appendix 4.3.1

Final Report

Prepared for:

Ministry of Natural Resources

and Environment

March 2016

SIRIM BERHAD (No Syarikat 367474-V) Environmental Technology Research Centre, 1, Persiaran Dato' Menteri, P.O.Box 7035, Section 2, 40700 Shah Alam Selangor. Tel.: (603) 5544 6550/6598 Fax: (603) 5544 6590

KA

JIA

N K

EMU

NG

KIN

AN

KEM

UD

AH

AN

P

ENG

UR

USA

N S

ISA

PEP

EJA

L D

I SU

NG

AI

PET

AN

I, K

EDA

H D

AR

UL

AM

AN

DEV

ELO

PM

ENT

OF

GH

G

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

TOO

LS F

OR

MIT

IGA

TIO

N P

RO

GR

AM

MES

AN

D

MEA

SUR

ES

Development of GHG Management Tools for Mitigation Programmes and Measures

…. Enabling Businesses. Enhancing Lives

TABLE OF CONTENT Page

Section 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY CHAPTER 1.0 THE STUDY

1.1 Background 5 1.2 Scope of work 5 1.3 Methodology 6 1.4 Expected outputs 6

Section 2: MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS

CHAPTER 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO MR GUIDELINES 2.1 Target audience 11 2.2 Background 12 2.3 Overview of GHG mitigation MR Guidelines 19

CHAPTER 3.0 DEFINING POLICY/INTERMEDIATE MEASURES/ACTIONS 3.1 Selecting the Policy/Programmes/Actions to be assessed 27 3.2 Defining the Policy/Programmes/Actions to be assessed 31 3.3 Assessing individual or a package of policies 32 3.4 Ex-ante, ex-post assessment or combination of both 33

CHAPTER 4.0 IDENTIFYING EFFECTS AND MAPPING THE CAUSAL CHAINS 4.1 Identifying potential GHG effects 34 4.2 Identifying source/sink potential GHG effect 35 4.3 Mapping the causal chain 36

CHAPTER 5.0 BASELINE EMISSION 5.1 Choosing type of baseline comparison 39 5.2 Baseline emission calculation 40

CHAPTER 6.0 EX-ANTE GHG ASSESSMENT 6.1 Defining the policy scenario 44

CHAPTER 7.0 MONITORING PERFORMANCE 7.1 Defining key performance indicators 46 7.2 Monitoring plan 46

CHAPTER 8.0 EX-POST GHG ASSESSMENT 8.1 Defining policy scenario emission 48

CHAPTER 9.0 UNCERTAINTY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 9.1 Uncertainty 49 9.2 Sensitivity 50



Page

CHAPTER 10.0 GHG MITIGATION ACTION REPORTING AND REGISTRATION 52

Section 3: DEMO CASE STUDIES AND LESSON LEARNED CHAPTER 11.0 WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL

11.1 Programme brief 60

10.2 Lesson learned from MA at planning phase 62

CHAPTER 12.0 FEED-IN TARIFF MECHANISM IN MALAYSIA


12.2 Lesson learned from MA at implementation phase 67

CHAPTER 13.0 SUSTAINABILITY ACHIEVED VIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY (SAVE) PROGRAMME


13.2 Lesson learned from ex-post assessment of MA 70

CHAPTER 14.0 OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND MRV WAY FORWARD 72

APPENDIX IA: MYGHG Mitigation Action- MR Design Form: WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL (VER 1.0)

APPENDIX IB: Emission reduction excel sheet

APPENDIX IIA:

MYGHG Mitigation Action- MR Design Form: FEED-IN TARIFF MECHANISM IN MALAYSIA (VER 4.0)

APPENDIX IIB: Emission reduction excel sheet

APPENDIX III:

MYGHG Mitigation Action- MR Design Form: SAVE PROGRAMME (VER 4.0)

APPENDIX IV:

MR Mitigation Actions- Checklist of Accounting Requirements



ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BUR Biennial Update Report CDM Clean Development Mechanism DL Distribution Licensee EF Emission factor FiT Feed-In Tariff FiAHs Feed-in Approval Holders GHG Greenhouse Gases INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contributions IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IWM Integrated Waste Management Facility JPSPN/NSWMD Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara/National Solid Waste Management

Department KPKT Kementerian Kesejahteraan, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (Ministry of

Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government) LECB Low Emission Capacity Building MA Mitigation action MRV Measurement, Reporting & Verification NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions POME Palm oil mill effluent RE Renewable energy SAVE Sustainability Achieved via Energy Efficiency SEDA Sustainable Energy Development Authority SWCorp Solid Waste Corporation/ Perbadanan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal dan Pembersihan

Awam (PPSPPA) SWM Solid Waste Management UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change



SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

CHAPTER 1: THE STUDY

1.1 Background In 2009, Malaysia announced to voluntarily reduce its emissions intensity of GDP by up to 40% based on 2005 levels by 2020, on the basis of transfer of technology and financial support from developed countries. The voluntary aspiration sets forward the country’s overarching strategy for development in a low carbon pathway, demonstrating its commitment to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the context of sustainable development. Subsequently, it was further augmented with the National Policy on Climate Change and National Green Technology Policy, which together set the foundation for low emission development strategy (LEDS) for the country. Government institutions have been planning and implementing a variety of climate change mitigation policies and programmes. Many are also undertaking other policies and programmes that may indirectly contribute to climate change mitigation. It is, therefore, necessary to quantify and communicate the GHG impacts of such policies and programmes. The information attained may serve different purposes, including for evaluation of progress and effectiveness, assessment of different policy options and design of more effective policies, and estimating the overall impact of climate change mitigation programs. The Low Emission Capacity Building (LECB) Project in Malaysia aims to assist the country in enhancing national GHG inventory system (Outcome 1), promoting the uptake of nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMA) (Outcome 2) as well as designing measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework (Outcome 3) that ultimately serves national priorities for LEDS. This consultancy services is part of Outcome 3.

1.2 Scope of work The purpose of this report is to convey planned activities undertaken by the SIRIM Consultant and the summaries delivery, which had been outlined under Consultancy Service Contract which covers the following work scopes and tasks:

1. Review of relevant methodologies, tools and guidelines to measure, report and verify mitigation policies and programmes.

2. Prepare a guideline, including template, for tracking GHG impacts of policies and programmes. The guideline shall provide a methodology to estimate, report and verify



the change in GHG emissions and removals resulting from the implementation of mitigation policies and programmes. It includes a generic step-by-step guidance for quantification of GHG effects as well as for monitoring, reporting and verification. Revision should be carried out, as appropriate, based on the outcome of Task 3.

3. Select and apply the guideline on at least three (3) demonstration cases in collaboration

with relevant agencies. The agencies shall be supported in identifying a specific mitigation policy or programme, and undertaking the assessment using the guideline. This involves quantifying the expected (future) change in GHG emissions and/or achieved (historical) change in GHG emissions resulting from implementation of the policy or programme. Outcomes and feedback on the usability and practicality of the guideline from the assessment shall be documented.

4. Act as resource persons to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in

stakeholder consultation workshops.

1.3 Methodology The methodology includes data collection, desk research, workshops and consultations with relevant stakeholders, discussions with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and UNDP Malaysia, and others as necessary.

1.3.1 Desktop study Data was collected from official websites and from published literature. Preliminary information on project based methodologies and various mitigation actions were obtained from the websites of IPCC and UNFCCC; respectively.

1.3.2 Meetings with Relevant Authorities Meetings were held with relevant authorities who deals with various national mitigation actions. The information was gathered from the authorised agency, for instance, information about existing solid waste management practices, including collection, transportation and disposal were obtained from the National Solid Waste Management Department.

1.4 Expected outputs In the Project Work Plan, there are 3 main activities to be delivered which are:



Task 1: A report on review of relevant methodologies, tools and guidelines for measurement, reporting and verification mitigation policies and programmes. Task 1 report covers a few aspects as outlined below, and these were accomplished through desk work review, discussion and by attending meetings hosted by MNRE.

a) Review on reports on assessment of policy instruments for reducing GHG emission

from the following countries:

EU: UK

Asia (Developed country) – Japan

Asia (Emerging Economies) – China and India

America : USA

ASEAN: Thailand

b) Listing of the international NAMA registered projects and the sectoral coverage. c) Listing of the published GHG management methodologies and tools. d) Preliminary recommendation of the proposed Guidelines on GHG management tools

for mitigation programmes and measures e) Examine the key existing and emerging Federal government policies/programmes

that are likely to have significant impact in reducing the GHG emission. The Task 1 Review of Methodologies report had been presented to relevant stakeholders on 17th. September 2014. Task 2: A guideline, including template, for tracking GHG impacts of policies and programmes, which provides a methodology to estimate, report and verify the change in GHG emissions and removals resulting from the implementation of mitigation policies and programmes. Task 2 Guideline for measuring and reporting GHG impacts has focused on establishing of the following:

• Measuring guidelines for tracking GHG impacts of programmes and measures • Reporting guidelines • GHG quantification template

The review meeting of Task 2 report was held on 28th November 2014 with MNRE. SIRIM consultant presented the brief outlined of the proposed guideline. The summary of the meeting and presentation materials were reported in Progress Report Q2 submission. SIRIM consultant



also presented the project status during stakeholders meeting which was held in Shangri La, Putrajaya on the 12th Jan, 2015. Among pertinent issues discussed and agreed upon;

The approaches (methodologies and guidance) adopted in the preparation of GHG inventories for National Communications and GHG emission reductions related to mitigation actions bear similarities in terms of activity data and the respective GHG conversion factors prior to any form of intervention. Hence in most cases, the conversion factors provided by UNFCCC can be adopted as emission factors before intervention. Emission factors are unique to localities e.g. each action may have their own emission factors that are determined for example by the efficiency of combustion of the fuel. Each country will need to have national emission factors e.g. electricity. The development of national emission factors is a requirement that MNRE should consider.

In the context of the MR manual/ guideline, a mitigation action will be defined as any GHG reduction programme or measure where activity data can be generated from the activities carried out within the boundary.

The MR framework will apply only to independent policy instrument and will therefore not consider partitioning of activities between overlapping policies.

The reference year/baseline year refers to the year the accounting starts.

All mitigation actions are nationally appropriate and proposed to name the MRV as Domestic MRV and therefore any NAMA seeking support would still be able to use similar guidelines.

Task 3: Demonstration case studies in collaboration with relevant agencies, including documentation of the assessment, outcome and feedback.

a) Demo case studies The 3 demo case studies are SAVE programme (SEDA), Feed-in Tariff (FiT) (SEDA) and Waste Diversion from Landfill (JPSPN). The outcome of these studies are detailed out in this final report.

b) Working session with SEDA and JPSPN

Working session with SEDA and JPSPN was conducted on 21st. October 2015 at Shangri-La Putrajaya. The participants were from JPSPN, Integrated Waste Facilities for Energy Recovery, SEDA (SAVE Programme) and FiT programme. The aim of the working session was to test and fill up the template report of the established Guidelines for Measurement and Reporting of Mitigation Programmes and Measures.



c) Stakeholder Consultation Workshop

A half day workshop was held on 11th November, 2015 at Sama-Sama Hotel KLIA. This workshop was attended by officers from various government agencies such as Kementerian Perusahaan Perladangan dan Komoditi, Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar, Kementerian Pengangkutan, Kementerian Wilayah Persekutuan, Institut Penyelidikan dan Kemajuan Pertanian Malaysia (MARDI), Sustainable Energy Development (SEDA), Suruhanjaya Pengangkutan Awam Darat (SPAD), Universiti Tenaga Nasianal (Uniten), Malaysia Green Technology Corporation (MGTC), Centre for Environment Technology and Development Malaysia (CETDEM), Kementerian Tenaga, Teknologi Hijau dan Air, Jabatan Alam Sekitar, Kementerian Kewangan, Kementerian Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri and Kementerian Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani. SIRIM Consultant had presented and briefly explained on the Measurement and Reporting Guidelines, which provides a methodology to estimate, report and verify the change in GHG emissions and programmes. The guidelines also covers the generic step-by-step guidance for quantification of GHG effects as well as for monitoring and reporting. The demo case studies were presented at this session and some comments were raised by the participants as follow;

i) A representative from Kementerian Perdagangan Antarabangsa dan Industri (MITI)

commented that recycling activity should be taken into consideration in setting up the baseline. SIRIM Consultants explained that while doing a causal chain mapping, we would need to identify each activities and take into consideration what activities are significant within the set boundary. The justification shall be categorized as most likely/major or minor in impact in order to include or exclude these activities.

ii) Another question was on the current practice and effort made by relevant authorities on reducing waste to be disposed at landfill. SIRIM Consultant informed that initiative to enhance recycling activities have been implemented and effective September 1, 2015 Malaysian households in the states that have adopted the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) are set to see a whole new dimension in how they will be disposing of their household waste. Residents are compulsory to segregate the waste for further downstream recycling.

iii) Mr Gurmit from CETDEM raised an issue on the right term use for “recycling” which

either an actual reduction of waste or recycle by turning waste to something else, or expecting waste reduced via recycling. He also questioned on emission factor for electricity which should be 1.0 not 0.794 and loss in transmission should be considered in deriving to the emission factor.



iv) Another question was raised from an officer from Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan on who are the target group to implement the guidelines. SIRIM Consultant explained at the moment there are no specific group of target and this guidelines methodology can be used by those in-charge of planning and developing a mitigation, reporting and verification system within national or sub-national agencies.

v) Mr Steve from SEDA gave a positive feedback on the guidelines which he said is very

helpful in assisting local authorities to achieve mitigation target in reducing GHG emission. He added the responsibility to reduce GHG emissions should not be on LAs alone and the guideline would encourage federal government agencies and Ministries to be the main driver on ensuring policies are set to tackle environmental issues.

vi) A representative from KeTTHA commented on the workshop that mainly focus on

technical aspect but the most important thing is the need to set up climate change mitigation policy. He gave an example that KeTTHA is trying to move the green agenda by establishing Centre of Waste but it is hard to get funded. He also hope that SIRIM will assist them in the technical guidance.

vii) An officer from MITI commented on recycling that has high value and demand. She

added material such as wood is of high demand as recycled material, and there is high demand to export these woods. She also informed, Malaysia should be having integrated facility in recycling material and she gave an example of country like Taiwan which already has recycling method for various materials. SIRIM Consultant commented on the issue that JPSPN has been looking into possible technology to develop integrated waste facilities. They had appointed 7 consultants to study, current status, what need to be done and what is the right technology to put in place.

viii) Mr Paul Wong had informed KeTTHA had set up National Waste Grid programme and

hope that the idea will be successfully implemented.

To summarize the workshop, Mr Tan Ching Tiong, as a project manager concluded that the measurement and reporting guidelines consist of generic methodology and not targeted to specific sector. However, in future MNRE will work with SIRIM to create the sector specific tools. SIRIM Consultant emphasis that the template report of the 3 demo case studies will appended together with the guidelines but how much info to be included will depend on consent obtain from the information providers.



SECTION 2: MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF MITIGATION ACTIONS

CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION TO MR GUIDELINES The purpose of this guideline is to provide an overall review of the data, models, techniques and

accounting methods of a Measurement and Reporting (MR) that could be part of the overall MRV

system for reducing emissions from mitigation actions. This guideline will not be addressing the

Verification element, as it has already been covered elsewhere. The MR Guideline is written in

the context of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) as a mechanism within the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It should be acknowledged

that major part of the Guideline is excerpted from the World Resources Institute (WRI) GHG

protocol Policy and Action Standard. This Guideline is not meant to replace the full standard

document but rather contains helpful, quick reference with local examples for background

reading for anyone involved in developing the MR GHG emission reductions. And this Guideline

is intended to inform local policy makers on the success of the intended GHG mitigation actions,

as well as to the implementers of MRV at the national level.

2.1 Target audience

This Guideline is intended for multiple audiences. First, it is intended for those in charge of

planning and developing a MRV system within a national or sub-national agency. While these

individuals may not conduct specific MRV activities such as field work, data processing, analysis

and reporting themselves, there is a need for them to understand what is involved in terms of

staff time, funds, expertise, capacity building, accuracy issues, and options for different

methodologies. It is important that these individuals have a broad understanding of all aspects

involved in a MRV system in order to envision a structure within the agency, understand the

range of MRV components, and engage in informed discussions on data, techniques, staffing and

equipment needs for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. They should also have a fundamental

knowledge of MRV terminology and concepts to engage with consultants, know what questions

to ask, and critically compare the varying advice they may receive.

This Guideline is also intended for managers and technicians involved in the design of a sub-

component of a MRV system. It is intended to assist these individuals in envisioning such a design,

as well as understanding the broader context of their sub-component. For the sub-national



jurisdictional case, one can assume that the arrangements and requirements are similar to those

at the national level and that coordination with the national government will be very important.

Even if the overall MRV process occurs at the level of a sub-national jurisdiction, some aspects of

the MRV system may still be conducted nationally to lower overall costs and promote

standardization.

Those working on site-level initiatives will also find this Guideline relevant to their MRV needs.

The Carbon Development Mechanisms is an example of program that serve a supporting role in

voluntary carbon markets through registering emission reductions claimed by site-level

initiatives. This program provides approved methodologies for the estimation of GHG emission

baselines and MRV where accounting and monitoring at different levels can be coordinated. The

technical aspects of these methodologies can be referred closely to the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines but other aspects are dependent on similar technologies and

methodologies as those at the national level.

2.2 Background

2.2.1 Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) are voluntary measures towards mitigation

of climate change adopted by countries. The concept of NAMA was first introduced in 2007 at

the 13th. session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Bali, Indonesia by United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Bali Action Plan is centered on four

main building blocks, focusing on mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing towards

climate change where NAMA forms an important part of the mitigation component.

As of July 2014, 51 developing countries has submitted information on 104 NAMAs to the

UNFCCC. The scope and contents of these NAMAs are very diverse and significantly vary by Party.

The NAMA Pipeline Analysis and Database contains all submissions to the UNFCCC from

developing countries and countries in transition for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions. It

also contains submissions from developed countries on finance for NAMAs. The UNFCCC NAMA

Registry can now be access by the public at the webpage: www.unfccc.int/sites/nama.

http://www.unfccc.int/sites/nama



Based on the NAMA Pipeline Analysis and Database, the regional distribution of the 51 countries

comprises of 35% Latin America countries, followed by 29% from Europe and Central Asia, and

the lowest figure come from Africa at 8%. There are 16 sectors listed in the NAMA Registry as

listed in Table 1. Unlike the GHG inventory registry, the NAMA registry is less structured with a

mixed of activities that are reported either by sector or by activities.

Table 1: List of submitted NAMAs and associated sectors

Sector or type Quantity

Agriculture 2 Cement 1

Energy Efficiency demand side 9 Energy Efficiency industry 1 Energy Efficiency service 6

Energy Efficiency supply side 4 Forests 3

Fossil fuel switch 2 Fugitive 2

Geothermal 2 Renewable energy 6

Solar 3 Transport 3 Tourism 1 Waste 3 Wind 2

Other sectors 1 Total 51

Other webpage developed by ECOFYS, http://www.nama-database.org which contains a

database of NAMAs and related activities happening around the world, so that countries and

other participants are able to learn from these experiences and gain insights into how mitigation

activities can be undertaken within the NAMA framework. The ECOFYS database provide

information on the NAMA and feasibility studies conducted around the world.

Reference: Ecofys (2014) NAMA Database Pipeline: August 2014. Available at http://www.nama-

database.org/nama-db-pipeline.xls. It is not an official registry, it does not represent official

http://www.nama-database.org/

http://www.nama-database.org/nama-db-pipeline.xls

http://www.nama-database.org/nama-db-pipeline.xls



submissions and may not reflect the priorities of the country government. Data is extracted from

public sources; it is not verified and may be inaccurate.

2.2.2 Measurement, Reporting and Verification

MRV stands for Measurement, Reporting

and Verification. This term is used in diverse

contexts, but most frequently in the context

of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their

reduction. In essence, MRV is a series of

processes to quantify GHG emission and

their change overtime. Quantified values

that have passed through robust MRV

processes can represent accurate levels of

GHG emission.

On the other hand, if the MRV processes are

inadequate, the quantified value may not represent the real amount of emissions. Therefore,

MRV with adequate processes is a key instrument to understand the level of emissions and the

impact of actions aimed at changing emission levels.

However, there is no universally accepted definition of MRV. This term became popularly used

in the international discussion after the Bali Action Plan in 2007 introduced the idea of

“measurable, reportable and verifiable”. But its definition was made deliberately ambiguous to

capture a wide range of actions and methodologies in a hope that appropriate methodologies

would become more definitive through action-based learning. Although a range of MRV

methodologies did become available after Bali, there is a lack of consistency and conceptual

confusion around the idea of MRV.

The followings aim at clarifying the concept of MRV and then identify the requirements that users

need to address to develop the MR for GHG emission reductions.

2.2.2.1 Why does MRV matter?

Measurement can mean either direct

physical measurement of GHG emissions

(e.g., CEMS) or the estimation of emissions

or emissions reductions based on activity

data and emission factors

Reporting refers to the transparent and

standardized compilation and public

disclosure of the measured data.

Verification refers to an independent

assessment of the accuracy and reliability

of reported information



MRV matters because quantifying GHG emissions and their changing level is a key for policy-

makers to manage GHG emissions. For example, most of developed countries quantify their

national GHG emission levels to understand their trend and see whether the country complies

with national or international targets. Many companies quantify their own GHG emissions in

response to regulatory requirements, or as a part of their corporate social responsibilities.

