of Stantec’s GHG Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), the competence and selection of the team is completed following ISO 14066 - Greenhouse Gases – Competence requirements for greenhouse gas validation teams and verification teams.

Table 3 presents the verification team.

Table 3 Verification Team

Name Role ISO 14064 Training Completion Responsibilities

Daniel Hegg, M.Sc., CEM

Lead Verifier February 18-20, 2009 Lead desktop review, sampling plan execution and working paper completion, and prepare verification documentation.

Nicole Flanagan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Quality Reviewer and Designated Signing Authority

Fall 2005 Review verification deliverables technical soundness and compliance with Stantec’s internal processes and ACCO criteria. Designated Signing Authority on verification documents.

Vicki Corning, P.Eng.

Independent Peer Reviewer

January 21-23, 2008 Independent review of verification activities and concludes on the outcome of the verification. The independent reviewer confirms the verification activities have been completed and that the activities provide the required level of assurance.



Table 3 Verification Team

Name Role ISO 14064 Training Completion Responsibilities

Orasa Webber, M.Eng.

Verifier September 17, 2012 Lead site visit and assist with desktop review, sampling plan execution and working paper completion, and prepare verification documentation.

TEAM PROFILE

Lead Verifier – Daniel Hegg, M.Sc. CEM

Daniel Hegg is a Carbon Mitigation and Climate Resilience Specialist for Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Living on Canada’s west coast has deepened Dan’s passion for the development and implementation of sustainable practices. His unique perspectives and insights cross many important areas such as sustainable asset management, strategic energy and water management, sustainable ROI business case development, full value accounting, climate change infrastructure risk assessment for the private and public sectors.

In addition to providing strategy and policy advice, Daniel has specialized expertise in climate change adaptation planning. Daniel utilizes a modified risk assessment framework designed to align with ISO 31010 Risk Management Standard and the PIEVC Engineering Protocol to assess various assets and their exposure to climate change risks and hazards, determine priority areas, and develop short/medium/long term strategies to build natural and engineering resilience. Dan has prepared multiple climate-resilience strategies across a variety of sectors including buildings/real-estate, forestry, oil & gas, renewable energy, and mining. Much of his work has directly helped guide various private and public-sector organizations in sustainability and climate action decision-making. Having worked on over 175 organizational and facility GHG inventories and offset projects across a wide range of industry sectors, and on numerous GHG mitigation and energy reduction plans, Daniel has proven expertise in GHG offset verifications.

Quality Reviewer/ Signing Authority – Nicole Flanagan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.

Nicole Flanagan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. has 18 years of environmental engineering, 14 of which are with Stantec. Nicole’s experience is specialized in air emissions under a variety of industrial, government and corporate settings. She is currently a senior practitioner and technical reviewer for greenhouse emission quantification, reporting and verification. Nicole was the lead verifier of some of the first regulatory greenhouse gas offsets sold in North America, has completed Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs), and National Pollutant Release Inventory reporting for a number of clients facilitating regulatory compliance. In addition, she has completed projects for various facilities developing voluntary greenhouse gas inventories, and emission/energy performance key metrics and identification of reduction opportunities. Her clients include major electric utilities, energy companies, petrochemical production facilities as well as oil & gas companies.

She also spent four years with Environment Canada working on program development and program delivery of greenhouse gas inventory and reduction programs, which included meeting with stakeholders and administering procedural processes. During this time, she developed a strong understanding of the



workings of government from program administration (Greenhouse Gas, NPRI Reporting Division and Canada’s Offset System) as well as regulatory and instrument development (development of regulations and Pollution Prevention Planning requirements).

Independent Peer Reviewer – Vicki Corning, P.Eng.

Ms. Corning has a degree in chemical engineering and over a decade of technical and management expertise in many environmental services in the field of atmospheric emissions. She has been involved in over 175 verifications for organizational inventories and GHG offset projects in the United States and Canada.

Ms. Corning has worked with clients in a variety of different industries including: gas processing plants, oil refineries, SAGD facilities, pipeline operations, electrical generating stations (coal, gas, and cogeneration), manufacturing plants, chemical processing facilities, construction projects and pulp mills. Ms. Corning has managed the preparation of several policy reports on renewable energy for the New Brunswick Department of Energy and authored technical content on carbon capture systems for coal facilities as part of an environmental report for Carbon Capture Nova Scotia. Ms. Corning has developed Stantec’s internal GHG program competency training process and has also delivered course material on GHG verification, inventory, and data management techniques through a contract with the Canadian Standards Association.