For developing countries, MRV is often the basis of tradable credit issuance and access to

international support for financing and technology assistance. With the Clean Development

Mechanism (CDM) under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change

(UNFCCC), for example, all projects must comply with a pre-approved set of MRV methodologies

and procedures to be eligible for credit issuance.

MRV is also important in the context of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) which

are a set of mitigation actions that are put forward by developing countries for external support.

In the Bali Action Plan, NAMAs are referred to as “nationally appropriate mitigation actions by

developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by

technologies, financing and capacity building, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner

(UNFCCC 2007)”. As the text indicates, NAMAs are expected to serve as the basis for international

support for mitigation actions by developing countries. However, it should be noted that MRV

methodologies for NAMAs are not developed compared with MRV methodologies at

organisation or project levels, as discussed below.

2.2.2.2 Four distinct levels of MRV

As MRV is a complex concept that embraces diverse ideas, there is conceptual confusion about

it. MRV has four distinct levels: organisational, project, national and policy levels.1 These four

types of MRV should be distinguished because they are different in their purposes and nature,

and methodologies and experience at one level may not be immediately applicable to another

level.

1 Ninomiya Y, 2012. Classification of MRV of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/ Reductions: For the discussions on

NAMAs and MRV. Policy brief No 25. IGES.



Type 1: Organisational level:

Organisational level MRV aims to determine the amount of GHG emission from designated

entities under GHG emission trading and reporting schemes such as European Union Emission

Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), Japanese Voluntary Emission Trading Scheme (J-VETS), Climate

Registry and Tokyo Metropolitan Government ETS. The MRV at this level is characterised by a

high level of stringency due to its direct linkage with financial incentives.

Type 2: Project level:

Project level MRV aims to quantify GHG reductions associated with a project for the purpose of

crediting, most commonly through the implementation of the Clean Development Mechanisms

(CDM) but also through other crediting schemes such as Verified Carbon Scheme (VCS). As at the

organisational level, it requires a high level of accuracy. Although its methodologies are already

well developed, there is a continued challenge to accurately estimate “baseline emission”, which

enables the comparison between scenarios within and outside the project.

Type 3: National level

National level MRV aims at determining the GHG emission in each country. Its methodologies are

well established through guidelines by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As the methodologies primarily rely on national statistics, its accuracy requirement is not as strict

as organisational and project levels. Although most of developed countries established their

national MRV schemes through their GHG inventories, many developing countries have yet to

institutionalise such systems. Furthermore, national level MRV could potentially be applied to

regional and local levels, but the methodologies and applications at subnational levels are limited

at the moment.

Type 4: Policy level:

Policy level MRV aims at quantifying the impact of specific policies or actions, including MAs, with

respect to GHG emissions. As the methodologies and guidelines available at this level are very

limited, they need to be further developed based on experiences at other levels. In particular,



Table 2: MRV of GHG Emissions and Emissions Reduction2

2 IGES Policy Report 2012, Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for low carbon development: Learning from experience in Asia



MRV of NAMAs is extremely important as a precondition for facilitating external support to

NAMAs.

Policy MAs are actions at the policy/regulatory level. They typically require no further

intervention by the regulator as they are designed to promote or impose a change of behaviour

on the part of the regulated parties in order to achieve the desired outcome. These are therefore

government-led programmes or measures, at least at the outset, that have been or are intended

to be embodied in permanent legislation and implemented through policy instruments. These

MAs usually seek to implement a transformational vision and may have a national or sectoral

level scope. Examples include Feed-in tariffs (FiTs) for grid-connected renewable energy,

emissions trading schemes and building codes that set standards for energy efficiency.

2.2.3 MRV building blocks

Designing effective MRV frameworks for domestic mitigation action means putting into place

frameworks in order for measuring, reporting and verification to be practicable and achievable.

Generally, measurement is a prerequisite for verification. Measurement requires a measurable

unit to be identified and recorded, and those records to be made available for verification

through reporting systems. The following chapters discuss the various aspects that are

predominantly required, and is intended to provide a basis for designing building blocks for MRV

systems. The building blocks are not category specific, except for the additional requirements for

international reporting and verification of creditable and supported mitigation action. In the

nutshell, any emission reductions resulted from domestic or internationally supported mitigation

action will need to be quantified to the best extent possible although it is well accepted that for

many policy related mitigation action, quantification will be more difficult.



Figure 1: MRV building blocks

2.3 Overview of GHG Mitigation MR Guidelines

At this juncture, there is no requirement that a domestic GHG Mitigation MRV should complies

to any of the international standards. Hence, the MYGHG Mitigation-MR Guideline is developed

by adopting or adapting appropriate processes, procedures and methodologies that are

contained in the ISO 14064-23 and WRI GHG Protocol4. It should be noted that there are some

conspicuous differences in the arrangement or sequence of activities to be carried out in

conducting the GHG measurement and reporting, however both standard documents are

relatively similar in a number of fundamental requirements and scope.

Among the key methodological considerations that must be in place to meet the domestic GHG

Mitigation-MR requirements are:

3 ISO 14064-2:2006 Greenhouse gases -- Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements 4 GHG Protocol Policy and Action Standard.2014. World Resources Institute. Accessible at http://ghgprotocol.org/policy-and-action-standard

http://ghgprotocol.org/policy-and-action-standard



The intervention aspect(s) of the policy/programme is/are clearly defined (e.g. an action

like tax incentive, market mechanism, programme, etc.);

Time-series impacts and a time horizon where applicable, otherwise comparison

scenarios required as baseline for actions without a timeline;

Aggregated level analysis;

Transparent specification of the baseline and decision scenarios.

Based on the above key considerations, the following preliminary recommendations for MYGHG

Mitigation-MR Guideline are:

a) Amortisation needed to address large non-linear emission events over time, such as land-

use change or drop in efficiency of capital equipment/ infrastructure;

b) Time horizon also need to consider impact of capital investment such as installation of

new machinery and phasing out of old machinery during the period set for the

intervention;

c) Methodology will consider GHG effects only and not the other co-benefits and it is

pertaining to a single policy/ programme/ measure;

d) Potential overlaps of GHG effects that can be attributed from more than one

policy/programme/measure will be considered separately;

e) Normalisation of results collected over different time periods may be needed.

Some points or assumptions need to be clarified at this juncture pertaining to the process flow

for the MYGHG Mitigation-MR Guideline.

The process flow starts with identifying the mitigation action (MA), where actions refer

to any measures to mitigate climate change by addressing anthropogenic emissions by

sources and removals by sinks of all GHGs not controlled by Montreal Protocol.



Reporting procedures will not cover broader requirements such as that of the Biennial

Reports (BUR) eg. reporting on any economic and social consequences of response

measures.

The MR procedures are applicable to both ex-ante and ex-post assessments of mitigation

actions prior, during or after implementation.

The Guideline is specific to measurement and reporting procedures which means it is

assumed the user of the Guidelines is able to refer to an established and publicly available

document that describes the characteristics, scope, coverage, qualifying criteria etc. of a

GHG mitigation programme.

The primary objective of the MYGHG MITIGATION-MR Guidelines is to enable an owner

or proponent of a mitigation action to produce quantitative GHG measurements that are

clearly attributed to specific actions and can be used for verification, if needed.

The MYGHG MITIGATION-MR Guidelines is not intended to provide comprehensive guidance on

the development of GHG project. However to ensure the necessary parameters required for the

subsequent measurement and reporting can be realized, it is important that the development of

new GHG emission reduction programme/action refers to the MR requirements during the

course of development.

Figure 2 provides an overview of the steps that should be taken by a potential domestic

proponent prior to registering a mitigation action at national level. Each step in the process flow

is briefly described in corresponding chapters and below is the scope and structure of the MYGHG

MITIGATION-MR Guideline for users’ background reading.



2.3.1 Scope and structure

Figure 2: Work flow of MYGHG Mitigation-MR Guideline

Here are brief synopses of the chapters that follow this first introductory chapter:

Chapter 3 describes the requirement to establish acceptability of mitigation action (MA) against

qualifying criteria. Qualifying criteria should be provided in the form of a check list for a domestic

mitigation action proponent to determine if proposed action qualifies to be a mitigation action

e.g. ex-post programme should have taken place from 2005, which is the base year of reference

for Malaysia’s voluntary commitment at COP 15. This is then followed by describing MA according

to the established MYGHG Mitigation-MR Design Form format. The MA description should

include:

Name of mitigation action(s)



Description of the mitigation action(s)

Type of action (provide choice for selection)

Overview (to include statement on ex-post or ex-ante assessment)

Targeted Sector (according to sectors listed in IPCC Guidance)

Estimated emissions reduction

National implementing entity

Relevant national policies or strategies

Greenhouse gases covered by action

Type of instrument (provide choice for selection)

Links with other mitigation activities

Support required to prepare the mitigation action

Estimation of annual GHG emission reductions

Overall benefits

Measurement methodology and reporting approach

Chapter 4 addresses the need to map out the causal chain of the programme/actions in order to

establish the GHG effects and assessment boundary of the MA. The GHG assessment boundary

cover both the location of the action, as well as the boundary of the GHG effects that also include

the location of sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSR). Action boundaries whether project-based or

otherwise should include organisational, geographic and physical information allowing unique

identification and delineation of the specific extent of the action e.g. national, state, district,

town/ city etc.

The SSRs that will be identified and assessed to measure and report on the impact of the MA will

be based on the GHG effects, e.g. if the desired GHG effect is to reduce emissions from electricity

generation, then the GHG sources are grid-connected power plants and there are no sinks or

reservoirs. Quite elaborate steps have been described in both the WRI and ISO standard to

identify SSRs. For each SSR selected within the action boundary or affected by the action, the

type of GHG will be identified based on the IPCC list of GHGs.

The following four chapters address Measurement processes, i.e., the Baseline emission (Chapter 5) and their main inputs, Ex-ante GHG assessment (Chapter 6), Monitoring Performance (Chapter 7) and Ex-post GHG assessment (Chapter 8).



Chapter 5 defines baseline scenario and the SSRs/ baseline emissions. The baseline scenario is

defined as a reference case that best represent the conditions likely to occur in the absence of

the MA. SSRs representing the baseline scenario will be accounted and accumulated for the

baseline emission. The scenario method as well as the comparison method described by WRI-PA

are both recommended for describing the baseline scenario.

Identifies activity (ies) that are linked to SSRs for GHG quantification. The selection of SSRs for

quantification and monitoring will depend on how easily can the activity that results in GHG

emission or reduction be tracked and measured. Examples of activity data include quantity of

electricity used, hours of equipment is operated, distance travelled, output of a process etc.

Establish GHG quantification method for each SSR. Many of the GHG quantification

methodologies are already available in the public domain that can be adopted or adapted to

quantify the net GHG emission associated with an action, beginning from the activity level to

bundling of activities associated with a mitigation action. The selection of each methodology will

be justified based on degree of closeness or relevance between the activities or processes in the

published methodology and the activities of the mitigation action.

Quantification methods that are not considered established will include in-house methods or

methods reported in publications such as journals and technical presentations where information

leading to the development of equations and activity data are insufficient, thereby requiring

validation of the method.

Chapter 6 and 8 define MA scenario emission (ex-ante or ex-post). Describing the MA scenario

will cover almost all the steps or considerations discussed earlier from Chapter 3 to 5. Most of

the SSRs identified for the baseline could be relevant although it can be expected that a

mitigation action has the potential to remove a source or source(s), create a sink or sink(s) or

reservoir. Different GHG quantification methodologies may be required for the MA scenario

emission e.g. fossil fuel powered vehicle replaced by electric vehicle.

An example for ex-post policy scenario emissions estimation using the following steps:

Select an ex-post assessment method

Estimate ex-post policy scenario emissions from all sources and sinks

Consider and correct for various effects not previously considered in the baseline

scenario



Select a tier (level of accuracy in relation to source of data as presented in the next

item)

An example to illustrate estimating GHG effects ex-ante for a GHG Mitigation programme:

Programme: Renewable Energy Act 2011 (FiT Mechanism in Malaysia)

GHG Effects : Reduced GHG emissions from operation of fossil-based

power plant.

GHG Source/Sink: Grid-connected power generation from solar PV

Emission Estimation

Method:

Relevant methodology UNFCCC CDM AMS I.D

Activity Data x Emission Factor

Parameters: - kWh electricity from solar PV exported to grid - published regional carbon emission baseline

Where necessary, assumption will be made that the baseline emission that will be compared with

the policy scenario emission has no overlapping or reinforcing interaction with other policies.

There can also be GHG effects ex-ante that include interacting actions such as bundling of

projects in the action scenario to be compared with a baseline scenario where projects are

absent.

Establish tier level of data available. The proposed categories of data that will be used in the GHG

accounting of MYGHG MITIGATION-MR will follow that of IPCC Guidelines used for National

Greenhouse Inventory i.e Tier 1 to Tier 3. A listing of the level of tier for each data source shall

be described in the GHG report.

Chapter 7 establishes the requirement for monitoring the performance of the MA. The

monitoring and reporting frequency is dependent on the objective(s) of the mitigation action,

and will be among the key information to be clearly spelled out in the MYGHG Mitigation MR-

Design template. The monitoring performance during programme implementation period served

two related functions:



Monitoring trends in key performance indicators in order to understand whether the

action is on track, being implemented as planned, and delivering the expected results.

Examples of key performance indicators (KPIs):

a) Afforestration/ reforestration policies: Area of forest by type

b) Subsidy for building retrofits: Number of building retrofitted

c) Grants for replacement of candescent lamps with LEDs: Number of LED lamps

sold; market share of renewable lamps

Collection of data of the various parameters are needed to estimate ex-post policy

scenario emission in order to estimate GHG effects ex-post.

Aside from quantitative indicators that are associated with determining level of GHG reduction

or removal enhancements, qualitative indicators or non-numerical factors can be used to report

on the progress of implementation of a mitigation action.

Establish GHG reduction and removal enhancement. The establishment of GHG reduction and

removal enhancement occurs will be based on the GHG effects ex-post assessment which is

estimated by comparing the observed policy scenario emissions (based on data collected from

the monitoring programme) to ex-post baseline emissions.

Chapter 9 deals with the requirement for data quality management. Data quality management

procedures including assessment of uncertainty relevant to the action and baselines scenarios

are expected. Examples of types of uncertainties and corresponding sources are uncertainties in

activity data, emission factors and GWP values associated with parameters used in the GHG

estimation. Uncertainties provided in default activity data can be a source of uncertainties

estimates.

Chapter 10 briefly discusses on registration as domestic mitigation action. Reporting on domestic

MRV arrangements are expected under the BUR guidelines, but the scope of reporting are

determined by the Parties themselves. Malaysia has yet to establish whether a GHG project

needs to undergo verification before registration as a domestic mitigation action project. In line

with the UNFCCC definition, a domestic mitigation action programme that has undergone

verification based on the domestic measurement and reporting guideline can be registered under

UNFCCC NAMA Registry.



CHAPTER 3: DEFINING POLICY/INTERMEDIATE MEASURES/ACTIONS

3.1 Selecting the Policy/Programmes/Actions to assess

Table 3 presents general types of policies/measures/actions that may be assessed for the GHG emission reductions potential. Users should be able to identify among the many programmes or actions within its organisation responsibilities that bring about the direct GHG emission reductions potential. However, it must be noted that some types of programmes or actions are more difficult to assess than others, since the causal relationship between implementation of these programmes and its GHG effects may be less direct. Table 4 depicts some examples of existing policy in Malaysia which have direct or indirect effects towards GHG emission reductions.

Table 3: General types of policy/actions for assessment

Examples of different types of policy/programme/action

Regulations and standards

Renewable Energy Act 2011, Environmental Quality Act 1974 (EQA) etc.

Taxes and charges

- Import duty and sales tax exemption for equipment use for generation of renewable energy that not manufactured locally or sales tax exemption for equipment procured from local manufacturers.

- Pioneer tax incentives for companies in areas such as energy conservation and generation, renewable energy, waste recycling, natural gas vehicles and hybrid cars.

Subsidies and incentives

- Direct payments, tax reductions, price supports or the equivalent thereof from a government to an entity for implementing a practice or performing a specified action.

- Incentives provided by the Government to promote green buildings. Building owners obtaining green building certification from 24 October 2009 until 31 December 2014 are given income tax exemption equivalent to the additional capital expenditure in obtaining such certificates.

Emissions trading schemes Also known as cap-and-trade programs of which a cap is set on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by all



participating installations. 'Allowances' for emissions are then auctioned off or allocated for free, and can subsequently be traded. Installations must monitor and report their CO2 emissions, ensuring they hand in enough allowances to the authorities to cover their emissions. If emission exceeds what is permitted by its allowances, an installation must purchase allowances from others. Conversely, if an installation has performed well at reducing its emissions, it can sell its leftover credits. This allows the system to find the most cost-effective ways of reducing emissions without significant government intervention.

Eg. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Voluntary agreements or measures

An agreement, commitment, or measure undertaken voluntarily by public or private sector actors, either unilaterally or jointly in a negotiated agreement. Eg. MyCarbon Scheme

Information instruments

Public disclosure of information which includes labeling programs, emissions reporting programs and certification systems aimed at changing behaviour by increasing public awareness.

Eg. Carbon Footprint Scheme, Type I Eco-labelling Scheme, Green Building Index

Research, development, and deployment (RD &D)

Facilitation in technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities through direct government funding.

Eg. MOSTI Technofund, Innofund

Public procurement

Programme or activities that are considered as part of public procurement processes with emphasis on additional environmental attributes namely GHG emission of products/services.

Eg. Government Green Procurement (GGP)



Infrastructure programs

Provision of (or granting a government permit for) infrastructure, such as roads, water, urban services, and high speed rail.

Eg. Low carbon city Iskandar Malaysia

Implementation of new technologies, processes, or practices

Implementation of new technologies, processes, or practices at a broad scale (for example, those that reduce emissions compared to existing technologies, processes, or practices).

Financing and investment

Public or private sector grants or loans that support development strategies or technologies advancement

Eg. Green Technology Funding Scheme (GTFS)

Table 4: List of policy, strategies and regulations in Malaysia

Policy, Strategies and Regulation Champions

10th Malaysian Plan (10MP) Economic Planning Unit (EPU)

Government transformation Program (GTP) PEMANDU

Economic Transformation Program (ETP) PEMANDU

New Economic Model (NEM) NEAC/PEMANDU

National Physical Plan 2 (NPP2) Ministry of Housing and Local Government

(KPKT)

National Policy on the Environment (NPE) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

(MNRE)

*National Green Technology Policy (NGTP) Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and

Water (KeTTHA)



*National Renewable Energy Policy and Action

Plan (NREPAP)

Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and

Water (KeTTHA)

*National Policy on Climate Change (NPCC) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

(MNRE)

National Policy on Biological Diversity (NPBD) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

(MNRE)

National Mineral Policy 2 (NMP2) Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

(MNRE)

SME Master Plan (SMEMP) Ministry of International Trade and Industry

(MITI)

Industrial Master Plan 3 (IMP3) Ministry of International Trade and Industry

(MITI)

Construction Industry Master Plan (CIMP) Ministry of Works (KKR)

National Commodity Policy (NCP) Ministry of Plantation Industries and

Commodities (MPIC)

National Timber Industry Policy Ministry of Plantation Industries and

Commodities (MPIC)

National Agrofood Policy Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry

(MOA)

Environmental Quality Act 1974 (EQA) Department of Environment (DOE)

Town and Country Planning Act 1978 (TCPA) Department of Town and Country Planning

(JPBD)

Environmental Quality (Scheduled Waste)

Regulations 2005

Department of Environment (DOE)

Environmental Quality (Control of Lead

Concentration in Motor Gasoline) Regulations

1985

Department of Environment (DOE)

Renewable Energy Act 2011 Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and

Water (KeTTHA)

*the policy related to the GHG mitigation.



3.2 Defining the Policy/Programmes/Actions to be assessed

To progress on defining the programmes or actions to be assessed, users need to complete the

Part A of the MYGHG Mitigation-MR Design template and below is a full description of the

required information to assist users in filling up the template.

Required information Explanation Example

Title

Name of the national mitigation strategy/ programme.

Green Technology Financing Scheme (GTFS)

Level of assessment

To define whether the assessment is carried out at the policy, sub-programme or activities level.

Programme level

Main policy or actions in assessment

To name the main policy/actions or regulations that govern the implementation of the GHG mitigation strategy which is being assessed.

National Green Technology Policy

Type of Policy/Action

To refer to Table 3 for the description of the type of policies/actions.

Financing and investment

Status of the strategy

At planning stage, adoption or implementation stage.

Implementation

Date of implementation

The date the mitigation strategy comes into effect.

dd MMMM, yyyy

( 29 January, 2010)

Date of Completion The date the implementation strategy ceases ( i.e. end but not the date of which the policy no longer has an impact on GHG emissions)

dd MMMM, yyyy

(31 December, 2015)

Description of specific intervention(s)

The specific intervention(s) carried out as part of the policy.

Green technology financing scheme offers 60% guarantee of the financing amount and a rebate of 2% on the interest/



profit rate charged by the private and commercial financial institutions for green technology investment by companies (i.e. producers or users). This is to facilitate the growth of local green businesses and generates new markets and job creation.

Other related policy/action Other policies or actions that may interact with the policy/action assessed.

National Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan (NREPAP); Feed-in Tariff mechanism.

Targeted sector(s) Sectorial tables as listed in IPCC Good Practice Guidance;

Energy

Category of mitigation action MRV

Either MRV for domestic mitigation action or MRV requesting for international support

Domestic

Geographical Coverage

The geographic area where the policy is implemented or enforced.

National

Estimated GHG Emission Reductions

Link to the baseline calculation.

2.24 million ton CO2eq/yr

Brief description of GHG mitigation programme and the proposed activities

Brief account of target policy, measures, relevant Ministries & Government Departments, MRV activities (project features – technology, capacity building measures-workshops, financing – model etc.,)

3.3 Assessing individual or a package of policies

Users may assess the policies or actions either individually or together as a package of policies or

actions. However, one needs to consider the assessment objectives, feasibility, and the degree

of interaction between the policies and actions under consideration. Users should be able to

retrieve more information on the steps and requirements from the Policy and Action Standard.

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/1_Volume1/V1_8x_Ch8_An2_ReportingTables.pdf



For the purpose of this guideline, any potential overlaps of GHG effects that can be attributed

from more than one policy/programme/measure shall be considered independently. This is to

ensure that the assessment is more manageable with the available data and to inform decision

makers on which individual programme/action to be implemented or to continue its support.

3.4 Ex-ante, ex-post assessment or combination of both

Users shall report whether they are carrying out the assessment as ex-ante, ex-post or a

combination of both. Following is some guidance in choosing the right assessment based on the

status of implementation and users requirement;

Ex- ante assessment If the programme/action has been planned but yet to be

implemented; or

If it has been implemented and users would want to estimate

the expected effects in the future;

Ex-post assessment If the programme/action has been implemented and users

would want to estimate the effects of the policy/programme/

action to date;

Combination of both If users need to estimate both the past and future effects of the

action.



CHAPTER 4: IDENTIFYING EFFECTS AND MAPPING THE CAUSAL CHAIN

4.1 Identifying potential GHG effects

Users shall identify and report all potential GHG effects arising from the implementation of the

programmes/actions and this includes GHG emissions (both increases and decreases) and GHG

removals.

Guidance on how to identify the GHG effects

Step 1: Identify the inputs and activities associated with implementing the

policy/action.

Step 2: Identify all intermediate effects of the policy/action that may lead to

GHG effects and/or non-GHG effects.

Step 3: Identify the type of GHG effects whether it is;

a) in- or out of jurisdiction effects,

b) short or long term effects, intended and unintended effects,

c) all potential effects whether likely, possible and unlikely, whether it

causes GHG increase or removal.

Step 4: Consider the potential GHG effects due to either;

a) Deployment of technology

b) Development of new infrastructure

c) Changes in human purchasing behaviour

d) Changes in manufacturing practices

e) Changes in supply and demand, pricing or market share

f) Changes in product upstream or downstream activities or effects of

sector not targeted by the policy

g) Changes in macroeconomics

h) Changes in import/exports contributing to GHG leakage



However, not all potential effects need to be included in the GHG assessment boundary as one

will see from an example given under the mapping of the causal chain.

Figure 3: Mapping the input, activities, intermediate effects and the corresponding GHG effects and non-GHG effects.

4.2 Identifying source/sink potential GHG effects

Users shall identify and report all sources of GHG emission and GHG sinks and the greenhouse

gases associated with the respective GHG effects in Part C of the MYGHG Mitigation-MR Design

template.

GHG Emissions & Sources (Identify the major sources of GHG emissions/sink and the GHG targeted to be included in the MRV) Source category, GHG targeted

☐Stationary fossil fuel combustion, CO2,CH4, N2O

☐Mobile fossil fuel combustion, CO2,CH4, N2O

☐Cement manufacture, CO2 ☐Aluminium production, CO2, PFCs

☐Natural gas system, CO2,CH4 ☐Landfills, CH4

☐Electrical transmission and distribution, SF6 ☐Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, HFCs

☐Agricultural soil management, CO2, N2O ☐Forest and other land use, CO2,CH4, N2O Sink category, GHG targeted

☐Biological processes, CO2 ☐Carbon capture and storage, CO2

Inputs

Activity 1

Intermediate effect 1

GHG effect

Non-GHG effect

Intermediate effect 2

GHG effect

Activity 2Intermediate

effectsNon-GHG

effect



Users are to follow below steps in order to determine the source/sink GHG effects and targeted

greenhouse gases to be included in the MRV.

4.3 Mapping the causal chain

Users shall develop and report a causal chain for the assessed programme/actions taking into

consideration of the pre-identified effects, the sources/sink and targeted greenhouse gases.

Figure 4 is a descriptive example of a causal chain for the incandescent bulb phase out

programme which depicts the process involves in identifying the GHG effects. The causal chain

represents the changes expected to occur as the result on the implementation of the programme.

Hence, users are able to identify the relevant GHG effect and the one most feasible to be included

in the GHG assessment boundary.

Users shall disclose any exclusions of GHG effects and these exclusions can be based on

limitations related to; data availability, relevance to the objective and context of the

programme/actions and also users resources and capacity.

The example showed that the final GHG effect agreed upon is reduced emission from electricity

generation which relates to reduce in combustion of mix fuels in grid connected electricity and

the targeted greenhouse gases are CO2, CH4 and N2O. And this will be then included in the GHG

assessment boundary.

1.1 Defining the GHG assessment period

Guidance on how to define the GHG assessment period

Ex-ante GHG assessment period- the time period during which the

programme/actions is in effect.

Ex-post GHG assessment period- the time period between the date the

programme/actions are implemented and the date of the assessment.

Combined ex-ante and ex-post assessment- should consist both time periods.



Users shall define and report the GHG assessment period; the time period over which GHG

effects resulting from the programme/actions are assessed.

Figure 4: Mapping the causal chain

Incandescent bulb (GLS) phase out

programmme

Gradual increase of

demand and use of energy

efficient lighting

products

Reduction of electricity

consumption from the grid

Savings in electricity spendings

Increase of hours of use of light

bulbs and other electric

appliances

Increase in GHG emissions of the

grid

Comment 1:

Secondary effect, no data available

Reduction of GHG emissions of the grid

Comment 2:

Main GHG effectIncrease of life span of

light bulbs in residential

houses

Decrease of frequency of purchase of light bulbs

Decrease import of light

bulbs from abroad

Decrease of GHG emissions due to production and

transport of light bulbs abroad

comment 3:

Out of jurisdiction

Fostering of national industry

producing efficient light

bulbs

Increase of GHG emissions due to manufacturing of efficient

light bulbs in the country

Comment 4:

This effect would happen at very long term and is

not of main interest

Increase of import of

efficient light bulbs

Increase in GHG emissions due to production and transport of

light bulbs abroad

Comment 5:

Out of Jurisdiction

Stopping supply of inefficient

GLS at point of sale

Stopping import and

national production of

inefficient light bulbs

Reduction in GHG emissions due to less import of ineffienct light

Comment 6:

Out of jurisdiction

Reduction of GHG emissions of production of inefficient light

bulbs in country

Comment 7:

Not main interest and no data available



CHAPTER 5: BASELINE EMISSIONS

5.1 Choosing type of baseline comparison

Baseline scenario represents the events or conditions most likely to occur in the absence of

the policy/programme/action being assessed. Baseline scenario can be determined ex-ante

or ex-post. Ex-ante baseline scenario is established prior to the implementation of the

programme/action which is based on forecasts of emissions drivers in addition to historical

data. An ex-post baseline scenario is established during or after implementation of the

programme/action.

Comparison group method is feasible for programme/action implemented in one subnational

jurisdiction and not in a similar neighbouring jurisdiction. Not applicable for

programme/action related to regulations and standards, taxes or charges, or emissions

trading scheme.

5.1.1 Scenario method baseline emission

User shall define and report a description of the events or conditions most likely to occur in

the absence of the programme/action being assessed. And these could be due;



i. Continuation of current technologies, practices or conditions

ii. Identified based on environmental, financial, economic or behavioural modelling

iii. Performance standard or benchmark

5.2 Baseline emission calculation

Users shall report the methodology used to estimate baseline emission; i.e. estimation model

used. Many of the GHG quantification methodologies are already available in the public

domain that can be adopted or adapted to quantify the net GHG emission associated with an

action, beginning from the activity level to bundling of activities associated with a mitigation

action (Table 5). The selection of each methodology will be justified based on degree of

closeness or relevance between the activities or processes in the published methodology and

the activities of the MA.

Quantification methods that are not considered established will include in-house methods or

methods reported in publications such as journals and technical presentations where

information leading to the development of equations and activity data are insufficient,

thereby requiring validation of the method.

For each of the GHG effects included in the GHG assessment boundary, users shall identify

the methodology and identify the parameters; i.e. activity data and emission factors.

Example: Use of incandescent lamp at residential area

GHG emission = activity data x emission factor

= kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed x kg CO2 eq. per kWh electricity

Activity data is a quantitative measure of a level of activity that results in GHG emissions. Activity data is multiplied by an emission factor to derive the GHG emissions associated with the process.

An emission factor (EF) is a factor that converts activity data into GHG emissions data. EF is expressed in unit of CO2 equivalent per unit output.



Table 5: Tools and Standards for Assessing GHG Emissions Reduction



Source: Based on “Nationally Appropriate Mitigating Actions – A Technical Assistance Source Book for Practitioners” (GIZ

2012) and Guidance for NAMA Design: Building on Country Experiences, UNEP.



Since the programme only affects generation of electricity due to the increase use of energy

inefficient product over the GHG assessment period, therefore the focus should be specific to

this relevant process and will also depend on data availability.

The final step is to aggregate the baseline emissions for each parameter as depicted in below

figure. Users shall report total annual and cumulative baseline scenario emissions and

removals over the GHG assessment period.



CHAPTER 6: EX-ANTE GHG ASSESSMENT

6.1 Defining the policy scenario

The policy scenario represents the events or conditions most likely to occur in the presence

of the policy/programme/action being assessed. Policy scenario emissions are an estimate of

GHG emissions and removals associated with the policy scenario.

Users shall define a policy scenario that represents the condition most likely to occur in the

presence of the policy/action. The same emission estimation methods used to estimate the

baseline emissions should also be used to estimate the policy scenario emissions from each

source or sink.

Users shall report total annual and cumulative policy scenario emissions and removals over

the GHG assessment period. Finally, user shall estimate the GHG effect of the policy/

programme/action or also known as total change in GHG emissions resulting from the

policy/programme/action.

Summarised steps;

1. Estimate baseline emissions from each source/sink category.

2. Aggregate baseline emissions to derive the total baseline emissions.

3. Estimate the policy scenario emission across all source/sink category.

4. Aggregate policy scenario emissions to estimate the total policy scenario emissions.



5. Subtract total baseline emissions from total policy scenario emissions to estimate

the total GHG effect of the policy/programme/action.

Total net change in GHG emissions resulting from the policy/programme/action (t CO2e) =

total net policy scenario emission (t CO2e) - total net baseline scenario emissions (t CO2e)

An example to illustrate an estimation of GHG effects ex-ante for a GHG Mitigation

programme:

Programme: Renewable Energy Act 2011 (FiT Mechanism in Malaysia)

GHG Effects : Reduced GHG emissions from operation of fossil-based power plant.

GHG Source/Sink: Grid-connected power generation from solar PV

Emission Estimation Method: Relevant methodology UNFCCC CDM AMS I.D Activity Data x Emission Factor

Parameters: - kWh electricity from solar PV exported to grid - published regional carbon emission baseline

Where necessary, assumption will be made that the baseline emission that will be compared

with the policy scenario emission has no overlapping or reinforcing interaction with other

policies. There can also be GHG effects ex-ante that include interacting actions such as

bundling of projects in the action scenario to be compared with a baseline scenario where

projects are absent.

Establish tier level of data available. The proposed categories of data that will be used in the

GHG accounting of MYGHG MITIGATION-MR will follow that of IPCC Guidelines used for

National Greenhouse Inventory i.e Tier 1 to Tier 3. A listing of the level of tier for each data

source shall be described in the GHG emission reduction reporting.



CHAPTER 7: MONITORING PERFORMANCE

Monitoring performance during the policy implementation period serves two related

functions:

To monitor implementation progress: Monitor trends in key performance indicators

to understand whether the policy or action is on track and being implemented as

planned

To estimate GHG effects: Collect the data needed for ex-post assessment of GHG

effects

Key performance indicators are metrics that indicate the performance of a policy or action,

such as tracking changes in targeted outcomes.

Parameter is a broader term meaning any type of data (such as activity data or emission

factors) needed to estimate emissions.

To estimate GHG effects ex-post, users need to collect data on a broader range of parameters,

which should be monitored during the policy implementation period. Hence, users should

develop the monitoring plan during the policy design phase rather than after the policy has

been designed and implemented. Doing so ensures that the data needed to assess the

effectiveness of the policy are collected.

7.1 Defining key performance indicators

Users shall define and report the key performance indicators selected and the rationale for

their selection. The key performance indicators are basically the relevant inputs, activities,

and intermediate effects associated with the policy or action. Inputs and activities are most

relevant for monitoring policy or action implementation, while intermediate effects and non-

GHG effects are most relevant for monitoring policy or action effects.

7.2 Monitoring plan

For each of the key performance indicators or parameters, users should describe the

following elements in a monitoring plan:

Measurement or data collection methods

Sources of data (either existing data sources or additional data collected specifically

to monitor indicators)

Monitoring frequency

Units of measure

Whether data are measured, modeled, calculated, or estimated; level of uncertainty

in any measurements or



estimates; how this uncertainty will be accounted for

Sampling procedures (if applicable)

Whether data are verified, and if so, verification procedures used

Entity(ies) or person(s) responsible for monitoring activities and roles and

responsibilities of relevant personnel

Competencies required and any training needed to ensure personnel have necessary

skills

Methods for generating, storing, collating, and reporting data on monitored

parameters

Databases, tools, or software systems to be used for collecting and managing

Procedures for internal auditing, quality assurance (QA),and quality control (QC)

Record keeping and internal documentation procedures needed for QA/QC,

including length of time data will be archived

Any other relevant information

Data may be measured, modeled, calculated, or estimated. Bottom-up monitoring methods

may involve collecting data from representative samples of individual facilities or other

sources, rather than from all affected facilities or sources.

Measured data direct measurement eg. stack emission measurement

Modeled data data derived from quantitative models, eg. landfill emission model

Calculated data Data calculated by multiplying activity data by an emission factor

Estimated data proxy data or other data sources used to fill data gaps in the absence of more accurate or representative data sources.

Users may monitor indicators at various frequencies, such as monthly, quarterly, or annually.

The appropriate frequency of monitoring should be determined based on the needs of

decision makers and stakeholders, following the principle of relevance, and may depend on

the type of indicators and data availability.

Users shall monitor each of the parameters over time in accordance with the monitoring plan.

If monitoring indicates that the assumptions used in the ex-ante assessment are no longer

valid, users should document the differences and take the monitoring results into account

when updating the ex-ante estimates or when estimating GHG effects ex-post. Users shall

report whether the assumptions on key parameters within the ex-ante assessment remain

valid.



CHAPTER 8: EX-POST GHG ASSESSMENT

If an ex-ante assessment for the policy or action was carried out prior to the ex-post

assessment, the same method may be used by replacing the forecasted parameter values (ex-

ante) with observed parameter values (ex-post) in the ex-post estimation. Alternatively users

may apply a different methodology than was used in the ex-ante assessment. Users should

choose the approach that yields the most accurate results. If both an ex-ante and ex-post

assessment are carried out for the same policy or action at different points in time, each

assessment will likely yield different estimates of the GHG effects of the policy, since the

observed (ex-post) parameter values will likely differ from assumptions forecasted in the ex-

ante scenario.

8.1 Defining policy scenario emissions

Users shall estimate policy scenario emissions and removals over the GHG assessment period

for each source/sink category and greenhouse gas included in the GHG assessment boundary.

To do so, users should evaluate whether the effects identified in the causal chain had actually

occurred. Users should then update the effects identified in the causal chain based on

observed data before estimating each GHG effect. Users shall apply the same GWP values

used to estimate baseline emissions. Any sources, sinks, or greenhouse gases in the GHG

assessment boundary that have not been estimated shall be disclosed, justified, and

described qualitatively.

Users shall report the following:

Total annual and cumulative policy scenario emissions and removals over the GHG

assessment period, if feasible based on the method used

The methodology used to estimate policy scenario emissions, including the emissions

estimation method(s) (including any models) used

All sources of data for key parameters, including activity data, emission factors, GWP

values, and assumptions

If users are not able to report a data source, users shall justify why the source is not

reported.

Users shall report the estimated total net change in GHG emissions and removals resulting

from the policy/action or package of policies/actions, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent,

both annually and cumulatively over the GHG assessment period.

Total net change in GHG emissions resulting from the policy/programme/action (t CO2e) =

total net policy scenario emission (t CO2e) - total net baseline scenario emissions (t CO2e)



CHAPTER 9: UNCERTAINTY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Uncertainty assessment refers to a systematic procedure to quantify and/or qualify the

sources of uncertainty in a GHG assessment. Identifying and documenting sources of

uncertainty can help users improve assessment quality and increase the level of confidence

in the results. Users should identify and track key uncertainty sources throughout the

assessment process.

9.1 Uncertainty

Uncertainty is divided into three categories: parameter uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and

model uncertainty.

Parameter uncertainty - arise from measurement errors, inaccurate approximation, or the way the data was modelled to fit the conditions of the activity

- can typically be represented as a probability distribution of possible values that include the chosen value used in the assessment.

Scenario uncertainty - created when multiple methodological choices are used such as during the selection of baseline assumptions.

- users should undertake a sensitivity analysis for key parameters

Model uncertainty - models can introduce uncertainty when used for extrapolation that is application of the model beyond the domain for which model predictions are known to be valid.

Users shall report the method or approach used to assess uncertainty.

9.1.1 Qualitative uncertainty analysis

To qualitatively assess uncertainty, users should characterize the level of confidence of the

results based on;

i. the quantity and quality of evidence;

ii. the degree of agreement of the evidence.



The level of confidence is a metric that can be expressed qualitatively to express certainty in

the validity of a parameter value or result. (The qualitative confidence level described in this

section is distinct from statistical confidence and should not be interpreted in statistical terms.)

A level of confidence provides a qualitative synthesis of the user’s judgment about the result,

integrating both the evaluation of evidence and the degree of agreement in one metric. The

confidence level of individual parameters, models, and scenarios should be aggregated to

provide a level of confidence for the overall assessment, if feasible.

9.1.2 Quantitative uncertainty analysis

Estimates of uncertainty should be made for individual parameters (single parameter

uncertainty), then aggregated to source and sink categories as well as to the assessment as a

whole (propagated parameter uncertainty). Propagated parameter uncertainty is the

combined effect of each parameter’s uncertainty on the total result.

Approaches of quantifying single parameter uncertainty include the following:

• Measured uncertainty approach (represented by standard deviations)

• Default uncertainty estimates for specific activities or parameters (from IPCC 2006 or

other literature)

• Probability distributions from commercial databases

• Uncertainty factors for parameters reported in literature

• Pedigree matrix approach (based on qualitative data quality indicators)

• Survey of experts to generate upper- and lower-bound estimates

• Expert judgment (based on as much data as available)

Once the uncertainties of single parameters have been estimated, they may be combined to

provide uncertainty estimates for the entire assessment. Approaches to combine

uncertainties include the following:

• Error propagation equations: An analytical method used to combine the uncertainty

associated with individual parameters from a single scenario. Equations involve

estimates of the mean and standard deviation of each input.

9.2 Sensitivity

Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool to understand differences resulting from methodological

choices and assumptions and to explore model sensitivities to inputs. A sensitivity analysis

involves varying the parameters (or combinations of parameters) to understand the

sensitivity of the overall results to changes in those parameters. Users shall conduct a

sensitivity analysis for key parameters and assumptions in the assessment. Key parameters



are those that are highly variable or most likely to significantly impact assessment results.

Past trends may be a guide to determine the reasonable range. As a general rule, variations

in the sensitivity analysis should at least cover a range of +10 percent and -10 percent (unless

this range is not deemed reasonable under the specific circumstances).



CHAPTER 10: GHG MITIGATION ACTION REPORTING AND REGISTRATION

Reporting on domestic MRV arrangements are expected under the BUR guidelines, but the

scope of reporting are determined by the Parties themselves. Malaysia has yet to establish

whether a GHG mitigation action programme needs to undergo verification before

registration as a domestic MA project. In line with the UNFCCC definition, a domestic MA

programme that has undergone verification based on the domestic measurement and

reporting guideline can be registered under UNFCCC NAMA Registry.

A reporting template is made available for users to publicly report the GHG emission

reductions resulting from the implemented programme/actions. The required information

that shall be reported is as follows;

MYGHG Mitigation Reporting Template Ver. 03 March 2015

(This GHG mitigation reporting template is to be cross-referred with the latest Measurement and Reporting (MR) Guidance document for full description of the required information) A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY

A.1 Summary

Title: (Name of the national mitigation strategy)

Click here to enter text.

Level of assessment

Choose an item.


Choose an item.


Choose an item.


Choose an item.

Date of implementation (the date the mitigation strategy comes into effect)

Click here to enter a date.