Verifier – Orasa Webber, M.Eng.

Ms. Webber is an air quality scientist at Stantec Calgary office. She has experience in greenhouse gas (GHG) verification, GHG inventory, National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) reporting, ambient air quality and noise monitoring, and environmental impact assessment. She also has some experience in Air Monitoring Directive (AMD) reporting and annual air emissions inventory (AEI). For the past 7 years, she has focused on GHG verification and NPRI reporting.

She conducted over 100 GHG verifications in Canada and USA under many jurisdictions and programs including Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), Alberta’s Emissions Offset Registry, British Columbia (BC) GHG Emission Reporting Regulation, Ontario Regulation (O.Reg. 390/18), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and The Climate Registry. She completed her master’s degree in chemical engineering from McGill University and brings over ten years of industrial experience. She also has some experience in petroleum contaminated water/soil testing under Atlantic Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) guidelines, quality control of oil refinery products, and processing and design of plastic products.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Stantec has done a preliminary assessment of the potential risk associated with this verification assignment. The risk assessment is an internal procedure used to assess inherent, control, and detection risk which uses the following equation:

Audit Risk = Inherent Risk x Control Risk x Detection Risk

Detection risk is the risk that Stantec will not uncover a material discrepancy (e.g., the misstatement was present in the assertion and was not identified during the verification). The assessment of detection risk impacts the nature, timing and extent of the verification procedures that are to be performed by Stantec. Inherent Risk is the risk of a material misstatement that arises due to error or omission as a result of



factors that are outside of the failure of controls. Inherent risk is generally considered to be higher where a high degree of judgment and estimation is involved or where GHG emissions data collection and processing are highly complex and involved processes. Organizations must have adequate internal controls in place to prevent and detect instances of error, misstatements, and omissions. Control Risk is the risk of a material misstatement arising due to absence or failure in the operation of relevant GHG system controls. Control risk is considered to be high where the Project does not have adequate internal controls to prevent and detect misstatements in the assertion.

There is an inverse relationship between the inherent and control risks, and the detection risk. If the inherent and control risks are high, Stantec will perform verification and sampling procedures that reduce detection risk so that the final verification risk is maintained at a low level. Higher control and inherent risk equate to more rigorous investigation and sampling. It typically results in additional detailed on and off-site sampling, additional information requests and staff interviews. Detection risk is lowered by more rigorous sampling; however, sampling is always done as per the verification criteria and standards.

Detection risk is impacted by:

• Our Quality Management Procedures. We are committed to providing exceptional service to our clients in accordance with our ISO 9001 and ISO 14065 accreditations. We believe that quality is a basic principle and have made quality management an integral part of our work. We take a systematic approach to quality management in compliance with ISO requirements and strive to achieve continual improvement. The cornerstone of our quality management system is an entrenched process of technical and independent peer review where our deliverables are objectively vetted by senior and expert people in our firm.

• Level of Assurance. The reasonable level of assurance applied in this verification (as required by the CCIR) mandates that Stantec perform increased sampling to meet the assurance requirements, however, the level of assurance still increases the risk to Stantec as the risk-based verification approach means that not all information can be reviewed. Stantec has designed the sampling plan to target all potentially material items in the GHG information to minimize detection risk.

Stantec assessed the initial verification risk as Medium. Using the Verification and Sampling Plan, Stantec assessed the control procedures surrounding the GHG data and information. Important components included: processes for collecting, processing, consolidating and reporting GHG data and information; systems and processes that ensure GHG data accuracy, documenting and monitoring processes; methods to identify errors and methods to identify and report deficiencies in the reporting information and management system. A summary of the risk assessment is provided in Table 4.

Table 4 Risk Summary

Risk Area Preliminary Assessment Final Assessment Inherent Risk Medium To be determined

Control Risk Medium To be determined

Detection Risk Low To be determined

Overall Risk Medium To be determined



The Verification and Sampling Plan for the Project was developed considering our initial assessment of the verification risk for the engagement as presented in Table 5.

The initial verification procedures may be adjusted to reflect changes to the risk identified during the verification. Additional verification procedures that are deemed necessary to provide a reasonable level of assurance will be added to the Verification Risk Management table contained in the Verification Report.