Date of Completion (if applicable)

Click here to enter a date.



Other related policy/actions Choose an item.



(Other policy that may interact with the abovementioned main policy)

Targeted sector(s) (single or multiple choices, if applicable)

☐Energy ☐Forestry

☐Industrial Processes and Product Use ☐Agriculture

☐Buildings ☐Waste

☐Transport ☐Other (Click here to enter text.)


Choose an item.


Choose an item.


Click here to enter text. (MtCO2 / year)

Brief description of GHG mitigation programme and the proposed activities (Provide brief account of target policy, measures, relevant Ministries & Government Departments, MRV activities (project features – technology, capacity building measures- workshops, financing – model etc.,)


Users shall also report the following information about the implementing entities of the

programme/actions (Part B);

B. MRV PROPONENT(S)

B.1 Information of MRV Proponents (Provide details of each MRV proponent separately by copying this Section B.)

MRV’s Coordinating and Managing Entity


Major Responsibilities


Domain activities, skills and expertise (e.g. major activity / business of agency / institution/organisation, and current skills and experience with specific reference to the proposed MRV, motivation / rationale for leading the MRV )


Contact person Click here to enter text.



Details of contact Tel: Click here to enter text. Fax: Click here to enter text. Email: Click here to enter text.

B.2 MRV Collaborator(s) (Provide details of the agencies / institutions collaborating with MRV proponent(s) in MRV design, development, implementation and financing (domestic institutions or international Donor)

Collaborator 1

Name of the Collaborator

Contact person


Details of contact Tel: Fax: Email:

Responsibilities


(Repeat this section for 2nd and each subsequent collaborator )

The programme/actions being assessed (Part C1); the Baseline activities, GHG assessment

boundary and time period (Part C2), and Baseline emissions (Part C3).

C. MRV DESCRIPTION

C.1 Policies and Regulations (Provide an overview of the prevailing policies and regulations in the sector chosen for the MRV)

C.1.1 Federal / State Policies

Name of the Policy & Year of introduction


Implementing department / agency


Policy brief


Indicate source (web link) of policy document


C.1.2 Federal / State Regulations



Name of the Regulation & Year of introduction




Regulation brief Click here to enter text.

Indicate source (web link) of Regulation document


C.2 Current level of activities (Baseline) (Provide all relevant information and details of the on-going activities for establishing a credible baseline)

C.2.1 Details of Sub-Sector assessed ( i.e. which contributes to GHG emissions and removals)

ENERGY

a) Fuel Combustion Activities: Choose an item.

b) Fugitive Emissions from Fuels: Choose an item.

c) Carbon dioxide transport and storage: Choose an item.

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND PRODUCT USE

a) Mineral Industry: Choose an item. b) Chemical Industry: Choose an item.

c) Metal Industry: Choose an item.

d) Non-energy products from fuels and solvents use: Choose an item.

e) Electronics Industry: Choose an item.

f) Product uses as substitutes for ozone depleting substances: Choose an item.

g) Other product manufacture and use: Choose an item.

h) Other: Choose an item.

AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND OTHER LAND USE

a) Livestock: Choose an item. b) Land: Choose an item.

c) Aggregated Sources and Non-CO2 emissions sources on Land: Choose an item.

d) Other: Choose an item.

WASTE

☐Solid waste disposal ☐Biological treatment of solid waste

☐Incineration and open burning of waste ☐Wastewater treatment and discharge

☐Other (Pls specify)

OTHER

☐Indirect N2O emissions from the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in NOx and NH3

C.2.2 GHG Assessment (Provide the geographical coverage of MRV)

Choose an item.



(Provide GHG assessment period) YYYY to YYYY

C.2.3 GHG Emissions & Sources (Identify the major sources of GHG emissions/sink and the GHG targeted to be included in the MRV)

a) Source category, GHG targeted




☐Natural gas system, CO2,CH4 ☐Landfills/biodigester, CH4


☐Agricultural soil management, CO2, N2O ☐Forest and other land use, CO2,CH4, N2O

b) Sink category, GHG targeted


Target Beneficiaries

List the target beneficiaries e.g. manufacturers, consumers – domestic or industrial or commercial, project developers

Provide quantitative assessment of the size of the beneficiaries under the MRV

Inclusion Criteria

List the criteria likely to be followed for including any beneficiary situated in the MRV boundary to join NAMA e.g. size of the activity (MWe o MWth), current efficiency levels, technology etc.,

C.3 Baseline activity and emissions

Provide a brief of business as usual scenario of the sector / sub-sector and latest emissions data set with sources

Emissions Data Set

Provide the latest emissions data set for the sector / sub-sector and cite sources. Indicate any limitation on the extent of availability of data

Emissions Archive (Historical)

Provide details of the past emissions and trend for the sector / sub-sector under the MRV

Agents and projections

Provide a brief analysis of the agents that are influencing the emission developments

BAU scenario

List the major assumptions and the future outlook (projections) of GHG emission levels / development pattern in the sector / sub-sector under the MRV in the BAU scenario

Provide an outline of influence of any Federal or Provincial policy or regulations on the above emission projections



C.4 Barriers

Provide a brief description of the barriers faced by the sector / sub-sector to achieve any or additional GHG emission reductions in the absence of policy instruments;

Barriers

Provide a brief summary of the barriers faced by the sector / sub-sector for achieving GHG emission reductions. Typical barriers relate to technology, investment, economic viability, lack of knowledge / skills/ training / experience, regulatory, historical failures. The guidance for various barriers can be referred from CDM (http://cdm.unfccc.int/)

Describe how the proposed activities under the mitigation action will overcome the barriers for the sector / sub-sector.

C.5 Proposed activities

List the activities and expected outcomes with a tentative time-schedule under the mitigation actions.

Proposed Activities

Boundary and Expected Outcomes

Implementation Schedule

Date of Start

Date of Completion

(a)

(b)

(c)

(Add rows as required)

C.6 Estimation of annual GHG emission reductions

Provide an approximate estimate of annual GHG emission reductions anticipated to be achieved from all the proposed activities on a cumulative basis.

Annual GHG emission reductions

Year Emission reductions (tCO2e)

YYYY 1

YYYY 2

……

YYYY n

Total

Attach the assumptions and detailed emission reductions calculations as relevant



C.7 Overall benefits

Describe the overall expected benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) for the stakeholders from the implementation of the proposed activities under the MRV in the targeted sector / sub-sector.

Environmental

List the major environmental benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation actions

Economic (optional)

List the major economic benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation action

Societal (optional)

List the major social benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation action

Others (optional)

List other major benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation action

(e.g. technology, transfer of IPR, skills, replication potential to scale the GHG mitigation, uptake potential of the national policy / regulation on low carbon due to mitigation action etc.,)

C.8 Measuring, Reporting & Verification

Provide a brief summary of MRV concept and approach for the proposed activities under the mitigation actions/strategies. (Create hyperlink to the completed MR plan excel sheet)

Measuring

Provide a description of the monitoring methodology and list key monitoring parameters as applicable for the Sector and its applicability for the sub-sector

Provide a brief summary of monitoring infrastructure and competency available / proposed to be deployed

Reporting

Provide a brief summary of modus operandi on reporting along with the roles and responsibilities of the team

Verification (optional)

Summarise the proposed type of verification, approach, frequency, standards and engagement of third party including whether it is mandated by donor or as per host country requirements

Indicate the extent of anticipated overlapping with other programme like CDM, voluntary projects and also procedures to avoid double counting of GHG emission reductions



D. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND ANNEX

D.1 Other information

Provide details of any other information relevant to the mitigation action implementation

D.2 Annex information

List the title of the Annex here

Annex I

Title

SECTION 3: DEMO CASE STUDIES AND LESSON LEARNED This section of the report provides example of case studies carried out in relation to mitigation action/programme at national level. It is not only assessing existing policies in controlling GHG emisssions but also try to identify the gaps; technical capacities of the implementing entities, availability of MR methodologies and the quality of MR process over the implementation period. The following chapters will focus on lesson learned from the 3 case studies which differ from one another as the mitigation action can be either under planning and yet to be implemented as in Chapter 11: Waste diversion from Landfill, or MA in progress as in Chapter 12: Feed-in Tariff (FiT) and completed MA as in Chapter 13: SAVE program. CHAPTER 11: WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL

11.1 Programme Brief

About twelve percent of Malaysia greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are linked to waste and its

disposal based on the 2011 GHG inventory survey5. Methane emissions from solid waste disposal

sites remained the largest source throughout the time series period. The emissions were 90.4%

of the total emissions of the waste sector in 2000 and 89.2% in 2011. Resource conservation and

good end-of-life materials management offer important opportunities to reduce national GHG

emissions. Source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, and energy recovery are all examples

of resource conservation. Resource conservation avoids GHG emissions from common waste

management pathways, including:

i) Emissions from combustion - Waste incineration produces emissions of carbon dioxide

(CO2) and nitrous oxide (NOX), a GHG that is 310 times as potent as CO2.

ii) Emissions from transportation - Transporting waste to disposal sites produces GHG

emissions from the combustion of the fuel used in the equipment.

iii) Emissions from landfills - Waste in landfills decomposes anaerobically and produces

methane (CH4), a GHG that is 25 times as potent as CO2.

A wide range of low carbon options are available to mitigate GHG emissions from waste sector,

these technologies can directly reduce GHG emissions, for example through landfill gas recovery,

improved landfill practices and engineered wastewater management; or avoid GHG generation

for example through controlled composting of organic wastes, state-of-the- art incineration and

landfill coverage. In addition, waste minimisation, recycling and reuse can indirectly reduce GHG

5 Malaysia Biennial Update Report (2015), Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment



emissions through the conservation of raw materials, improved energy and resource efficiency.

The activity of “Waste diversion from landfill” supports the framework for sustainable Solid

Waste Management in Malaysia under the Act 672 and the government aspiration is to divert

40% of waste from landfill by 2020. This programme is currently under planning and yet to be

implemented and the case study was to estimate the GHG effects based on business as usual and

expected effects in the future (ex-ante assessment) under the proposed mitigation actions.

Figure 5: Targeted Solid Waste Operating Business Model: To have 40% waste diversion from

landfill by 2020 The current practice (i.e business as usual) of SWM is 90% by direct landfilling and government vision is to establish

targeted future operating model for integrated waste facilities to cover basic infrastructure and treatment facilities

for States under Act 672 which allow 40% of waste diversion from landfilling by 2020.

An estimation of 12,775,700 tons of municipal solid waste are received by 101 landfills in

Peninsular Malaysia for 2015. Landfilling of waste has given rise to many pressing issues such as

expensive land prices, strict environmental regulations health and safety issues, landfill spaces

becoming limited, the unwillingness of local communities to accept new technologies and

Source: Solid Waste Lab 2015



facilities at “their own back yards”, increase in operation cost and potential risk of environmental

damage associated with landfilling of wastes.

The Solid Waste and Public Corporation Act 2007 which was approved by Parliament on 17th

July 2007 and gazetted on 30th August 2007 by vesting executive power to the Federal

Government to implement solid waste management and public cleansing. The Act also provides

power for Federal Government to undertake, manage, operate and carry out solid waste

management services or public cleansing.

The National Solid Waste Management Department (NSWMD) was created to propose policies,

plans, and strategies along with setting standards, specifications and codes of practices and to

enforce the law and regulations, set guidelines, monitor and give approval. Empowered to look

into the solid waste management in Malaysia, the NSWMD with the cooperation of PEMANDU

has proposed an integrated waste facility management to establish the basic infrastructure and

treatment facilities for States under Act 672.

The Integrate Waste Management System (IWMS) involves a combination of techniques and

programs for energy recovery catering for high density population area and this allows 30% waste

diversion by waste facilities.

Active discussion had been conducted between SIRIM Consultants with representatives of

NSWMD and the content from such discussions was then summarised in the MYGHG Mitigation

Action- MR Design Form: WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL (VER 1.0) (Appendix IA) , supported

by the Emission reduction excel sheet (Appendix IB).

11.2 Lesson learned from MA at planning phase

There is no pre-defined process for developing a mitigation action although the process normally

begins with identifying alternatives for lowering GHG emissions within a given development plan

and determining whether or not such emissions reduction is viable and worthwhile.

Transforming a mitigation action from idea to practice can also be a time-consuming process and

one will face many challenges during phases prior to and during the implementation phase. The

“Waste diversion from landfill” programme is still at the planning phase of which the mitigation

action (MA) developer/proponent needs to;

i. identify the sectorial sustainable development plan for ensuring GHG emission reduction

is economically feasible by conducting initial cost estimates and securing new budgets;

ii. strengthen the policy instruments or measures;



iii. identify stakeholders and other various actors including possible financiers, and ways of

engaging them;

iv. formalise the MA measurement and reporting framework;

v. establish the baseline and mitigation emissions scenarios;

vi. describe the MA main benefits, co-benefits and identify possible barriers and risks at the

implementation stage; and

vii. finally construct and complete the mitigation action documentation (MYGHG Mitigation

Action- MR Design Form) in order to clarify the concept and direction of the MA to

relevant stakeholders.

At this planning phase, the responsible MA developer; NSWMD together with PEMANDU had

conducted Solid Waste Lab 2015 to establish the Framework for Sustainable Solid Waste

Management in Malaysia with the aim of establishing the financial investments for the

development of waste facilities in support for the government’s initiative towards 40% waste

diversion from landfill by 2020.



From the demo case study, it was learnt that there are huge capacity gaps at the local and central

governments in implementing MRV of the mitigation actions. And the capacity gaps are in

reference to the technical, coordinating and research capacities in order to understand the best

practices in the developing the concept, planning and implementing the MA. The key message is

that there should be continuous capacity building and training for the planners and MA

developers at all level and sharing of knowledge to jumpstart the MRV development process.

It is also understood that there is financial barrier due to high upfront cost for new integrated

waste facilities or delays in receiving the designated funding; therefore there should be a follow

up to adjust the implementation plans according to the availability of finance.

One would acknowledge that MRV methodologies for waste sector are not straightforward and

shortage of some necessary data might hamper MA developer in developing standardised

baseline. The first questions are what is the actual volume of waste generated at source,

discarded and later disposed at landfill? The results obtained from Waste Composition Survey

conducted by JICA in 2004 under the “The Study on National Waste Minimisation in Malaysia”

showed households waste generated was amounting to 16,066 ton per day and had changed

over the 8 years to 21,627 ton per day in 20126. However, the overall average combustible waste

generated seems to be consistent and is approximately 92% and the balance 8% being non-

combustible waste.

Next question is whether to use the projected 5% population growth in order to account for

trends in total MSW generation, individual waste components and eventually assist in setting

goals and measuring the progress in Waste diversion from landfill programme by 2020.

It is also recognise that there are gaps in existing data management practice such as lack of a

proper data system, data obsoletion, complications in data handover and a lack of supporting

facilities.

Under current study, the MR methodology used was based on the IPCC First Order Decay model

which estimates methane emissions from solid waste disposal sites and the recommended

default values were used to simplify the estimation of baseline emission. It is expected that

during the programme implementation, landfill recovery would adopt the amount of “methane

captured and destroyed/gainfully used by the project activity”, by mechanically measuring and

analyse the captured LFG, hence there is a need to expand the methodology to project based

CDM methodology. It should be noted that in the ex-ante GHG assessment, estimation of

methane avoidance from composting MA option was not considered and neither the projected

direct and indirect emission from the proposed thermal combustion waste or from the transfer

6 Survey on Solid Waste Composition, Characteristics & Existing Practice of Solid Waste Recycling in Malaysia (2012) JPSPN, KPKT



station facilities; when all of these should be accounted for under similar national mitigation

programme.

Therefore in essence, estimation of the overall GHG emission trends and from different

mitigation potentials under waste sector would require understanding on the systematic data

calibration, collection, archiving, data sharing and periodical data assessment and these are the

basis for enabling MRV for future domestic mitigation actions.

A robust MRV system which covers some basic key elements is recommended herewith in setting

up a waste sector-based, domestic supported mitigation actions;

i. Establish a good institutional framework with a dedicated expert team comprising of

members of the implementing agencies (NSWMD, SWCorp) and relevant external

stakeholders (LAs, waste concessionaires, NGOs, RIs, academia etc);

ii. Select appropriate standards/guidelines (eg. IPCC Waste model, CDM methodologies, Life

Cycle Assessment (LCA) ) associated with MRV for the waste sector;

iii. Identify key data and parameters in consultation with relevant stakeholders;

iv. Develop tracking tool with indicators and baselines to MRV;

At this juncture, it had been recognised there are potential barriers to MRV system

implementation for waste sector, e.g., technology, capacity gaps, and recommendations to

address them is to;

i. Develop specific capacity building for MRV;

ii. Develop a practical, functional and specific MRV design that is tailored to the waste sector

development plan.



CHAPTER 12: FEED-IN TARIFF MECHANISM IN MALAYSIA


This mitigation action provides a legal framework for Distribution Licensee (DL) to purchase

electricity generated from renewable sources by the Feed-in Approval Holders (FiAHs)-

individuals/companies that hold feed-in approval certificates issued by the Sustainable Energy

Development Authority (SEDA) Malaysia. Electricity customer will pay electricity bill to the DLs

and 1% (2011) to 1.6% (2014 onwards) of the electricity revenue is channeled from DL to RE fund

managed by SEDA. DL will then make payment to the FiAHs and claims the FiT payment from the

RE fund.

All annual CO2 data is calculated from actual recovery of monies submitted monthly by

Distribution Licensee to SEDA. Emission reduction is calculated with respect to the annual

baseline e.g. for 2012, the CO2 conversion factors are calculated as 0.741 and 0.546 tCO2/MWh

for Peninsular and Sabah/Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan, respectively based on the fuel mix used

for power generation as reported in the National Energy Balance for the year 2012.

The key role of SEDA is to administer and manage the implementation of the feed-in tariff

mechanism as mandated under the Renewable Energy Act 2011. The Act provides for the

establishment and implementation of a special tariff system to catalyze the generation of RE

ushering in the Feed In Tariff scheme aimed at augmenting the share of RE in the power

generation fuel mix from indigenous RE sources. The RE sources that are eligible under the FiT

scheme are palm oil biomass wastes and palm oil mill effluents; mini-hydro; solar power; solid

waste and landfill gas; and wastes and gases from agro-based and farming industries. And these

renewable sources must not be imported from other countries.

Electricity generation capacity through renewable sources including biomass, biogas, solar

photovoltaics and mini hydro are projected to reach 7.8% of total installed capacity in Peninsular

Malaysia and Sabah by 2020, or about 2,080 MW.

Several rounds of discussion had been conducted between SIRIM Consultants and

representatives of SEDA and the mitigation action has been summarised as in the MYGHG

Mitigation Action- MR Design Form: Feed in Tariff Mechanism in Malaysia (VER 4.0) (Appendix

IIA) , supported by the Emission reduction excel sheet (Appendix IIB). It should also be noted that

the FiT mechanism7 has also been registered at UNFCCC website as NAMA for Recognition.

7 http://www4.unfccc.int/sites/nama/_layouts/un/fccc/nama/NamaForRecognition.aspx?ID=151&viewOnly=1

http://www4.unfccc.int/sites/nama/_layouts/un/fccc/nama/NamaForRecognition.aspx?ID=151&viewOnly=1



12.2 Lesson learned from MA at implementation phase

In general, the implementation of the mitigation action; FiT mechanism has been well

coordinated by SEDA as it is being facillitated by legal framework that provides a clear buy back

mechanism of electricity generated locally from renewable resources to the power utilities at

fixed rate over a specificied period. The programme has given recognition to local

manufacturers/assemblers of PV modules, inverters, gas engines, and boilers as they will be

eligible for the local bonuses under the first schedule of the RE (Feed-in Approval and Feed-in

Tariff Rate) Rules 2011. There are also continuous capacity building for qualified personnel for

them to maintain and enhance their knowledge and skill in their specific area of expertise. For

instance, to help and keep its Qualified Persons (QP) enhance knowledge and expertise as a

competent Grid-Connected Solar PV Systems Design, SEDA Malaysia has developed a programme

on yearly basis for the QPs to exercise, and have a common platform to discuss among its peers

in the solar PV Industry in Malaysia.

To ensure the succes of the FiT mechanism; the primary source of data is supplied by DLs and

retrieved from a dedicated e-FiT online system on monthly basis. Such centralised data collection

and compilation not only ensures consistency and reliability of inventories but also increase

cooperation between data providers and agency managing the mitigation action. The availability

of RE fund has made it possible for the FiT mechanism to run smoothly although it is also noted

that the fund is insufficient to enable wider deployment of renewable energy through the FiT

mechanism.

There are a few barriers identified in the implementation phase of this mitigation action and

among them are;

i. Well-designed FIT policy requires a significant up-front administrative commitment to

design the policy and to establish FIT payments based on the levelized cost of renewable

energy generation. Detailed analyses on technology cost and resource quality are needed

to ensure FIT payments are adequate to guarantee cost recovery without leading to

windfall profits.

ii. Although the wastes and gases from agro-based and farming industries have been

identified but the detailed resource potentials have yet to be fully examined and verified

and this requires local technical support for further assessment.

iii. FIT policy is designed not to include guaranteed grid interconnection. Example is for

biogas (POME treatment) projects sited far from load centers or transmission or

distribution lines and hence, interconnection costs can increase especially to the project

developer. Therefore, there should be some sharing of costs of grid connection as to

encourage more palm oil mills to export electricity generated to the grid.

iv. Financial constraints in extending the implementation up to 2041 and hence, external

funding and other support would be required as extensively listed in Table 6.



Table 6: Mitigation-related Actions in the Energy Sector, with Needs for External Financial

Support8

8 Malaysia BIENNIAL UPDATE REPORT TO THE UNFCCC (2015), MNRE



CHAPTER 13: SUSTAINABILITY ACHIEVED VIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY (SAVE) PROGRAMME


The Sustainability Achieved via Energy Efficiency (SAVE) programme is a programme organised by the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (MEGTW) to improve energy efficiency in Malaysia. The programme has been launched by the Minister of MEGTW on July 7, 2011 and has been implemented through collaboration between MEGTW, SEDA Malaysia and implementation partners (MASHRAE, ACEM, SIRIM QAS and IEM) with participating chiller manufacturers. The objectives of the SAVE programme are;

i. To create a culture of efficient use of energy among general public and business entities. ii. To save daily energy costs by consumers from reduced energy consumption and manage

growth energy demand. iii. To accelerate the transformation of consumer electrical appliances market and increase

the share of Energy Efficient (EE) models in the market. Finally, to phase out inefficient models from the local market.

iv. As one of the initiatives to mitigate GHG emissions reduction. The SAVE rebate programme is an initiative to stimulating sales of energy efficient (EE) appliances by increasing the demand through rebates for consumers. Products that qualify for the rebate program are air conditioners, refrigerators and industrial chillers. The eligibility criteria for each qualified EE appliance under the SAVE rebate programme are;

i. Refrigerators: Must be 5-Star rated by the Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga) with net capacity up to 400 liters.

ii. Air conditioners: Must be 5-Star rated by the Energy Commission (Suruhanjaya Tenaga), wall-mounted split unit type with capacity up to 2.5 Horse Power (HP).

iii. Chiller(s): Energy efficient chillers to replace old chillers aged 15 years or more, only for comfort cooling in commercial buildings.

The program will reduce the price premium of selected energy efficient appliances in the market. The rebate program will be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis to qualified domestic consumers who will qualify to purchase 5-Star rated appliances (refrigerators and air conditioners) through participating retailers. The rebate program also awarded to qualified business owner to replace existing chillers with new energy efficient chillers.



The rebate amounts were proposed by the Ministry based on discussions held with various stakeholders, i.e brand owners, distributors’ and retailers. The rebate amount is RM200 per RT (Refrigeration Ton) of rectified chillers. The rebate amounts are considered sufficient enough to kick-start the program and trigger competitive and affordable EE appliances pricing for Malaysian consumers. The SAVE programme is one of the program undertaken under the National Key Economic Area (NKEA) policy for Oil, Gas and Energy through Entry Point Project 9 (EPP9) – Improving Energy Efficiency in the country. The program is classified under subsidies and incentives category and was implemented for 3 years, starting from July 7, 2011. Although the SAVE program covers 3 types of electrical appliances, the case study only focuses on chillers to estimate the GHG effects based on the data available during the implementation of the program by carrying out ex-post assessment of the policy intervention. The demo case study on SAVE program was implemented together with representative from SEDA and the work processes were based on the Measurement and Reporting Guidelines- Malaysia’s GHG emission reductions of mitigation actions (MYGHG Mitigation-MR Guidelines). The summary of the study was reported using MYGHG Mitigation Reporting Template (Appendix IIIA) supplemented with the calculation sheet ( Appendix IIIB)

13.2 Lesson learned from ex-post assessment of MA

Based on the study, it can be summarised that the policy intervention was focusing on mitigating

indirect emission resulting from the energy consumption required to power the chiller system.

The project activity was based on replacement of old chillers to energy efficient equipment and

quantification of project impact is via power consumption function but without accounting on

the direct emission of physical leakage of refrigerant during manufacturing, operation, servicing

and from the disposal of waste equipment and refrigerant containers.

The estimated GHG emission reduction from the policy intervention is amounting to 53,221 tCO2

based on the ex-post assessment from 2011-2014. It is anticipated that the GHG emission

reduction would be much higher if the methodological approach would also consider to include

the initial charge of refrigerant before starting the operation of the new chiller and refrigerant

used during the lifetime of the new chiller to replace refrigerant that has leaked. The

quantification example is described in the MYGHG Mitigation-MR design form which account on

the replace of old chillers with R-11 refrigerant to new chiller using R-123. R-11 refrigerant has a

relative high GWP of 4750, compared to R-123 of 77 which shows the relevancy to account this

under the MR framework.



The MRV of emission reduction should be the central part of an MRV system in Refrigeration

sector. It is recommended that a national MRV system is set up which looks into reporting

mechanism which can only be realised by having relevant legal framework in place; followed by

calculation of expected emission and their abatement potential.

It should be noted that HCFCs that are used as alternative to the ozone depleting -banned CFCs

will also be phased out in most developed countries by 2030. HFCs has been introduced as

replacement in many applications but HFCs are highly potent greenhouse gases and make up the

dominant proportion of global GHG emissions from F-gases. HFCs could be phased out or down

in a similar way to HCFCs. With the appropriate policy instruments, mandatory registration on

production, import and export controls, recording of HFCs consumed at industry level combined

with measures on energy efficiency, all these would provide a sector specific MRV for Malaysia.

However, there are a few basic principles that need to be followed such as the practicality in

choosing parameters for monitoring purposes, continues monitoring at specific interval,

transparency of monitored data, accessibility of the data for review and verification and defined

entities responsible for carrying out the monitoring process.



CHAPTER 14: OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND WAY FORWARD

The LECB Project primary aim is the development of a guideline for Measurement and Reporting

(MR) of greenhouse gas emission emissions and their reduction through mitigation actions at the

micro- to macro-level in the context of a policy or programme implemented at the national level.

While there was no lack of information on the mitigation actions undertaken in different parts of

the world and also as disseminated by UNFCCC, this information only served as examples to

identify similar initiatives in Malaysia. The methodologies applicable to the quantification of GHG

at policy, programme or action level could be publicly accessed and adapted to best suit

Malaysia’s scenario. However to ensure wide-acceptance of the GHG quantification results for

mitigation actions carried out in Malaysia whether by the public or private sectors, it was

necessary that the Measurement and Reporting (MY-MR) Guidelines developed should adhere

as much as is feasible to the internationally agreed approaches e.g. those established under the

ISO, WRI or IPCC programmes. The Project Team acknowledged that much effort has already

been invested by these international initiatives and many of the principles that are fundamental

to the quantification methodologies have already been addressed.

While it was not overly difficult to develop a systematic methodology for quantifying the GHG

removal associated with an action, the Project Team faced an uphill task trying to run pilots on

the MY-MR using local projects. During the project period, there was almost no local or

international programmes related to carbon trading or any other form of incentives that require

the level of detail data or information description as that of an internationally compatible MR

format. Aside from Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects that are site specific, there

are no specific GHG mitigation actions at the national level. There are nationally initiated projects

on SAVE program and Feed-in-tariff (FiT) that have as their main aim to promote improved energy

management and energy security through renewable energy; these are not specifically GHG

mitigation actions. Hence, getting the necessary data and information to complete the proposed

MY-MR format for monitoring and reporting mitigation actions for the three pilot projects on FiT,

energy efficiency and solid waste management were a challenge for the Project Team. Although

the counterparts for each of the pilot project tried their best to provide data and information

available through their respective programmes, there were still significant data and information

gaps that had to be addressed in completing the proposed MY-MR format. The Project Team had

to source for some of the information from outside the project boundary as defined according to

their specific programmes, or made estimates to the best of their knowledge.

From the experience of the pilot projects, it is evident that the MY-MR Guideline is better suited

for actual GHG mitigation actions rather than using it on actions that only include carbon dioxide



equivalent reduction as one of the indicators of the achievement of the action. This is particularly

pertinent where the MR Guideline begins with developing a causal effect map of a GHG

mitigation action that require listing all the possible source, sink and reservoir of GHG that can

occur, either directly or indirectly in relation to the implementation of the action. The MY-MR is

designed to be applicable to both ex-ante and ex-post actions, it is still more difficult to gather

all the necessary information or data for an action that is not targeted at GHG reduction or

mitigation as the main focus even though it has already been implemented. For a start, a

nationally defined scope, coverage and characteristics of GHG mitigation actions need to be

established and widely disseminated to enable active participation from both public and private

sectors.

While the past and current actions (policies or programmes) are not GHG mitigation per se,

nevertheless the existence of indicators such as carbon dioxide equivalent reduction showed the

importance placed on Malaysia’s commitment at COP 15. Although a voluntary commitment, it

did propagate the reporting of GHG inventories especially driven by MNRE’s role to provide

nationally representative data to meet international obligations such as the National

Communications and the Biennial Update Reporting (BUR) to UNFCCC. Although MNRE had

established working groups, technical committees and steering committee, the ownership of

much of the reporting still resides with MNRE with minima commitment from most stakeholders.

At COP 21, the Government of Malaysia communicated its Intended Nationally Determined

Contribution (INDC) to reduce its GHG emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 relative to the

emissions intensity of GDP in 2005. This consists of 35% on an unconditional basis and a further

10% conditional upon receipt of climate finance, technology transfer and capacity building from

developed countries. With this recently announced commitment at the international arena,

there is high expectation that there will be emerged GHG mitigation actions that will be

developed with the primary aim of reducing GHG as the primary focus. Incentives such as tax

rebates could be implemented with claims that have to be backed by verifiable reductions. A

nationally common MR format would be required to enable measurements and reporting that

are comparable among implementers of various actions, and also integration of outputs from

different actions to achieve the ultimate commitments made at COP 21. As with all guidelines,

capacity building among potential users is a necessity for MY-MR to propagate.

Appendix I A

Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan, Aras 24, No 51, Persiaran Perdana, Presint 4, Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan, 62100 Putrajaya

MYGHG Mitigation Action- MR Design Form WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL (VER 1.0)

Jabatan Pengurusan Sisa Pepejal Negara (JPSPN) (jpspn)(JPSPN)

MR Design Form- Ver.01

2

Revision history of this form

Version Number Date Description of Revision

01 2 March 2015 Initial adoption


3

Table of Contents

List of MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR versions ................................................................................. 4

A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY ........................................................................... 5

B. MRV PROPONENT(S) ............................................................................................................... 7

C. MRV DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 8

D. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND ANNEX .................................................................. 15

Additional information to the MR Design ....................................................................................... 16


4

List of MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR versions

This sheet is used for tracking the actual version of the MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR Design. Each

version of the MR should have a unique version number, and a reference date.

Depending on the requirements of the National MRV framework, it is possible that the document is

exchanged between competent authority (CA) and mitigation action (MA) proponent/developer with

various updates, or that the MA proponent/developer alone keeps track of the versions. In any case,

the MA proponent should keep in his files a copy of each version of the MR.

The status of the MR at the reference date should be described in the "status" column. Possible status

types include "submitted to the competent authority (CA)", "approved by the CA", "working draft" etc.

Please note that performance monitoring of the GHG Mitigation Actions must always be carried out

in accordance with the latest approved version of the MR design, except in cases where an update of

the MR has already been submitted to the CA and/or is pending approval. And MA proponent is

required to use the latest version of the MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR Design as supported by the

National MRV Framework.

Version

No

Reference

date

Status at reference

date

Chapters where modifications have been made.

Brief explanation of changes

1 30/8/2015 Draft MR design for planning purposes


5

MYGHG Mitigation Action – MR Design Form Ver. 01 (March 2015)

(This GHG mitigation reporting design template is to be cross-referred with the latest Measurement and Reporting (MR) Guidance document for full description of the required information)

A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY

A.1 Summary


Phase I: Waste Diversion from Landfill

Level of assessment

Programme level


Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act, 2007 (Act 672)




Planning


1 September, 2015


Not determined


An estimation of 12,775,700 tonnes of municipal solid waste are received by 101 landfills in Peninsular Malaysia for 2015. Landfilling of waste has given rise to many pressing issues such as expensive land prices, strict environmental regulations health and safety issues, landfill spaces becoming limited, the unwillingness of local communities to accept new technologies and facilities at “their own back yards”, increase in operation cost and potential risk of environmental damage associated with landfilling of wastes. The Solid Waste and Public Corporation Act 2007 which was approved by Parliament on 17th July 2007 and gazetted on 30th August 2007 by vesting executive power to the Federal Government to implement solid waste management and public cleansing. The act also provides power for Federal Government to undertake, manage, operate and


6

carry out solid waste management services or public cleansing. The National Solid Waste Management Department (NSWMD) was created to propose policies, plans, and strategies along with setting standards, specifications and codes of practices and to enforce the law and regulations, set guidelines, monitor and give approval. Empowered to look into the solid waste management in Malaysia, the NSWMD with the cooperation of PEMANDU has proposed an integrated waste facility management to establish the basic infrastructure and treatment facilities for States under Act 672.

The Integrated Solid Waste Management involves a combination of techniques and programs for energy recovery catering for high density population area and this allows additional 30% waste diversion from landfill.

Other related policy/actions (Other policy that may interact with the abovementioned main policy)

A number of policies are in place that aim to encourage re-use and recycling of solid waste. They target on recyclable waste such as paper, glass, metal and plastic waste. a)Renewable Energy Act 2011 is an Act that provides the establishment and implementation of a special tariff system to catalyze the generation of renewable energy. The Feed-in Tariff scheme aim at augmenting the share of RE in the power generation fuel mix from indigenous RE sources. b)National Green Technology Policy 2009: the policy aims in promoting green technology as a driver to accelerate the national economy and enhance sustainable development.




☐Buildings ☒Waste



Domestic


Johor, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Kedah, Perlis, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya


7


8.74 million tonnes CO2 (for 2015-2020)


The current practice of SWM is 90% by direct landfilling, government vision is to establish targeted future operating model for integrated waste facilities to cover basic infrastructure and treatment facilities for States under Act 672 which allow 40% of waste diversion from landfilling.

B. MRV PROPONENT(S)



National Solid Waste Management Department, Ministry of Housing and Local Government


Managing national solid waste management, planning for proper solid waste facilities and collection services, to ensure all the facilities up to date and comply with DOE regulations.


Managing national solid waste management, planning for proper solid waste facilities and collection services, to ensure all the facilities up todate and comply with regulations.

Contact person

Dr Muharrir Kamarudin

Details of contact Tel: 03-88914501 Fax: 03-88913190 Email: [email protected]


Collaborator 1

Name of the Collabortor :

mailto:[email protected]


8

Contact person



Responsibilities



C. MRV DESCRIPTION




Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672)


National Solid Waste Management Department, Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government

Policy brief

Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) was gazetted on 30 August 2007 and enforced on 1 Sept 2007. The Act 672 empowers the federal govt to take over the responsibility of SWM in Malaysia to ensure the uniformity of law relating to the management of solid waste and public cleansing. The Act is administered by the Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government. The main objective of the Act is to provide and regulate the management of controlled solid waste and public cleansing for the purpose of maintaining proper sanitation and for matters incidental thereto. The Act improves and ensures high-quality services in solid waste management In 2007 . Government’s vision is to establish targeted future operating model for waste integrated facilities that cover basic infrastructure and treatment facilities for States under Act 672.

Current level of acceptance or compliance

7 states namely Johor, Melaka, NS, Pahang, Kedah, Perlis, WP KL and Putrajaya adopted the policy.


http://jpspn.kpkt.gov.my/



9



Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 ( Act 672), 2007


Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government

Regulation brief The Government has made it mandatory to separate solid waste at source beginning 1 September 2015. The Act is adopted by 7 states namely Johor, Melaka, NS, Pahang, Kedah, Perlis, WP KL and Putrajaya. The process of separating solid waste at source involves separating solid waste according to waste composition such as recyclable waste, residual waste and bulky/garden waste. The separated wastes will be collected every week according on fixed schedules. 2+1 collection system is implemented whereby the collection for residual waste will be done twice a week while the collection for recyclable waste and bulky waste will be done once a week.

The Act 672 adopts the best management practices in solid waste management in Malaysia. The main strategies are to implement efficient solid waste management, interim treatment and the final disposal of solid waste. Current practice of solid waste management is 90% by landfilling. The vision of government for sustainable solid waste management is to establish targeted future operating model for waste integrated facilities to cover basic infrastructure and treatment facilities which is to allow 40% of waste diversion from landfill.


Enforcement on waste separation at source is to be implemented at stages. Diversion of waste from landfill is associated with a broad range ofl issues including public opposition to incineration operation.However, the potential benefits of waste recovery opportunities further up the waste hierarchy.






10


ENERGY

a) Fuel Combustion Activities: Choose an item.

b) Fugitive Emissions from Fuels: Choose an item.







f) Product uses as substitutes for ozone depleting substances: Choose an item.







WASTE

☒Solid waste disposal ☐Biological treatment of solid waste



OTHER



Johor, Melaka, NS, Pahang, Kedah, Perlis, WP KL and Putrajaya

(Provide GHG assessment period)

GHG assessment period shall start from 1 Jan 2015 for estimation of baseline scenario and ex-ante policy/action scenario.






☐Natural gas system, CO2,CH4 ☒Landfills/biodigester, CH4


11

☐Electrical transmission and distribution, SF6

☐Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, HFCs

☐Agricultural soil management, CO2, N2O

☐Forest and other land use, CO2,CH4, N2O




List the target beneficiaries consumers – domestic or industrial or commercial, project developers Waste generators, waste operators, waste recycler and waste facilities’ operators.

Provide quantitative assessment of the size of the beneficiaries under the MRV:

Inclusion Criteria

List the criteria likely to be followed for including any beneficiary situated in the MRV boundary to join NAMA e.g. size of the activity (MWe o MWth), current efficiency levels, technology etc.,



Emissions Data Set

Limitations :

i. Average data for solid waste characteristics in 2005 was used to generate the BAU.

ii. Limited historical data for methane gas recovery from landfills.


Provide details of the past emissions and trend for the sector / sub-sector under the MRV National communications (NC1 and 2)


Provide a brief analysis of the agents that are influencing the emission developments Top down models focus

BAU scenario

List the major assumptions and the future outlook (projections) of GHG emission levels / development pattern in the sector / sub-sector under the MR in the BAU scenario


12

The baseline scenario is assumed to be the continuation of waste to landfill, dependent on waste generated per day. Different types of waste generated, different types and quantities of greenhouse gases. Depending on the type of waste, the following greenhouse gases may be generated:

• CH4 (from decomposition of biogenic materials in landfill)

To estimate baseline GHG emissions from landfill, the emissions estimation method based on total waste going to landfill and emission factors for each disposal: Methane production of landfill (tonne CH4 emitted in year) =[∑ CH4 generated x,T –RT]. (1-OXT) which; T = inventory year, x =waste category, RT = recovered CH4 in year T, tonne, OXT = oxidation factor (source from IPCC 2006) (Total GHG emission for Baseline scenario CO2e = ∑ GHGi x GWPi


C.4 Barriers


Barriers


i. Lack of knowledge in GHG calculation ii. Lack of funding to conduct baseline study





13

Proposed Activities



Date of Start

Date of Completion

Waste separation at source, collection of recyclables and pre treatment of waste.

Reduction in the quantity of waste landfilled, leading to reduce GHG emissions from landfilling

1 Sept 2015 -





Year Emission reductions (ton/year)

2015 739,146.56

2016 1,271,900.73

2017 1,500,671.44

2018 1,599,177.91

2019 1,712,215.76

2020 1,917,119.84

Total 8,740,232.24




Environmental

The activity will generate several benefits for country’s solid waste management sustainable development, which have been identified qualitatively, but to date no quantitative estimates:

i. Reduction in GHG emissions as less waste going to landfill

ii. Reduction in emissions of particulate matter that will result from fewer miles travelled to disposed the waste


14

(the integrated solid waste facility is built within 30km distance of transfer station)

Economic (optional)

Job creation and urban development associated with new waste management installations

Societal (optional)

Improve quality of life through effectiveness solid waste management as reduce points of pollution (water and air) by better monitoring and enforcement

Others (optional)

Reduce land requirement for new landfill site.



Provide a brief summary of MRV concept and approach for the proposed activities under the mitigation actions/strategies. (Create hyperlink to the completed MR plan excel sheet)

Measuring


i. Methane production from landfill ii. Waste characteristics


Reporting






15




Excel sheet Ex-ante Calculation (ver.1 (30/8/2015)



Annex I

Title

Annex II

Title

Annex III

Title


16

Additional information to the MR Design (The step by step processes undertaken by the MA developer to identify the GHG effects of the

mitigation action prior to filling up of the abovementioned MR Design Form. This additional

information is pre-requisite for the approval of the submitted MR Design Form by the appointed

Competent Authority (CA))

A wide range of low carbon options are available to mitigate GHG emissions from waste sector, these technologies can directly reduce GHG emissions, for example through landfill gas recovery, improved landfill practices and engineered wastewater management; or avoid GHG generation for example through controlled composting of organic wastes, state–of-the- art incineration and landfill coverage. In addition, waste minimisation, recycling and reuse can indirectly reduce GHG emissions through the conservation of raw materials, improved energy and resource efficiency. The activity of waste diversion from landfill supports the framework for sustainable Solid Waste Management in Malaysia under the Act 672 and government’s aspiration to divert 40% of waste from landfill by 2020 which aims at 5.8 million tonnes of CO2 reduction by 2020 (as projected by PEMANDU). The Mitigation Action (MA) is currently under planning and yet to be implemented and the MA proponent would want to estimate the GHG effects based on business as usual and expected effects in the future (ex-ante assessment).