VERIFICATION AND SAMPLING PLAN

The verification and sampling plan is intended to facilitate the assessment of completeness, conservativeness, consistency, accuracy, and transparency of the responsible party’s GHG information and confirm the GHG Assertion as identified in the Project Report. The verification team has established and will modify the sampling plan to verify that sufficient and appropriate evidence is available to support the Project Report and GHG Assertion presented. Further, any discrepancies that contribute to the GHG Assertion will be assessed and documented in the verification report.

With regards to the magnitude of potential errors, omissions and misrepresentations, volume of LFG captured, % volume of CH4 in LFG, density of CH4, and exported electricity represent the greatest risk of material error to the GHG Assertion (e.g., tracking of volume of LFG captured, % volume of CH4 in LFG, density of CH4, and exported electricity). Thus, verification procedures will focus on the evidence and controls related to these parameters.

Table 5 shows the planned verification procedures.


RE: VERIFICATION PLAN - CARBON COMPETITIVENESS INCENTIVE REGULATION VERIFICATION OF THE SHEPARD LANDFILL GAS CAPTURE AND COMBUSTION OFFSET PROJECT

Table 5 Verification Procedures

Parameter/Source Inherent Risk

Control Risk



Medium Medium Low

Conduct a site tour of the Project to confirm completeness and accuracy of the Baseline and Project emission sources. Assess Project eligibility for generating offsets under CCIR. Inquire on any changes to the Project during the reporting period from the Offset Project Plan (March 2012) Inspect Project Report for completeness and accuracy. Inspect Project Report for consistency with the Offset Project Plan and the criteria. Inquire on quality control for accuracy of data inputs and offset quantification. Inquire on data management and retention for data used for GHG Assertion. Assess cut-off of data inputs to the offset quantification for all sources.

B6 Waste Decomposition • volume of LFG captured • % volume of CH4 in LFG • density of CH4

Medium Medium Low

Confirm LFG flow meter and analyzer locations and identification numbers. Inspect calibration records for the LFG flow meter (FIT 102). Inspect calibration records for the LFG analyzer (AIT 202). Trend LFG volume against electricity generation for reasonableness and completeness check. Inquire as to whether the LFG volume used in offset quantification is corrected to the same temperature and pressure as methane density (25 ºC and 101.325 kPa) used in the quantification. Trace all volume of LFG in the offset quantification to raw meter data. Trace % CH4 in LFG in the offset quantification to raw analysis data.



Vouch density of CH4 in the offset quantification.

B10 Offset Fossil Fuel Use • exported electricity • emission factor for

electricity grid displacement

Low Low Low

Inquire on the exported electricity meter maintenance and calibration. Trend exported electricity and inquire on potential anomalies. Trace all MWh of exported electricity in the offset quantification to Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) records. Vouch the emission factor for electricity grid displacement.

P9 On-Site Co-Generation Systems

• volume of LFG combusted in the generator

• % volume of CH4 in LFG • generator combustion

efficiency • N2O emission factor

Low Low Low

Trace volume of LFG combusted in the generator in offset quantification to the estimation of the combusted LFG volume. Sample 6 random months in the reporting period for the estimation of LFG combusted in the generator. Inspect generator offline periods in the 6 random sampled months (i.e., indication of all LFG goes to flare). Trace % CH4 in LFG in the offset quantification to raw analysis data. Vouch the generator combustion efficiency (assumed to be 98%) and N2O emission factor.

P11 Flaring • volume of LFG flared • % volume of CH4 in LFG • flare efficiency • N2O emission factor

Low Low Low

Trace volume of LFG flared in offset quantification to the estimation of the flared LFG volume. Sample 6 random months in the reporting period for the estimation of LFG flared volume. Inspect generator offline periods in the 6 random sampled months. Trace % CH4 in LFG in the offset quantification to raw analysis data. Vouch the flare efficiency (98%) and N2O emission factor.

P14 Net Electricity Production / Usage

• imported electricity • emission factor for

electricity consumption

Low Low Low

Trace imported electricity in offset quantification to third party electricity bills/records. Trend imported electricity data against generator downtime records. Vouch the emission factor for electricity consumption.



SITE VISIT

Stantec Verifier, Orasa Webber, will conduct a site visit to the Shepard Landfill Gas on November 5, 2019.

The site visit involves a review of data collection, tracking, and retention and transfer procedures. Activities associated with operations, record keeping, data management and emissions sources will also be reviewed to better understand the quantification calculations, data treatment and data management. Through interviews, and by attending the site visit, the site boundaries will be evaluated by the verifier to confirm their veracity. The verifier will perform procedures to identify Project boundaries, confirm GHG sources, look for additional sources, visually confirm the presence of the wind turbines and electrical meters. Emission sources, sinks and reservoirs will be evaluated and the potential for additional sources (omitted) will be reviewed.

The proposed site visit agenda is provided in Table 6. The agenda was structured to include a general site tour where the verification team will look at sources, meters, and calibration tags.

Table 6 Site Visit Agenda

Date Facility Item Responsible Party Time

November 5, 2019

Health and Safety orientation Stantec / The City of Calgary

8:30 am – 10:30 am

Introduction, overview of verification process and site visit objectives

Stantec

Overview of facility GHG reporting boundaries

Stantec / The City of Calgary

Overview of data management and storage procedures for GHG data and on-site data sampling (refer to Table 7 for detail)


Facility Tour Stantec / The City of Calgary

Follow-up questions and close-out


INFORMATION REQUEST

Table 7 contains a list of documentation and data requested by Stantec to complete the proposed procedures and the outcome of the requests. This table will be updated as needed through the verification process to track requests.



Table 7 Information Requested

No. Information Requested Have Available at Site Visit Request Date Obtained On

1 Offset Project Report (draft and final, signed version).

Oct 25, 2019 Oct 25, 2019

2 GHG Calculators. Oct 25, 2019 Oct 25, 2019 3 Evidence of ownership in the reporting period. Oct 31, 2019 Nov 26, 2019 4 Third party records/bills for imported electricity

for the reporting period. Oct 31, 2019 Nov 14, 2019

5 Explanation as to why there was exported electricity in October 2012, but no LFG combusted or flared.

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

6 April and May 2012 exported electricity had similar order of magnitude as July and August 2012, but the combustion volume was significantly lower. Please explain why.

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

7 Why was there high imported electricity in November and December 2012 although the generator operated during that period?

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

8 Why was there no exported electricity between May 2013 and January 2014? Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

9 What is electricity used for at the site? Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019 10 Identification whether there is fossil fuel

consumption on site. Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

11 Have there been any changes to the Project from the Offset Project Plan (March 2012)? Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

12 Discussion on the data management and collection of the following data:

• volume of LFG captured • % volume of CH4 in LFG • exported electricity • volume of LFG flared • volume of LFG combusted in the

generator • imported electricity

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

13 Discussion on quality control of the above data inputs as well as offset credit quantification. Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

14 Discussion on data retention for the above data (in items 12 -13). Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

15 Confirmation (and supporting evidence) as to whether the LFG volume used in offset quantification is corrected to the same temperature and pressure as methane density

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 14, 2019



Table 7 Information Requested

No. Information Requested Have Available at Site Visit Request Date Obtained On

(25 ºC and 101.325 kPa) used in the quantification.

16 Records for the generation downtime in April, May, October of 2012 and April, May, October of 2013.

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

17 Calibration records for the LFG flow meter.

Oct 31, 2019

Nov 14, 2019 (Obtained for Kurz meter for

2012-2014 period)

18 Calibration records for the LFG analyzer. Oct 31, 2019 Nov 26, 2019 19 During the site visit, provide access to the LFG

flow meter and LFG analyzer to confirm meter ID during the site visit.

Oct 31, 2019 Nov 5, 2019

20 Confirmation from IT regarding server data backup and retention period. Nov 5, 2019 Dec 5, 2019

21 Confirmation and disclosure of the decommissioned date of the generator in the Project Report.

Nov 18, 2019 Dec 5, 2019

22 Confirmation and disclosure of when one of the two Enmax meters (for electricity consumption) was changed.

Nov 18, 2019 Dec 5, 2019

FINALIZING THE VERIFICATION AND SAMPLING PLAN

The initial verification procedures may be adjusted to reflect changes to the risk identified during the verification and any additional verification procedures deemed necessary to provide a reasonable level of assurance. This Section captures any changes to risk, the verification procedures or the GHG Assertion since the issuance of the initial verification plan.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Stantec has done a final assessment of the potential risk associated with this verification assignment. As stated in the initial verification plan, the risk assessment is an internal procedure used to assess inherent, control, and detection risk. Based on the risk assessment in each of these categories, the Stantec team assigns an overall risk to the verification and continues to monitor the risk throughout the verification process. The final overall risk for this verification has been assessed to remain as Medium as shown in Table 8.