1. Identifying Effects and Mapping the causal chain

1.1 Identifying potential GHG effects of the policy and action Table 1.1 : Summary of inputs, activities and effects for Waste Diversion from Landfill activity

Indicator Types Activities

Inputs Planning and investment into integrated waste facilities and recycling activities

Activities i. Waste diversion from landfill to the integrated waste facility for energy recovery of predefined capacities for high density population

ii. Safe closure of open landfills to mitigate direct methane emission and illegal disposal of wastes

Intermediate effects i. Changes in the amount of waste landfilled ii. Increase in the amount of waste combusted and energy

(electricity, heat) generated from combustion iii. Revenue generated by recycling and recovery operations

GHG Effects i. Reduction in emissions (predominately methane ) from landfill ii. Increase in emissions (CO2e) from integrated waste facility


17

iii. Reduced GHG emission from displaced fossil based electricity at grid

iv. Increase GHG emission from mobile source

Non-GHG effects i. Job creation and urban development associated with new waste management installations

ii. Improve quality of life through effectiveness solid waste management as reduce points of pollution (water and air) by better monitoring and enforcement

iii. Reduced soil, water and air pollution associated with reduced

landfill operations

Note : Quantitative information may not be available for all elements identified in the table at the point of assessment and not all elements are relevant for the determination of the causal chain. However, creating a comprehensive list is to provide support for further identification of effects.

Table 1.2 Illustrative of various effects for the Waste Diversion from Landfill

Type of effect Effect

Intended effect Reduction in the quantity of waste landfilled, leading to reduced GHG emissions from landfilling

Increase in incineration of waste with energy recovery displacing fuel based grid electricity

Reduced emissions from transportation due to shorter distance of travelling as the integrated waste facility will be located within 30km from transfer station

Reduced GHG emission from methane avoidance at landfill

Unintended effect Increased emissions from composting, AD and energy recovery related operations from the integrated waste facilities.

In-jurisdiction effect Landfill void space used at a slower rate thus reducing the need for additional future landfill facilities

Long-term effect Increased investment in waste infrastructure (integrated waste facility )


18

2.0 Identify source/sink categories and greenhouse gases associated with GHG effects

Only intended effects from Table 1.2 was considered significant for further evaluation of the source or sinks and determination of relevant greenhouse gases due to the mitigation action. Table 2.1 : Sources/sinks and greenhouse gases affected by the Waste Diversion from Landfill

Potential GHG effects (intended effects of the MA)

Source/sink category

Description Relevant greenhouse gases (to refer to Part C2.3 of MR design template)

Reduced GHG emissions due to capturing of methane

Landfill Anaerobic degradation of organic waste which leads to methane emission. Installation of methane capturing and/or destruction system.

CH4

Reduced GHG emissions from landfilling

Landfill Less waste disposed at landfill due to diversion to other integrated waste facility

CH4

Reduced GHG emissions from operation of fossil-based power plant.

Power plant Stationary fossil fuel combustion

CO2, CH4, N2O

Reduced GHG emissions from the production of fossil-based fuels.

Transport Mobile fossil fuel combustion CO2, CH4, N2O

3. Causal Chain Map of Integrated Waste Facilities for Solid Waste Management

Planning and investment into Waste Facility

Safe closure of landfill

Use of energy recovered for operational

Installation methane capturing

system

Recovery of recyclables materials

Reduce methane

emission at landfill

Increase economic

growth

Reduce of GHG emission from

landfill Integrated

Facility

Increase revenue from

selling of recyclables

Reduce GHG emission at grid

Reduce energy consumption

from grid

Increase profit margin

Reduce fossil based fuel

consumption from power plant

Increase RE exported to

grid

Reduce GHG emission in fossil based operating

power plant

Energy recovery from

integrated waste facility

Waste Diversion from

Landfill

Less waste disposed at

landfill

Action

Intermediate

GHG effects

Non-GHG effects

Increase transportation

to different waste facility

sites

Increase fossil-fuel

combustion from transport

Increase GHG emission from

fuel combustion from mobile

source

3.1 Mapping actions that target the same emission source Table 3.1 :Mapping Actions that target the same emission source

Policy /Actions Assessed

Targeted emission source

Actions targeting the same source

Degree of impacts

Rationale

Planning and investment of Waste Facility

Methane generation in landfill

Waste diversion from landfill

Major Divert more recyclable waste to manage waste treatment which reduce the amount of fugitive methane and may reduce GHG emission.

Installation of methane capturing system

Major Reduce the amount of fugitive methane emission; resulting to reduce GHG emission.

4. Defining the GHG assessment boundary Waste diversion from landfill is likely to change the amount of wastes sent to landfills. In general, reduced landfill methane generation, avoided grid connected fossil based electricity generation, increased fossil based transportation fuel are likely to be the mostly significant common effects in the sector. However, due to data constraints, only GHG effects due to waste diversion from landfill and methane destruction were considered under the assessment boundary. Transportation of wastes are not included in this study due to insufficient data submitted to JPSPN. Especially the private waste carrier whom doesn’t disclose their data for example wastes from hotels and industries are managed independently. Transportation effects are generally not significant, although long –haul transport, particularly by truck, warrants some review and estimation, depending on the specific local circumstances. Short-term effects from the construction of the facilities, including landfills and integrated waste facility are unlikely to be significant relative to the operation of the facilities. Table 4.1 : Assessment of each GHG effect separately by gas to determine GHG effects and green house gases to include in the GHG assessment boundary for waste diversion from landfill

GHG Effect Likelyhood Relative magnitude Included/Excluded

Reduced emissions from landfills (diversion to integrated waste facilities)

CH4 Very likely Major Included*

Reduced GHG emission from landfills( methane capturing system)

CH4 Very likely Major Excluded

Increased GHG emission due to mobile fossil combustion (transport of wastes)

CO2 Likely Minor Excluded

CH4 Likely Minor Excluded

N2O Likely Minor Excluded Reduced GHG emission due to displaced electricity from fossil based operating power plants

CO2 Very likely Minor Excluded

CH4 Possible Minor Excluded

N2O Possible Minor Excluded


21

Table 4.2 : List of GHG effects, GHG sources and sinks and greenhouse gases included in the GHG assessment boundary for Waste Diversion from Landfill

GHG effect GHG sources GHG sinks Greenhouse gases

Reduced emissions from landfills (diversion to integrated facilities)

Landfills N/A CH4


Landfills N/A CH4

5. Estimating Baseline Scenario The baseline scenario is assumed to be the continuation of disposal of co-mingled waste to landfill, dependent on waste generated per day. Different types of waste disposed would emit different types and quantities of greenhouse gases. Data requirements include; Table 5.1 : Sources of data for developing assumptions

Data requirement Sources of data for developing assumptions

Waste composition Local, regional or national waste characterization data input/output analyses

Tons of waste generated National regulatory agency; JPSPN and SWCorp.

Tons of material recycled Local or national regulatory agency

Data of waste disposition based on actual receipts from receiving facilities is the most reliable, many of other data may be obtained from published sources or through the use of life cycle tools. 5.1. Defining the emissions estimation method (s) and parameters needed to calculate the baseline emissions To estimate baseline GHG emissions from landfill, the emissions estimation method based on total waste going to landfill and emission factors for each disposal Methane emissions (Gg in year) =[∑ CH4 generated x,T –RT]. (1-OXT) or Methane emissions (Gg/yr) = (MSWT . MSWF . MCF. DOC.DOCF . F . 16/12) (1-Ox) (source from IPCC 2006) Total GHG emission for Baseline scenario CO2e = ∑ GHGi x GWPi Which: T = inventory year, x =waste category,


22

MSWT =total MSW generated (Gg/yr) MSWF =fraction of MSW disposed to solid waste disposal sites MCF =methane correction factor DOC =degradable organic carbon (fraction) (kgC/kg SW) DOCF =fraction DOC dissimilated F =fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is 0.5) 16/12 =conversion of C to CH4 R =recovered CH4 Ox =oxidation factor (fraction –IPCC 2006 is 0 )

5.2 Estimating GHG Effects Ex –Ante In the waste management sector, many of the data requirements for ex-ante assessments will be similar to those required for the baseline. However, it is estimated that the recycling rate will be increased gradually from 10 % in 2015 to 21% by 2020 and these wastes will be diverted from landfill. It also assumed that 60% of annual co-mingled waste is disposed in sanitary landfill with installed methane capturing system and then destroyed via flaring the LFG.

Emission reductions calculation based on CDM ACM0001 methodology:

The emission reductions are calculated using the following formula:

ERy = (MDproject,y – MDBL,y) x GWPCH4 - PEy

Where

MDproject,y is the amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the year y, in tons of methane (tCH4) in project scenario.

i.e. MDproject,y = (LFGflare x wCH4 x DCH4) – (PEflare,y/GWPCH4) MDBL,y is the amount of methane that would have been destroyed/combusted during the

year y in the absence of the project due to regulatory and/or contractual requirement, in tons of methane (tCH4) i.e. MDBL,y = MDproject,y x AF since AF=0, where there are no regulatory requirements relating to landfill gas (LFG) projects,

Therefore, MDBL,y = 0

Calculation for project emissions

According to ACM0001 (version 8), the project emissions include emissions due to i) combustion of auxiliary fuel to supplement waste gas and ii) consumption of electricity by the project activity. For illustration purpose of the policy/action activities and to simplify the methodology, project emissions resulting from electricity consumption or combustion of fuels is not considered.


23

For ex-ante assessment, the methane destruction efficiency of the flare (flare efficiency PEflare) was limited to a 90% flare efficiency (FE), given by the Tool -To determine project emissions from flaring gases containing methane. It also assumed that for the phase year from 2015 to 2020, LFG is flared only:

MDproject,y = MDflared,y = BEy * Rr * FE Whereby Recovery rate Rr = 75%. The default capture efficiency of methane system is set to 75% taking into consideration of layers of top covering of landfill. Table 5.2 : Estimation of Ex-Ante Baseline Scenario and Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario for waste diverted from landfill

In conclusion,

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Ex-ante Baseline Scenario 3,123,549.55 3,279,727.03 3,464,101.32 3,615,899.05 3,796,694.01 3,986,528.71 21,266,499.67

Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario 3,123,549.55 3,272,863.87 3,288,939.75 3,389,447.30 3,503,324.79 3,477,998.10 20,056,123.36

Emission reduction (tonCO2e) - 6,863.16 175,161.57 226,451.75 293,369.22 508,530.61 1,210,376.31

Reduced emissions from landfills (diversion to integrated waste facilities) Cummulative

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Cum. Ex-ante Baseline Scenario 3,123,549.55 6,403,276.59 9,867,377.91 13,483,276.96 17,279,970.97 21,266,499.67

Cum. Ex-Ante Policy/Action

Scenario 2,384,402.99 4,392,229.30 6,355,659.18 8,372,380.32 10,456,858.57 12,526,267.44

Cummulative ER (tonCO2e) 739,146.56 2,011,047.29 3,511,718.73 5,110,896.64 6,823,112.40 8,740,232.24

Total Reduction of emission from waste diverted to integrated waste facility and methane destruction via flaring at landfills


24

The estimated GHG emission reduction of the mitigation action of Waste Diversion From Landfill (2015-2020)

6. Monitoring of Performance Indicator Monitoring performance indicators can be achieved through measuring (estimating) activity with and without policy. The key indicators for monitoring shall include; Table 6.1 Key indicators for monitoring

Indicator Description

Activity Indicator Tons of MSW managed at landfill and other integrated waste facilities

Intermediate effect indicators

Waste generation (tons)

Waste composition

Landfill diversion rate

GHG Effects GHG reduction per landfill

Non GHG effects Cost savings achieved

Appendix I B

EX-ANTE EMISSION REDUCTION CALCULATION SHEET

1

(a)

(b) Title of Mitigation Action

(c) Main policy/action in assessment

(c) Type of policy/action

(d)

2

(a) Primary contact: Title:

First Name:

Surname:

Job title:

Tel. no:

Email:

(b) Alternative contact: Title:

First Name:

Surname:

Job title:

Organisation name if different from implementing entity

Tel. no:

Email:

Mitigation Action Proponent National Solid Waste Management Department

Waste Diversion From Landfill

Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act,

2007 (Act 672)

Regulation and standard

Actual version number of ER

calculation sheet with reference

date

<<< Click here to proceed to next sheet >>>

603-88914550

[email protected]

Mitigation action programme

Dr.

Muharir

Kamarudin

Contact details

1 ( 30/08/2015)


Version

no

Reference

date

Brief description of changes

1 30/8/2015 Submitted together with MR Design Form version 1

Please note that performance monitoring of the GHG Mitigation Actions must

always be carried out in accordance with the latest approved version of the MR

design, except in cases where an update of the MR has already been submitted

to the CA and/or is pending approval. And MA proponent is required to use the

latest version of the MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR Design as supported by the


Depending on the requirements of the National MRV framework, it is possible

that the document is exchanged between competent authority (CA) and

mitigation action (MA) proponent/developer with various updates, or that the MA

proponent/developer alone keeps track of the versions. In any case, the MA

proponent should keep in his files a copy of each version of the ER calculation.

This sheet is used for tracking the actual version of the MYGHG Mitigation

Action-Emission Reduction (Ex-ante) calculation. Each version of the ER should

have a unique version number, and a reference date.

Emission reduction calculation sheet versions

Estimation of Ex-ante baseline scenario and Ex-ante Policy/Action scenario for waste diverted from landfill

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario 3,123,549.55 3,272,863.87 3,288,939.75 3,389,447.30 3,503,324.79 3,477,998.10 20,056,123.36

Emission reduction (tonCO2e) - 6,863.16 175,161.57 226,451.75 293,369.22 508,530.61 1,210,376.31

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


Cum. Ex-Ante Policy Scenario 3,123,549.55 6,396,413.43 9,685,353.18 13,074,800.48 16,578,125.27 20,056,123.36

Emission reduction (tonCO2e) - 6,863.16 182,024.73 408,476.48 701,845.70 1,210,376.31

Reduced emissions from landfills (diversion to integrated waste facilities) Cummulative

Cummulative emission reductions from landfills (diversion to integrated waste facilities)

-

5,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

20,000,000.00

25,000,000.00

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Cu

mm

ula

tive

Em

issi

on

(to

n C

O2

e)

Cum. Ex-ante Baseline Scenario Cum. Ex-Ante Policy Scenario

Estimation of emission reduction due to waste diverted from landfill and methane captured and flared at landfill

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario 2,384,402.99 2,007,826.30 1,963,429.88 2,016,721.14 2,084,478.25 2,069,408.87 12,526,267.44 Emission reduction (tonCO2e) 739,146.56 1,271,900.73 1,500,671.44 1,599,177.91 1,712,215.76 1,917,119.84 8,740,232.24

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


Cum. Ex-Ante Policy/Action

Scenario 2,384,402.99 4,392,229.30 6,355,659.18 8,372,380.32 10,456,858.57 12,526,267.44

Cummulative ER (tonCO2e) 739,146.56 2,011,047.29 3,511,718.73 5,110,896.64 6,823,112.40 8,740,232.24

Total Reduction of emission from waste diverted to integrated waste facility and methane destruction via flaring at landfills

Reduced emissions from landfills due to waste diversion and methane destruction Cummulative

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Cu

mm

ula

tive

GH

G e

mis

sio

n (

ton

CO

2e)

Cum. Ex-ante Baseline Scenario Cum. Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario

T

Net GHG ER= 8,740,232 tonne CO2e

Methodology;

* National survey of waste composition in 2012

Food waste 44.5

Paper 8.5

Tetrapek 1.6

Textile 3.1

Rubber 1.8

Wood 1.4

Yard 5.8

Napkins 12.1

Plastic mix 13

Leather 0.4

Metal 2.7

Glass 3.3

Others 1.8

2005 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KL 22.95 24.37 25.59 27.69 28.21 29.63 31.11

Johor 25.56 34.11 35.82 37.61 39.49 41.46 43.53

Melaka 5.43 15.37 16.13 16.94 17.79 18.68 19.61

NS 5.84 21.14 22.20 23.31 24.47 25.70 26.98

Pahang 5.43 8.97 9.42 9.89 10.39 10.90 11.45

Perlis 0.37 3.39 3.56 3.74 3.93 4.12 4.33

Kedah 7.42 17.59 18.47 19.39 20.36 21.38 22.45

73.00 124.94 131.19 138.56 144.64 151.87 159.46

State

Gg CH4

Deg

rad

ab

le c

om

pon

en

t

Non

-

de

gra

dab

le

com

pon

en

t

Ex-ante Baseline Scenario

Components in %

Methane emissions (Gg in year) =[∑ CH4 generated x,T –RT]. (1-OXT) or Methane emissions (Gg/yr) = (MSWT . MSWF . MCF. DOC.DOCF . F . 16/12) (1-Ox) (source from IPCC 2006) Total GHG emission for Baseline scenario CO2e = ∑ GHGi x GWPi Which: T = inventory year, x =waste category, MSWT =total MSW generated (Gg/yr) MSWF =fraction of MSW disposed to solid waste disposal sites MCF =methane correction factor DOC =degradable organic carbon (fraction) (kgC/kg SW) DOCF =fraction DOC dissimilated F =fraction of CH4 in landfill gas (IPCC default is 0.5) 16/12 =conversion of C to CH4 R =recovered CH4 Ox =oxidation factor (fraction –IPCC 2006 is 0 )

2005 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KL 22.95 24.37 25.02 25.66 26.31 26.96 24.47

Johor 25.56 34.11 35.01 35.92 36.82 37.73 38.64

Melaka 5.43 15.37 15.77 16.18 16.59 18.20 17.41

NS 5.84 21.14 21.70 22.26 23.52 24.10 23.95

Pahang 5.43 8.97 9.21 9.45 9.68 9.92 10.88

Perlis 0.37 3.39 3.48 3.57 3.66 3.75 3.84

Kedah 7.42 17.59 20.73 18.52 18.99 19.46 19.93

73.00 124.94 130.91 131.56 135.58 140.13 139.12

Summary;

Estimation of GHG Emission from Landfill (waste diverted to integrated facilities)

2005 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KL 573,681.71 609,319.07 639,785.02 692,162.21 705,362.99 740,631.14 777,662.69

Johor 639,077.36 852,756.37 895,394.19 940,163.90 987,172.10 1,036,530.70 1,088,357.24

Melaka 135,799.40 384,135.94 403,342.73 423,509.87 444,685.36 466,919.63 490,265.61

NS 145,981.82 528,518.06 554,943.97 582,691.16 611,825.72 642,417.01 674,537.86

Pahang 135,726.82 224,275.87 235,489.66 247,264.15 259,627.35 272,608.72 286,239.16

Perlis 9,283.13 84,774.83 89,013.57 93,464.25 98,137.46 103,044.33 108,196.55

Kedah 185,503.00 439,769.42 461,757.89 484,845.78 509,088.07 534,542.47 561,269.60

1,825,053.24 3,123,549.55 3,279,727.03 3,464,101.32 3,615,899.05 3,796,694.01 3,986,528.71

2005 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

KL 573,681.71 609,319.07 625,407.83 641,582.17 657,810.43 674,057.55 611,644.82

Johor 639,077.36 852,756.37 875,272.97 897,909.34 920,621.17 943,359.40 966,069.91

Melaka 135,799.40 384,135.94 394,278.85 404,475.72 414,706.57 455,111.55 435,179.59

NS 145,981.82 528,518.06 542,473.32 556,502.80 587,895.77 602,416.09 598,747.09

Pahang 135,726.82 224,275.87 230,197.76 236,151.15 242,124.39 248,104.57 272,111.47

Perlis 9,283.13 84,774.83 87,013.26 89,263.61 91,521.45 93,781.92 96,039.63

Kedah 185,503.00 439,769.42 518,219.88 463,054.96 474,767.53 486,493.71 498,205.60

1,825,053.24 3,123,549.55 3,272,863.87 3,288,939.75 3,389,447.30 3,503,324.79 3,477,998.10

KL 4,164,923.13 3,819,821.87

Johor 5,800,374.50 5,455,989.17

Melaka 2,612,859.14 2,487,888.22

NS 3,594,933.78 3,416,553.12

Pahang 1,525,504.91 1,452,965.20

Perlis 576,630.98 542,394.70

Kedah 2,991,273.22 2,880,511.09

TOTAL 21,266,499.67 20,056,123.36

ER ( tonne CO2e) 1,210,376.3 (Yr 2015-2020)

Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario

State

Gg CH4

TOTAL

State Ex-ante

Baseline (tonne

CO2e)

Ex-Ante

Policy/action

(tonne CO2e)

Ex-ante Baseline Scenario

tonne CO2e

Ex-Ante Policy/Action Scenario

tonne CO2e

State

State

Summary


Methane avoidance : ACM0001 methodology

FIXED PARAMETERS Description Value

GWPCH4 Global Warming Potential of Methane 25 tCO2e/tCH4

DCH4 CH4 Density 0.0007168 tCH4/m3

AF Adjustment factor 0%

Rr 75%

FE 90%

Assumption: 1) For illustration purpose and simplicity of the methodology,

project emission (PEEC)due to electricity consumption at landfill site is not

considered in the calculation

2) It is assumed 6 sanitary landfills are in operation with annual

disposal of 2,299,500 tonnes of waste and the captured LFG are flared off only.

The percentage of waste disposed in sanitary landfill over the total landfillin the 6 States is about 60%.

3) The baseline emission BE,y is the emission from landfill receiving the waste

( residual of waste other than those diverted to integrated facility under the activities of the policy/action). Hence, the methane collected is from the ex-ante PE of waste diverted.

Recovery rate

Flare efficiency

MDcollected

(tCH4)

MDproject

(tCH4)

MDBL

(tCH4)

PEEC

(tCO2e) Leakage

Emission reductions from

methane destruction

(tCO2e)

MDcollected,y=

BEy*Rr

MDproject,y =

MDflared,y = BEy

* Rr * FE

MDBL = MDproject * AF

PEEC = ECPJ *

EFEL *

(1+TDL)

N/AER = (MDproject - MDBL) *

GWPCH4 - PEEC

2015 32,850.96 29,565.86 0.00 - - 739,146.56

2016 56,223.89 50,601.50 0.00 - - 1,265,037.57

2017 58,911.55 53,020.39 0.00 - - 1,325,509.87 2018 61,010.05 54,909.05 0.00 - - 1,372,726.16

2019 63,059.85 56,753.86 0.00 - - 1,418,846.54

2020 62,603.97 56,343.57 0.00 - - 1,408,589.23

334,660.26 301,194.24 0.00 - - 7,529,855.92

FROM

Ex ante EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Appendix II A

Sustainable Energy Development Authority Galeria PjH, Level 9, Jalan P4W, Persiaran Perdana, Precinct 4, 62100 Putrajaya, Malaysia

MYGHG Mitigation Action- MR Design Form FEED-IN TARIFF MECHANISM IN MALAYSIA (VER.4)


Table of Contents List of MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR versions ..................................................................................... 3

A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY ................................................................................... 4

B. MA PROPONENT(S) ......................................................................................................................... 5

C. MR DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 7

D. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND ANNEX ............................................................................ 13

Additional information to the MR Design ........................................................................................... 14







various updates, or that the MA proponent/developer alone keeps track of the versions. In any case,

the MA proponent should keep in his files a copy of each version of the MR.



Please note that performance monitoring of the GHG Mitigation Actions must always be carried out

in accordance with the latest approved version of the MR design, except in cases where an update of

the MR has already been submitted to the CA and/or is pending approval. And MA proponent is

required to use the latest version of the MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR Design as supported by the


Version

No

Reference

date

Status at reference

date



1 30/8/2015 submitted to

competent authority

New MR design for meeting the requirements of the

MR Guideline.

2 19/9/2015 returned with

remarks

CA has entered some corrections for GHG Emission

Reduction as calculated in the accompanying ER

calculation sheet version 1 ( 30/8/2015)

Some procedures in Column C should be improved

before re-submission.


competent authority

MR Design updated according to CA's suggestions

together with ER calculation sheet version 2

(6/10/2015)

4 10/11/2015 approved by

competent authority

Approved without further changes. MA Proponent

has received paper copy together with the updated

permit for ensuring authentic content of the MR

Design file returned electronically.


MYGHG Mitigation Action – MR Design Form Ver. 01 (March 2015) (This GHG mitigation reporting design template is to be cross-referred with the latest Measurement and Reporting (MR) Guidance document for full description of the required information) A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY

A.1 Summary


Feed-in Tariff Mechanism in Malaysia

Level of assessment

Programme level


National Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan




Implemented


1 December, 2011


31 December, 2041


The mitigation action provides a legal framework for Distribution Licensee (DL) to purchase electricity generated from renewable sources by the Feed-in Approval Holders (FiAHs)- individuals/companies that hold feed-in approval certificates issued by SEDA. This is at a respective set of FiT rates and for a specific duration (i.e 16 or 21 years). The FiT mechanism is financed by the RE fund which is collected from electricity consumer at 1 and 1.6% in 2011 and 2014, respectively. All annual CO2 data is calculated from actual recovery of monies submitted monthly by Distribution Licensee to SEDA. Emission reduction is calculated with respect to the annual baseline e.g. for 2012, the CO2 conversion factors are calculated as 0.741 and 0.546 tCO2/MWh for Peninsular and Sabah/Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan, respectively based on the fuel mix used for power generation as reported in the National Energy Balance for the year 2012.


National Policy on Climate Change (2009), National Green Technology Policy (2009), The Solid Waste Management And Public Cleansing Act 2007



☒Energy ☐Forestry


☐Buildings ☒Waste



Domestic


National except Sarawak


130.414 (MtCO2)


Under the FiT mechanism, DLs are obliged to purchase electricity at a premium fixed rate and at specific duration from approved individuals or companies that hold the FiA certificate issued by SEDA. The FiT mechanism is financed by RE fund and only renewable sources such as biogas (agroindustrial waste and landfill gas), biomass (agrowaste and municipal solid waste) small hydropower, solar photovoltaic and geothermal are eligible under the FiT scheme. And these renewable sources must not be imported from other countries. Electricity customer will pay electricity bill to the DLs and 1% (2011) to 1.6% (2014 onwards) of the electricity revenue is channeled from DL to RE fund managed by SEDA. DL will make payment to the FiAHs and later claims the FiT payment from RE fund managed by SEDA.

B. MA PROPONENT(S)

B.1 Information of MA Proponents (Provide details of each MA proponent separately by copying this Section B.)

MA Coordinating and Managing Entity

Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) Malaysia Galeria PjH, Level 9, Jalan P4W, Persiaran Perdana, Precinct 4, 62100 Putrajaya, Malaysia


The key role of SEDA is to administer and manage the implementation of the feed-in tariff mechanism as mandated under the Renewable Energy Act 2011.

Domain activities, skills and expertise

SEDA has all the functions conferred on it under the Renewable Energy Act 2011, any other sustainable energy laws as well as the following


(e.g. major activity / business of agency / institution/organisation, and current skills and experience with specific reference to the proposed mitigation action, motivation / rationale for leading the MRV )

functions with specific reference to the proposed FiT mechanism: • To implement, manage, monitor and review the feed-in tariff system including to carry out investigations, collect, record and maintain data, information and statistics concerning the feed-in tariff system, and to provide such data information and statistics to the Minister of MEGTW; • To implement sustainable energy laws and to recommend reform to such laws to the Federal Government; • To promote private sector investment in the sustainable energy sector including to recommend to the relevant Government Entities incentives in relation to taxes, customs and excise duties and other fiscal incentives applicable to such investment; • To carry out or arrange for the conduct of researches, assessments, studies and advisory services, collate, analyse and publish information, statistics and factors influencing or relevant to the development of sustainable energy and to disseminate such relevant information, statistics and factors to Government Entities, the public and investors or potential investors investing in sustainable energy; • To act as a focal point to assist the Minister on: matters relating to sustainable energy and climate change matters relating to energy

Contact person

Ms Catherine Ridu

Details of contact Tel: +603-8870 5801 Fax: +603-8870 5900 Email: [email protected]

B.2 MA Collaborator(s) (Provide details of the agencies / institutions collaborating with MA proponent(s) in MR design, development, implementation and financing (domestic institutions or international Donor)

Collaborator 1

Name of the Collaborator :

Contact person




Responsibilities



C. MR DESCRIPTION

C.1 Policies and Regulations (Provide an overview of the prevailing policies and regulations in the sector chosen for the MR)



National Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan 2010


Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water

Policy brief

The policy strives to enhance the utilization of indigenous RE resources and contribute towards national electricity supply security and sustainable socio economic development.


http://www.seda.gov.my



Renewable Energy Act 2011


SEDA

Regulation brief The Renewable Act 2011 provides for the establishment and implementation of a special tariff system to catalyze the generation of RE ushering in the Feed In Tariff scheme aimed at augmenting the share of RE in the power generation fuel mix from indigenous RE sources.


http://www.seda.gov.my



ENERGY

a) Fuel Combustion Activities: Energy

Industries b) Fugitive Emissions from Fuels: Choose

an item.

c) Carbon dioxide transport and storage:

http://www.seda.gov.my/

http://www.seda.gov.my/


Choose an item.


i. Mineral Industry: Choose an item. ii. Chemical Industry: Choose an item.

iii. Metal Industry: Choose an item.

iv. Non-energy products from fuels and solvents use: Choose an item.

v. Electronics Industry: Choose an item.

vi. Product uses as substitutes for ozone depleting substances: Choose an item.

vii. Other product manufacture and use: Choose an item.

viii. Other: Choose an item.





WASTE


☐Incineration and open burning of waste ☒Wastewater treatment and discharge


OTHER



National, except Sarawak


2012 to 2041

C.2.3 GHG Emissions & Sources (Identify the major sources of GHG emissions/sink and the GHG targeted in the MR)


☒Stationary fossil fuel combustion, CO2,CH4, N2O



☐Natural gas system, CO2,CH4 ☒Landfills/Biodigester, CH4



☐Others




List the target beneficiaries e.g. manufacturers, consumers – domestic or industrial or commercial, project developers

i. FiAHs and recognized local manufacturer/assembler ( i.e.

Solar PV, Biodigester etc.) ii. Recognized registered PV service providers


Provide quantitative assessment of the size of the beneficiaries under the MR.

Refer to SEDA portal.

Inclusion Criteria

List the criteria likely to be followed for including any beneficiary situated in the MR boundary to join domestic MA e.g. size of the activity (MWe o MWth), current efficiency levels, technology etc.,

In order to be entitled to sell renewable energy at the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) rate, a Feed-in Approval (FiA) will have to be applied to and granted by SEDA Malaysia. Refer to the latest edition of the “Guidelines And Determinations Of The Sustainable Energy Development Authority Malaysia” in SEDA portal for application procedure and other related criteria. Efficiency level is measured and bonus provided when it is above the certain value. More information required on the technology level employed. Planning underway to list out the type of equipment, brand capacity and size and installed unit. This will help to understand whether conventional or the state of art technology is being used for new project development.



Emissions Data Set


i. Actual data energy generation is from DLs retrieved from E-

FiT system (primary source data). ii. National study on grid connected electricity baselines in

Malaysia. (MGTC)



National communication NC1 and NC2 and BUR for Energy Sector- power generation emission




Refer to NCs document.

BAU scenario

List the major assumptions and the future outlook (projections) of GHG emission levels / development pattern in the sector / sub-sector under the MR in the BAU scenario

The scenario method is expected to be common for the energy supply sector since it can be difficult to identify a suitable control group considering most jurisdictions are distinct from the others in terms of energy potential, consumption patterns, and distribution infrastructure. In the absence of the FiT mechanism, it is most likely Malaysia will still continue to produce electricity from fossil based fuels as it unsustainable to leverage on the market forces to deliver the intended outcomes towards RE electricity generation for supply to the grid.


Other Policy/actions implement in the baseline are:

i. Pioneer tax incentives for companies in areas such as energy conservation and generation and renewable energy

ii. Tax exemption on renewable power plant equipment parts

iii. National Green Technology Policy (2009) The promotion of green technology as a driver to accelerate the national economy and enhance sustainable development.

iv. National Policy on Climate Change (2009)- The policy aims mainstreaming climate change through wise management of resources and enhanced environmental conservation resulting in strengthened economic competitiveness and improved quality of life.

v. The Solid Waste Management And Public Cleansing Act 2007

vi. Palm Oil NKEA EPP 5- Developing biogas at palm oil mill. The initiative is targeted at palm oil mills in the country to implement biogas capturing projects by 2020.

C.4 Barriers


Barriers

Provide a brief summary of the barriers faced by the sector / sub-sector for achieving GHG emission reductions. Typical barriers relate to technology, investment, economic viability, lack of knowledge / skills/ training /


experience, regulatory, historical failures. The guidance for various barriers can be referred from CDM (http://cdm.unfccc.int/)

i. Well-designed FIT policy requires a significant up-front

administrative commitment to design the policy and to establish FIT payments based on the levelized cost of renewable energy generation. Detailed analyses on technology cost and resource quality are needed to ensure FIT payments are adequate to guarantee cost recovery without leading to windfall profits.

ii. FIT policy is designed not to include guaranteed grid interconnection. Example is for biogas (POME treatment) projects sited far from load centers or transmission or distribution lines and hence, interconnection costs can increase especially to the project developer. Therefore, there should be some sharing of costs of grid connection as to encourage more palm oil mills to export electricity generated to the grid.

iii. Financial constraints in extending the implementation up to 2041 and hence external funding support would be required.

iv. The geothermal implementation is expected to commence in 2017 and hence, technical, legal and financial expertise would be required.


i. The FiT mechanism helps individual and communities the chance to produce their own renewable energy (RE), make profit and help to conserve the environment.

ii. Biogas Project developer would be able utilize the captured biogas for conversion to electricity as the BAU of waste water treatment causes direct emission of large amount of methane to the atmosphere.



Proposed Activities



Date of Start

Date of Completion

(a) Solar PV

Quota issued. FiT effective period

2012 2041

(b) Biogas


2012 2041


(c) Biomass


2012 2041

(d) Minihydro


2012 2041

(e) Geothermal Quota issued. FiT effective period

2017 2038






2012 57,546.62

2013 287,195.78

2014 665,265.38

2015-2041 129,403,683.34

Total 130,413,691.11

Attach the assumptions and detailed emission reductions calculations as relevant.

Refer to ER calculation sheet ver. 3 for detail calculation.(Annex I)



Environmental

List the major environmental benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation actions

The rapid renewable energy development seen in jurisdictions with FIT policies has helped reduce the environmental impacts of electricity generation, while providing valuable air quality and other environmental benefits.

Economic (optional)

List the major economic benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation action

Societal (optional)

List the major social benefits proposed to be achieved in the mitigation action

Others (optional)





Provide a brief summary of MRV concept and approach for the proposed activities under the mitigation actions/strategies.

Measuring


i. Disaggregated metered data on electricity exported to

grid from RE plant/ Actual data energy is from DLs retrieved from E-FiT system (primary source data).

ii. Disaggregated methane avoidance data submitted by biogas FiAHs.


Reporting








Additional information to the MR Design

Provides information in relation to the mitigation action based on step by step process; resulting in identification of GHG effects and the potential ER.



Annex I

ER Calculation sheet (version 3, 10/11/2015)

Annex II

Title


Additional information to the MR Design (The step by step processes undertaken by the MA developer to identify the GHG effects of the

mitigation action prior to filling up of the abovementioned MR Design Form. This additional information

is pre-requisite for the approval of the submitted MR Design Form by the appointed Competent

Authority (CA))

In brief, a Feed-in Tariff (FiT) mechanism is part of a National Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan

that promotes the rapid deployment of renewable energy resources. A FIT offers a guarantee of

payments to renewable energy developers for the electricity they produce. These payments are

generally awarded as long-term contracts set over a period of 16 or 21 years. The current assessment

is to provide evidence mounts about their effectiveness as a mechanism for promoting renewable

energy development and the GHG emission reduction attributed from such mitigation action (MA).

The FiT mechanism is implemented to support all renewable technologies including Solar PV, Biomass,

Biogas, Mini-hydro and Geothermal. It is deployed at national level over a wide geographic area except

in Sarawak.

For the said mitigation action, all potential GHG effects are considered independently in order to

ensure that the assessment is manageable with the available data. It is also to inform the decision

makers on the overall impact of the MA and to continue the implementation up to 2041 with possibility

of some financial support.

The MA is currently under implementation and the MA proponent would want to estimate the GHG

effects to date and expected effects in the future. Hence, this will be a combination of ex-ante and ex-

post assessment.

The MA developer has identified and report all potential GHG effects arising from the implementation

of the FiT programmes and this includes GHG emissions (both increases and decreases) and GHG

removals. These are done through experts’ judgmental experience and literature review. Important

point, all possible intermediate effects and the corresponding GHG effects of the MA had been listed

out to their best knowledge.

Table 1: Summary of inputs, activities, intermediate and GHG effects associated to FiT mechanisms

Indicator

types Definitions FiT mechanism

Inputs Resources that go into

implementing a policy or action Amount of tariff payment

Activities

Activities that are involved in

implementing the policy or action

(undertaken by the authority or

entity that implements the policy or

action)

1. Total number of RE installed facility

under the policy.

2. Total capacity of RE installed facility

under the policy.

3. Pay load factor of the RE installed

facility under the policy.


Intermediate

effects

Changes (e.g., in behavior, technology,

processes, or practices) that result

from the policy or action

1. Total amount of electricity

generated from renewable sources

by the Feed-in Approval Holders

(FiAHs).

2. Increase of electricity bill to end

user as having to pay additional

1.6% to the RE fund.

3. Reduction of amount of fossil based

fuels for power plant.

4. Amount of energy consumed in

homes

GHG effects

Changes in GHG emissions and

removals that result from the policy or

action

1. Reduced GHG emissions from the

operation of fossil-based power

plant.

2. Reduced GHG emissions from the

production of fossil-based fuels.

3. Increased GHG emission from the

manufacturing eg. solar

photovoltaic panel.

4. Reduced GHG emission from

methane avoidance.

5. Reduced GHG emission due to

reduce use of energy at home in

response to increase of energy cost.

6. Leakage GHG emission to other

jurisdiction due to manufacturing

plant of imported RE equipment.

Non-GHG

effects

Changes in relevant environmental,

social, or economic conditions that

result from the policy or action

1. Household disposable income from

energy savings.

2. Reduction of air pollution.

3. Additional income to FiAHs due to

premium FiT payment.

The above listed GHG effects were re-categorised as in Table 2 and the source or sink of the GHG

effects were established (Table 3).

Table 2: Various GHG effects as determined from the FiT mechanisms mitigation action

Description Category GHG Effect

Effects that occur inside the

geopolitical boundary over

In-jurisdiction effect

or

Methane avoidance from biogas digester.


which the implementing

entity has authority, such as

a city boundary or national

boundary, as well as effects

that occur outside of the

geopolitical boundary.

Out-jurisdiction effect Leakage GHG emission to other jurisdiction due to manufacturing plant of imported RE equipment.

Effects that are both nearer

and more distant in time,

based on the amount of time

between implementation of

the policy/action and the

effect.

short term effect or Reduced GHG emissions from fossil-based power plant.

long term effect Reduced GHG emission due to reduce use of energy at home in response to increase of energy cost.

Effects that are both

intentional and

unintentional, based on the

original objectives of the

policy or action.

intended or 1. Reduced GHG emissions from operation fossil-based power plant.

2. Reduced GHG emissions from the production of fossil-based fuels.

3. Reduced GHG emission from methane avoidance

unintended effects 1. Increased GHG emission from the manufacturing eg. solar photovoltaic panel.

2. Reduced GHG emission due to reduce use of energy at home in response to increase of energy cost.

Table 3: The sources of the GHG emission as determined from the FiT mitigation action

Potential GHG effects (intended effects of the MA)

Source/sink categories Greenhouse gases (GHG) targeted (to refer to Part C2.3 of MR design template)


Stationary fossil fuel

combustion in grid-

connected power plants

CO2, CH4, N2O


Extraction and processing of mix fuels from local plant.

CO2, CH4

Reduced GHG emissions due to methane avoidance

Biogas capturing and destruction from wastewater treatment

CH4


Some part of Section C of the MR Design form described the overarching policy which governs the

implementation of the mitigation action (i.e FiT mechanism) and activities leading to the establishment

of baseline.

The causal chain map of the mitigation action was developed to allow relevant stakeholders to

understand in visual terms how the mitigation action leads to changes in emissions. Figure 1 presents

a causal chain of the FiT mechanisms based on the GHG effects identified above.

From Table 3, it has been determined that only intended GHG effects are significant and were further

evaluated. Evaluation were based on the estimated likelihood and relative magnitude of the GHG

effects were able to bring about as the result of the mitigation action. And these will also set the GHG

assessment boundary of the mitigation action.

Table 4: Assessing GHG effects to determine which GHG effects and greenhouse gases to include in

the GHG assessment boundary for the FiT mitigation action

Potential GHG effects

Greenhouse gases(GHG) targeted

Likelihood Relative magnitude

Whether to include or exclude in the GHG assessment boundary


CO2 Very likely Major Included

CH4 Very likely Minor Excluded

N2O Very likely Minor Excluded


CO2 Possible Minor Excluded

CH4 Possible Minor Excluded


CH4 Very likely Major Included

Justification of inclusion/exclusion of GHG effects in the GHG assessment boundary

The Electricity sector involves the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. Carbon

dioxide (CO2) makes up the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions from the sector, but smaller

amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also emitted. These gases are released during

the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, to produce electricity. Malaysia’s

current energy mix of primary energy supply consists of oil (45%), natural gas (42%), coal (11%) and

the rest; hydro and RE.

Figure 1 : Causal chain mapping of Feed-in Tariff

Pollutant Hard coal Brown coal Fuel oil Other oil Gas

CO2 (g/GJ) 94,600 101,000 77,400 74,100 56,100

SO2 (g/GJ) 765 1,361 1,350 228 0.68

NOx (g/GJ) 292 183 195 129 93.3

CO (g/GJ) 89.1 89.1 15.7 15.7 14.5

Non methane organic compounds (g/GJ) 4.92 7.78 3.70 3.24 1.58

Particulate matter (g/GJ) 1,203 3,254 16 1.91 0.1

Flue gas volume total (m3/GJ) 360 444 279 276 272

Note: In 2008, the European Environment Agency (EEA) documented fuel-dependent emission factors based

on actual emissions from power plants in the European Union.