Table 8 Risk Summary

Risk Area Preliminary Assessment Final Assessment Inherent Risk Medium Medium

Control Risk Medium Medium

Detection Risk Low Low

Overall Risk Medium Medium

ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION PROCEDURES

The planned verification procedures for this assignment are outlined in Table 5, above. The additional verification procedure conducted is listed in Table 9 below. A final Verification and Sampling Plan is also provided with the final Verification Report and Statement of Verification.

Table 9 Additional Verification Procedures

FINAL ASSERTION

The initial GHG Assertion for this Project (i.e., reductions being claimed), for the reporting period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014, was 22,907 tCO2e. Since the misstatements detected over the course of verification have been corrected, the final GHG Assertion is 20,729 tCO2e. A breakdown of the assertion by vintage year is shown below.

• 2012 (January 1 – December 31, 2012): 7,844 tCO2e • 2013 (January 1 – December 31, 2013): 11,332 tCO2e • 2014 (January 1 – January 31, 2014): 1,553 tCO2e.

Parameter/ Source Inherent Risk

Control Risk



Medium Medium Low

Assess the use of the LFG flow meter (FIT 102) as an additional contingency measure provided in Table 2.5 of the Protocol Review the deviation approval letter from ACCO.



CLOSURE

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me directly. Sincerely,

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

Daniel Hegg, MSc. CEM, ENV-SP Verifier Lead Verifier Tel: (250) 217-9729 [email protected]

Nicole Flanagan, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Quality Reviewer/ Signing Authority Tel: (613) 738-6086 [email protected]

This report was reviewed and approved for transmittal by:

Vicki Corning, P.Eng. Independent Peer Reviewer Tel: (506) 452-7000 [email protected]

\\cd1002-f11\ghg\shepard_lfg_offset_123221462\2_val_ver_plan\val_or_ver_plan\sent_plan\2012-2014\vplan_ccir_offset_shepard-lfg_2012-2014_20191031_2.docx



of 49

Appendix B: Statement of Qualifications

of 49

Sample Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)

Statement of Qualifications Offset Report Project Name Offset Project ID

Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project 2017-7872

Reporting Company Legal Name Report Type Reporting Period

The City of Calgary Offset Report from January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014

to Signature of Third Party Verifier

I , Nicole Flanagan

(Third Party Verifier), meet or exceed the qualifications of third party

Third-party verifiers described in Section 29 of the Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation.

Verifying Company Name

Stantec Consulting Ltd. Per:

Signature of Third Party Verifier Date

December 30, 2019

Training Received Under ISO 14064 Part 3

Fall 2005

First Name Last Name

Nicole Flanagan Professional Designation E-mail Address Phone Number

P.Eng. [email protected] (613) 738-6086

Lead Verifier

☐ Same as third party verifier??

First Name Last Name Daniel Hegg Professional Designation E-mail Address Phone Number N/A [email protected] (250) 217-9729 Training Received Under ISO 14064 Part 3

February 18-20, 2009

Peer Reviewer First Name Last Name Victoria Corning

of 49

E-mail Address Phone Number [email protected] (506) 452-7000 Training Received Under ISO 14064 Part 3

January 21-23, 2008

of 49

Appendix C: Findings and Issues

of 49

Table 3: Detailed Findings and Issues Log

Number the issue with the year and provide a unique # for the issue. If the issue resolved during the verification, indicate that in the resolution column. If the issue is not resolved during the verification, or if the issue was material (whether resolved or not) record it as a finding in Table 2 and provide a cross reference to the finding # in the resolution column. Describe the issues investigated. State the verification criteria that are not met. Provide a description of how it is not met and provide the evidence. Indicate the Source Category (for facilities) or the Source/Sink (for offsets). Indicate if the finding is an understatement or overstatement. Summarize information between verifier and client. Provide a conclusion including % discrepancy, if applicable.

Item (YR-##)

Description of the Issues Investigated During the Verification

Summary of information exchanged between verifier and client

Resolution Conclusion (including % discrepancy if applicable)

12-14-01

Immaterial qualitative discrepancy. The following changes are not disclosed in the Project Report.

• The LFG raw meter data report format. (Resolved)

• The new meter for LFG flow volume to flare (FIT 103) which was used in emission reduction quantification in May 2013 to the end of this reporting period.

The City of Calgary updated the Project Report to include those changes.

Resolved Immaterial qualitative (Resolved)

12-14-02

Immaterial qualitative discrepancy. The 2012 credits in Section 3.1 of the draft Project Report are not consistent with Table 2 of the Project Report and the emission calculator prepared by the City of Calgary.

The City of Calgary updated the Project Report to address this discrepancy.


12-14-03

Immaterial qualitative discrepancy. The main contact name, telephone number, and email address in Table 1 of the Project Report are left blank.

The City of Calgary updated the Project Report to address this discrepancy.


of 49

12-14-04

Immaterial qualitative discrepancy. The following typos are detected in the draft Project Report:

• Section Emission Reduction or Sequestration Assertion: 2014 CH4 tCO2e is not consistent with the final 2014 calculator.

• Section 3.1: 2012 Total Reduction for Other (CO2e) is not consistent with the final 2012 calculator.

• Section 3.1: 2013 Total Reduction for Other (CO2e) is not consistent with the final 2013 calculator.

Those errors are noted as immaterial qualitative discrepancy because the overall (total) credits for the reporting period are correct.

The City of Calgary has corrected those typos in the Project Report.

Resolved N/A, resolved discrepancy

12-14-05

Immaterial quantitative discrepancy (22 tCO2e or 0.3% of credits, under reported). October 2012 LFG data are not included in the offset quantification.

The City of Calgary added the October 2012 LFG data in the updated calculator.


12-14-06

Immaterial quantitative discrepancy (78 tCO2e or 0.3% of credits, over reported). LFG volume for June, September, and November 2012 in the calculators were from 31 days of data as opposed to 30 days; therefore, the City of Calgary over reported LFG volume of 10,293 m3 under B6.

The City of Calgary updated the calculator to address this discrepancy.


12-14-07

Immaterial quantitative discrepancy (52 tCO2e or 0.2% of credits, under reported). Methane volume for March

The City of Calgary updated the calculator to address this discrepancy.


of 49

2012 (in tab “2012 Summary” of the calculator) was incorrect due to cell reference error; therefore, the monthly average on volume basis of % CH4 under B6 is incorrect.

12-14-08

Immaterial qualitative discrepancy. The 2012 imported electricity data are entered in 2013 calculator and 2013 imported electricity data are entered in 2012 calculator. These errors impact the 2012 and 2013 emission reductions but do not impact the overall credits in this reporting period (January 2012 to January 2014).

The City of Calgary updated the calculators to address this discrepancy.


12-14-09

Immaterial quantitative discrepancy (2 tCO2e or 0.01% of overall credits, under reported). The City of Calgary over reported P9 emissions in the reporting period (under reported the reduction) due to the following errors:

• Incorrect June, September, November 2012 LFG volume and %CH4 (data used were 31 days as opposed to 30 days)

• Incorrect Pressure used in methane density calculation for 2012, 2013, and 2014 (not consistent with Project Plan).


Resolved 2 tCO2e or 0.01% of overall credits, under reported (Resolved)

12-14-10

Immaterial quantitative discrepancy (1 tCO2e or <0.01% of credits, over reported). The City of Calgary under reported P11 emissions in the reporting period (over reported the reduction) due to the following errors:

• Incorrect March 2012 %CH4 (cell reference error)


Resolved 1 tCO2e or <0.01% of credits, over reported (Resolved)

of 49

• Incorrect June, September, November 2012 %CH4 (data used were 31 days as opposed to 30 days)

• Incorrect Pressure used in methane density calculation in 2012, 2013, 2014 (not consistent with Project Plan)

12-14-11

Material qualitative discrepancy. The LFG flow meter (Kurz 454FT model, tag FIT 102) used for the period of January 1, 2012 to April 2013 was out of calibration with manufacturer calibration having occurred in 2005. The meter readings were in-line checked against a temporary meter by CH2M Hill in April 2012 (24-hour readings) and compared to a secondary meter (FIT 103) in April 2013 (approximately 10-day meter readings) by the City of Calgary and found to be conservative. The resulting uncertainty around meter readings are likely in excess of the 5% materiality threshold; however, there is evidence that LFG volumetric flow data recorded by FIT 102 is under reporting and the overall assertion is conservative.

The City of Calgary has demonstrated conservativeness of LFG volumetric flow data from FIT 102 and obtained a deviation approval from ACCO (dated December 17, 2019) which permits the use of underreported data from the FIT 102 meter as an additional contingency measure provided in Table 2.5 of the Protocol. Thus, this discrepancy is noted as resolved.

Resolved Material qualitative (Resolved)

of 49

Appendix D: Statement of Verification


Page 42 of 49

Statement of Verification Associated SGER Submission

Offset Project Protocol Project ID #


Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, Version 1) 2017-7872

Project Developer Serial Range Start

Report Period

The City of Calgary


Serial Range End

Statement of Verification

GHG Assertion

Value Units

Total Baseline Emissions) 21,505

tonnes CO2eq

Total Project Emissions ) 776

tonnes CO2eq

Other ) 0 tonnes CO2eq

Net Reductions) 20,729 tonnes CO2eq


Page 43 of 49

Statement of Assertion

The fundamental GHG Assertion verified is the GHG reductions of 20,729 tCO2e for the period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014 from the Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project has been completed in accordance with the verification criteria in this report.

Responsibilities of Project Developer and Third Party Verifier

The City of Calgary was responsible for the collection of activity data used in the calculations, completion of the calculations, presentation of the information within the Project Report, and for the supporting technical documents. The City of Calgary has a contract with CH2M Hill for the operation of the landfill gas capture and combustion equipment system.

Stantec was responsible for planning and executing the verification to deliver an opinion to a reasonable level of assurance as to whether the Project Report and GHG Assertion are presented fairly and in accordance with the verification criteria.

Conclusion

The Shepard Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion Offset Project Report and GHG Assertion, for the period of January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014, satisfy the requirements of the:

• Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, S.A. 2003, c. C-16.7

• The Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alberta Regulation 255/2017, with amendments up to and including Alberta Regulation 96/2018 (Regulation or CCIR)

• Standard for Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Project Developers, Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (July 2018, V2.0) (Standard)

• Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, V1.0) (Protocol)

Further, Stantec conducted sufficient and appropriate procedures in order to express an opinion as to whether the GHG assertion is free from material discrepancies, is fairly presented and is substantiated by sufficient and appropriate evidence.

Signature of Third Part Verifier



Signature of Third Party Verifier Date:

December 30, 2019

First Name Last Name


Page 44 of 49

Nicole Flanagan

Professional Designation E-mail Address

Phone Number


of 49

Appendix E: Conflict of Interest Checklist


Page 46 of 49

Conflict of Interest Checklist

Associated SGER Submission

Offset Project Protocol


Quantification Protocol for Landfill Gas Capture and Combustion (September 2007, Version 1)

Project Developer Report Type Report Period

The City of Calgary Offset Report


Checklist Respond either "True" or "False" to each of the following statements:

1. The relationship between my firm and this reporting company poses unacceptable

threat to or compromises the impartiality of my firm.

False

2. The finances and sources of income of my firm compromise the impartiality of my firm.

False

3. The personnel my firm has scheduled to participate in the verification may have an

actual or potential conflict of interest.

False

4. My firm participated in some manner in the development or completion of the

associated offset submission for this reporting company.

False

5. My firm provided greenhouse gas consultancy services to this reporting company.

False

6. My firm will use personnel that have, are, or will be engaged or previously employed

by the reporting company.

False

7. My firm will outsource the Statement of Verification for the associated offset

submission.

False

8. My firm offers products or services that pose an unacceptable risk to impartiality.

False

Important: If you have checked "True" to any of the above, you may not fulfill the "independence" requirement for third party verifiers. Please contact Alberta Environment and Parks for further instruction. If the potential conflict of interest is a sufficient threat to impartiality (perceived or actual), or cannot be effectively managed, you Third Party Verification Report will not be acceptable to Alberta Environment and Parks.

Signature of Third Party Verifier


Page 47 of 49

I , Nicole Flanagan (Third Party Verifier), have personally examined and am familiar

with the information contained in this Conflict-of Interest Checklist, and can demonstrate freedom from any conflict of interest related to the reporting company for which the verification was performed. I hereby warrant that the information submitted in this Conflict-of Interest Checklist is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge, and that all matters affecting the validity of this Conflict-of-Interest Checklist have been fully disclosed. Impartiality shall be monitored over the duration of the verification and any identified actual or potential conflict-of-interest situations will be communicated to AEP directly.



Signature of Third Party Verifier Date

December 30, 2019

First Name Last Name Nicole Flanagan

Professional Designation E-mail Address Phone Number


of 49

Appendix F: Supplemental Diagrams/Tables/Figures

of 49

Not Applicable

verification report for: 2017-7872 proponent

Documents