Primary Energy Source in Malaysia (1980-2010)

Source: Sustainable Energy Options for Electric Power Generation in Peninsular Malaysia to 2030, Academy

of Sciences Malaysia (2013)

Based on above facts, CO2 is justified as very likely and considered as major GHG emitted during the

operation of fossil- based power plant in Malaysia (Table 4).

Since 2014, Malaysia is a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products with a deficit of RM1.2bil.

Hence, majority of the fossil fuel consumed in the country is imported. Leakage GHG effects of export

of excess fossil fuels from the country are considered as very unlikely to occur.

The current RE contribution is at less than 1% and the Renewable Energy Act incorporates a FiT scheme

that allows companies and individuals to sell electricity generated from renewables to public utility

companies. As such, RE’s contribution is expected to increase to 9% (about 11 TWh) by 2020 and up to

12% (17 TWh) by 2030.

In the scenario of the production of fossil-based fuels for power plant, the GHG effect will not have a

significant leakage GHG impact since imports of fuel to the country may reduce if RE contribution to


the energy supply is increased. Hence, CO2 emission during the production of fossil fuel for electricity

generation is justified as possible but relatively minor and will not further considered (Table 4).

Although less than 1% of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector come from sulfur

hexafluoride (SF6); an insulating chemical used in electricity transmission and distribution equipment,

but the impact shall not be considered as electricity generated from RE source would be transported

on the same electricity transmission and distribution lines.

Manufacturing and installation of RE plant has a negligible contribution to GHG emissions when

compared to the reductions attributable to it over the life of the plant of 16 to 21 years. Reduction in

emissions from manufacturing and installation of fossil fuel fired plants although is very likely effect,

similar to the argument above, its impact is negligible compared to the emissions from the operation

of the power plant over its lifetime. Furthermore, both RE plants and fossil fuel fired power plants need

to be manufactured and installed, and thus cancel each other’s impact to a degree, making the net

impact even smaller.

Under the business as usual scenario, most of the palm oil mill effluent (POME) are treated

anaerobically in open lagoons. Replacing the current wastewater treatment system with closed

biodigester or closed ponds mitigate large quantities of methane (CH4) from being emitted directly to

the atmosphere. Secondly, this will reduce the maldour and increase the treatment efficiency under a

controlled environment. Capturing the biogas and convert it to renewable electricity provides GHG

neutral electricity which reduces emission by displacing grid electricity. Therefore, methane avoidance

is considered as significant GHG effect with major magnitude and shall be considered within the GHG

assessment boundary of the mitigation action.

In summary;

Table 5: The GHG effects, sources/sink category, and greenhouse gases included in the GHG

assessment boundary for mitigation action established via FiT mechanism in Malaysia

GHG Effect Sources/sink category Greenhouse gas to be measured

Activity data


Combustion of fossil fuel at power plant connected to the grid.

CO2 Amount of electricity from RE plant supplied to the grid.


Biogas capturing and destruction

CH4 Estimating the methane recovery from wastewater treatment (POME)

Decide between scenario method or comparison group method

Estimating the GHG effects of a policy or action ex-post involves a comparison of the outcome of the

policy/action with an estimate of what would most likely have happened in the absence of that policy

or action. Comparison can be done either by:

a) Scenario method

b) Comparison group method

Of the two methods described, the scenario method is expected to be common for the energy supply

sector since it can be difficult to identify a suitable control group considering most jurisdictions are

distinct from the others in terms of energy potential, consumption patterns, and distribution


infrastructure. In the absence of the FiT mechanism, it is most likely Malaysia will still continue to

produce electricity from fossil based fuels and for such case, ex-post baseline scenario is established

as the FiT mechanism is currently being implemented.

Identifying other policy/actions

MA developer had included other actions (Table 6) in the baseline scenario that may have a significant

effect on GHG emissions (increasing or decreasing) from the sources or sinks included in the GHG

assessment boundary and are implemented at the time of the GHG assessment period (for ex-post

assessment).

Other Policy/actions implement in the baseline are:

a) Pioneer tax incentives for companies in areas such as energy conservation and generation and

renewable energy

b) Tax exemption on renewable power plant equipment parts

c) Green Technology Policy (2009) - Green Technology Financing Scheme (GTFS)

d) National Policy on Climate Change (2009)

Estimating GHG effects ex-ante for each source/sink category

A. Combustion of fossil fuel at power plant connected to the grid

The methodological approach adopted under the FiT programme is based on the statement of sales

of RE electricity generated by all FiAHs to DLs and this represent only the amount of electricity

exported to the grid. Emissions of the displaced grid electricity are computed by applying the most

recent regional grid emission factor.

This approach is aligned with the UNFCCC methodology “AMS I.D Grid connected renewable electricity

generation (Ver. 16)” whereby “the baseline emissions are the product of electrical energy baseline

EGBL,y expressed in MWh of electricity produced by the renewable generating unit multiplied by the grid

emission factor.”

BEy = EGBL,y X EFCO2,grid,y

Where:

BEy Baseline Emission in year y (t CO2)

EGBL,y Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the implementation of

project activity in year y (MWh)

EFCO2,grid,y CO2 emission factor of the grid in year y ( t CO2/MWh)

A study by Malaysian Green Technology Corporation (MGTC) entitled “Study on Grid Connected

Electricity Baselines in Malaysia (Year 2010 & 2011)” assessed the overall average emission factor for

Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan. The CO2 are made under the calculation

of Energy Production (MWh) baseline by year as follows:

a) Baseline CO2 for Peninsular : 0.741 tCO2/ MWh


b) Baseline CO2 for Sabah and Wilayah Persekutuan Labuan : 0.546 tCO2/ MWh

The CDM AMS I. D methodology stated that for most renewable energy project activities, PEy=0 except

for emissions related to operation of geothermal power plants and hydro power plants which needs

to follow the recent version of CDM ACM0002 methodology. (For the purpose of this demo case study,

the abovementioned emissions were not accounted for simplicity.)

Emission reduction (ERy) is accounted based on below equation;

ERy= BEy – Pey - LEy (Leakage is considered 0; assuming that there is no transfer of

energy generating equipment from another project site)

Year Baseline

emission (BEy)

Project

emission (PEy)

Emission

reductions

(ERy)

(tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e)

2012 26.97 0 26.97

2013 3,453.66 0 3,453.66

2014 309,217.52 0 309,217.52

2015 1,456,910.25 0 1,456,910.25

2016 2,499,020.73 0 2,499,020.73

2017 3,783,101.65 0 3,783,101.65

2018 4,473,658.59 0 4,473,658.59

2019 4,965,876.42 0 4,965,876.42

2020 5,458,094.25 0 5,458,094.25

2021 5,625,070.80 0 5,625,070.80

2022 5,792,047.35 0 5,792,047.35

2023 5,959,023.90 0 5,959,023.90

2024 6,051,949.98 0 6,051,949.98

2025 6,144,876.06 0 6,144,876.06

2026 6,144,876.06 0 6,144,876.06

2027 6,144,876.06 0 6,144,876.06

2028 5,962,044.00 0 5,962,044.00

2029 5,926,061.36 0 5,926,061.36

2030 5,711,622.98 0 5,711,622.98

2031 5,318,476.01 0 5,318,476.01

2032 4,923,458.96 0 4,923,458.96

2033 4,393,227.85 0 4,393,227.85

2034 4,059,481.88 0 4,059,481.88

2035 3,630,268.25 0 3,630,268.25

2036 3,096,463.66 0 3,096,463.66

2037 2,282,393.68 0 2,282,393.68

2038 1,282,089.51 0 1,282,089.51

2039 650,482.56 0 650,482.56

2040 325,241.28 0 325,241.28

2041 325,241.28 0 325,241.28

Total 112,698,633.49 0 112,698,633.49

112,698,633.49Ex-ante emission reductions ( tCO2 e)

Ex-ante emission reductions for operation of fossil-based

power plant


The GHG effect ex-ante due to electricity generated by the renewable sources and connected to the

grid which displaced the fossil-based fuels in power plants was estimated at 112,698,634 ton CO2

(rounded value).

B. Biogas capturing and destruction

Based on paragraph 13 of the AMS I.D methodology; in the case of landfill gas, waste gas, wastewater

treatment and agro-industries projects, the recovered methane emissions are eligible under the

relevant Type III category. Under the FiT mechanism, renewable source such as biogas covers

agroindustrial waste and landfill gas. For the purpose of the demo case study on FiT mechanism, we

set a scenario that GHG emission reduction due to methane avoidance from landfill gas is being

accounted under other policy/action i.e. the Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Act 2007.

It is has been mentioned in the MYGHG Mitigation-MR Guideline that any potential overlaps of GHG

effects arising from more than one policy/actions shall be considered independently to avoid double

accounting. It is also to ensure the policy/action being assessed is more manageable with the

availability of data or to inform decision makers on which individual policy/actions are to be

implemented or to continue its support.

Hence, we illustrate herewith that GHG effect due to methane avoidance from biogas plant follows

the CDM AMS III.H: Methane recovery in wastewater treatment (version 18) whereby the

methodology key elements are the “Recovery of biogas from anaerobic decay of organic matter in

wastewater through introduction of an anaerobic treatment system for wastewater and/or sludge

treatment with biogas recovery” and the type of GHG emissions mitigation action is via “Destruction

of methane emissions”.

AMS III H methodology describes the baseline and project emissions are accounted based on below

equations;

i. Ex-ante Baseline emissions (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

ii. Ex-ante Policy/Action emissions (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

iii. Ex- ante Emission reduction (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

Note: LEy,ex ante is considered 0 as the equipment used in the biogas plants is not transferred from

another project activity


Assumption is made that the biogas plants installed to treat the agroindustrial wastewater have the

electricity generating capacity of 1 to 1.5 MW each and much of the interest is anticipated for oil palm

millers to capture methane emission from POME anaerobic treatment prior to 2020 deadline. This is

in reference to the overlapping policy/action of the Palm Oil NKEA EPP 5- Developing biogas at palm

oil mill. The initiative is targeted at palm oil mills in the country to implement biogas capturing projects

by 2020. The total installed capacity of biogas (agroindustrial wastewater) is amounting to 30-45 MW

and the baseline and project emissions were calculated conservatively using simplified methodology

as in AMS III.H (refer to ER calculation excelsheet, version 3). It is also anticipated the first 2 installed

biogas in 2013 will expires their operation by 2028 and the last 7 biogas plants expire in 2036 as the

period of premium rate for biogas plants is for a duration of 16 years.

The GHG effect ex-ante due to methane avoidance in biogas plants was estimated at 17,154,254 ton

CO2e.

Year Ex-ante emission

reduction (tCO2)

2012 0

2013 91,004

2014 45,502

2015 500,522

2016 182,008

2017 136,506

2018 45,502

2019 45,502

2020 318,514

2021 1,365,060

2022 1,365,060

2023 1,365,060

2024 1,365,060

2025 1,365,060

2026 1,365,060

2027 1,365,060

2028 1,365,060

2029 1,274,056

2030 1,228,554

2031 728,032

2032 546,024

2033 409,518

2034 364,016

2035 318,514

2036 0

2037 0

2038 0

2039 0

2040 0

2041 0

17,154,254

Ex-ante emission reduction due to methane avoidance

Ex-ante emission reduction (t CO2 e)

0

-

-

-

-

-

27

16

12

9

8

7

30

30

30

30

30

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30

30

30-

Cumulative biogas

plants

3

14

18

21

22

23

4

30

1

7

-

-

-

1

11

3

Projected biogas

plants in operation

1

-

2 2


Table 6: Methodology summary for GHG Effects Ex-ante Assessment

GHG Effect included in the GHG assessment boundary

Sources/sink category

GHG to be measured

Methodology Reference



CO2 CDM AMS I.D – Grid connected renewable electricity generation. (Ver.16)

https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/index.html


Biogas capturing and destruction

CH4 CDM AMS III.H Methane recovery in wastewater treatment (Ver.18)


Table 7: Aggregated ex-ante GHG emission of FiT mitigation action across all source/sink categories

over the GHG assessment period 2012-2041

(Illustration)


Sources/sink category Ex-Ante Emission Reduction (ton CO2e)



112,698,634


Biogas capturing and destruction from the wastewater treatment

17,154,254

Total net change in GHG emission resulting from the policy/action

129,852,888

Creating Monitoring Plan

For ex-post assessment of the mitigation action over time, MA developer has established a monitoring

plan which covers the possible key performance indicators as below;

Indicator or parameter (and unit)

Source of data Monitoring frequency

Measured/modelled/ calculated/estimated (and uncertainty)

Responsible entity

Quantity of electricity

Meter readings of electronic energy meters

Continuous measurement and

Calculated as the difference of quantity of electricity

Distribution Licensees (DLs)








supplied to the grid (kWh)

at the grid delivery point taken by respective DLs Cross-check: Records for net electricity sold to grid utility in invoices

on monthly recording

exported to the grid and the quantity of electricity imported from the grid as measured by electronic energy meters at the grid delivery point

Grid emission factor (EF), (ton CO2eq/ MWh)

National study on grid connected electricity baselines in Malaysia

The latest update of the EFs for Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah will be used in the ex-post assessment.

Calculated as the combination of OM and build margin (BM) by applying suitable weights

Based on data collected by grid utilities and consolidated by MGTC.

Quantity of wastewater (inflow and treated) of the wastewater treatment system (m3/year)

Actual monitored data

Monthly compiled data over the reporting year

Use of flowmeter Biogas FiAHs

Chemical oxygen demand (inflow and treated) of the wastewater treatment system (tonnes/m3)

Actual monitored data

Monthly compiled data over the reporting year

COD test conducted according to national or international standards

Biogas FiAHs

MA developer used the bottom up ex-post assessment method for the FiT mitigation action as follows;

Table 8: The applicability of ex-post GHG assessment of policy/action scenario

Bottom Up Method Activity data Data accuracy level

Collection of data from relevant actors

1) CEMS for CO2 emissions from power plant

2) Electricity generation using power meter or Electricity sale records for estimating net electricity export

1) Disaggregated metered data on electricity exported to grid from RE plant

2) Disaggregated emission reduction based on actual


3) Volume of wastewater treated in baseline year, (m3/year)

4) Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater inflow to the baseline treatment system in year, y (tonnes/ m3)

5) Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater treated in the baseline treatment system in year y (tonnes/ m3)

6) Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater inflow to the project treatment system (anaerobic lagoons) in year y (tonnes/m3)

7) Chemical oxygen demand of the wastewater treated in the project treatment system (anaerobic lagoons) in year y (tonnes/m3)

monitored data submitted by biogas FiAHs.

Other primary data eg. plant specific EF

1) Emissions from operation of power plant/unit and

2) Ex-post calculated baseline, project and leakage emissions.

Table 9: Aggregated ex-post GHG emission of FiT mitigation action across all source/sink categories

over the GHG assessment period from 2012-2014

(Illustration)


Sources/sink category Ex-Post Emission Reduction (ton CO2e)



905,251.78


Biogas capturing and destruction from the wastewater treatment

104,756

Total net change in GHG emission resulting from the policy/action (2012-2014)

1,010,008


Table 10: Actual and estimated emission reduction of the mitigation action over the implementation

period

1,010,007.78

129,403,683.34

130,413,691 (rounded value)

Actual ER (2012- 2014)

Estimated ER (2015-2041)

Total emission reduction ( actual and estimated; 2012-2041)

Appendix II B

EX-ANTE EMISSION REDUCTION CALCULATION SHEET

1

(a)

(b) Title of Mitigation Action

(c) Main policy/action in assessment

(c) Type of policy/action

(d)

2

(a) Primary contact: Title:

First Name:

Surname:

Job title:

Tel. no:

Email:

(b) Alternative contact: Title:

First Name:

Surname:

Job title:

Organisation name if different from implementing entity

Tel. no:

Email:

Mitigation action programme

Ms.

Catherine

Ridu

Contact details

3 ( 10/11/2015)

603-8870 5820

[email protected]


603-8870 5801

[email protected]

Dato' Ir Dr

Ali Askar

Sher Mohamad

Mitigation Action Proponent Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA)

Feed-in Tariff Mechanism in Malaysia

National Renewable Energy Policy and Action Plan

Regulation and standard

Actual version number of ER

calculation sheet with reference

date



Version

no

Reference

date

Brief description of changes

1 30/8/2015 Submitted together with MR Design Form version 1

2 6/10/2015 Correction made to the ER summary and BE & PE

AMS III H tabs. Working draft to be submitted to CA.

3 10/11/2015 Final approval received from CA, together with the MR-

Design Form version 4.

Please note that performance monitoring of the GHG Mitigation Actions must

always be carried out in accordance with the latest approved version of the MR

design, except in cases where an update of the MR has already been

submitted to the CA and/or is pending approval. And MA proponent is required

to use the latest version of the MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR Design as

supported by the National MRV Framework.

Depending on the requirements of the National MRV framework, it is possible

that the document is exchanged between competent authority (CA) and

mitigation action (MA) proponent/developer with various updates, or that the

MA proponent/developer alone keeps track of the versions. In any case, the

MA proponent should keep in his files a copy of each version of the ER

This sheet is used for tracking the actual version of the MYGHG Mitigation

Action-Emission Reduction (Ex-ante) calculation. Each version of the ER

should have a unique version number, and a reference date.

Emission reduction calculation sheet versions

Summary of the GHG effects ex-ante resulting from the FiT Mechanism in Malaysia;

2012 26.97 0 26.97

2013 3,453.66 91,004 94,457.66

2014 309,217.52 45,502 354,719.52

2015 1,456,910.25 500,522 1,957,432.25

2016 2,499,020.73 182,008 2,681,028.73

2017 3,783,101.65 136,506 3,919,607.65

2018 4,473,658.59 45,502 4,519,160.59

2019 4,965,876.42 45,502 5,011,378.42

2020 5,458,094.25 318,514 5,776,608.25

2021 5,625,070.80 1,365,060 6,990,130.80

2022 5,792,047.35 1,365,060 7,157,107.35

2023 5,959,023.90 1,365,060 7,324,083.90

2024 6,051,949.98 1,365,060 7,417,009.98

2025 6,144,876.06 1,365,060 7,509,936.06

2026 6,144,876.06 1,365,060 7,509,936.06

2027 6,144,876.06 1,365,060 7,509,936.06

2028 5,962,044.00 1,365,060 7,327,104.00

2029 5,926,061.36 1,274,056 7,200,117.36

2030 5,711,622.98 1,228,554 6,940,176.98

2031 5,318,476.01 728,032 6,046,508.01

2032 4,923,458.96 546,024 5,469,482.96

2033 4,393,227.85 409,518 4,802,745.85

2034 4,059,481.88 364,016 4,423,497.88

2035 3,630,268.25 318,514 3,948,782.25

2036 3,096,463.66 0 3,096,463.66

2037 2,282,393.68 0 2,282,393.68

2038 1,282,089.51 0 1,282,089.51

2039 650,482.56 0 650,482.56

2040 325,241.28 0 325,241.28

2041 325,241.28 0 325,241.28

sub total 112,698,633.49 17,154,254 129,852,887.49

129,852,887

Reduced GHG emissions

from operation of fossil-

based power plant (tCO2)


from methane avoidance

(tCO2)Year

GHG effects ex-ante resulting from the policy/action

Total GHG Effects

Ex-Ante

Total Emission Reduction

Summary of the GHG effects ex-post resulting from the FiT Mechanism in Malaysia;

2012 57,546.62 0 57,546.62

2013 256,235.78 30,960 287,195.78

2014 591,469.38 73,796 665,265.38

sub total 905,251.78 104,756 1,010,007.78

1,010,008

1,010,007.78

129,403,683.34

130,413,691 (rounded value)

Actual ER (2012- 2014)

Estimated ER (2015-2041)

Total emission reduction ( actual and estimated; 2012-2041)


GHG effects ex-post resulting from the policy/action

Year


from operation of fossil-

based power plant (tCO2)


from methane avoidance

(tCO2)

Total GHG Effects

Ex-Post

Total Emission Reduction (ex-post)

GHG effects ex-ante resulting from the policy/action

Year Ex-ante Baseline Ex-ante

Policy/action

Ex-post Baseline Ex-post

Policy/action

2012 26.97 0 57,546.62 0

2013 111,440.64 16,956 295,896.78 8,701

2014 474,638.15 25,434 701,895.38 36,630

2015 2,525,328.41 118,692

2016 5,240,269.14 152,604

2017 9,185,310.79 178,038

2018 13,712,949.38 186,516

2019 18,732,805.79 194,994

2020 24,568,760.04 254,340

2021 31,813,230.83 508,680

2022 39,224,678.18 763,020

2023 46,803,102.07 1,017,360

2024 54,474,452.05 1,271,700

2025 62,238,728.11 1,526,040

2026 70,003,004.16 1,780,380

2027 77,767,280.22 2,034,720

2028 85,348,724.22 2,289,060

2029 92,786,225.58 2,526,444

2030 99,955,308.57 2,755,350

2031 106,137,464.58 2,890,998

2032 111,708,683.54 2,992,734

2033 116,587,731.39 3,069,036

2034 121,079,053.27 3,136,860

2035 125,087,181.52 3,196,206

2036 107,833,185.18 0

2037 110,115,578.86 0

2038 111,397,668.37 0

2039 112,048,150.93 0

2040 112,373,392.21 0

2041 112,698,633.49 0

-

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

140,000,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Ne

t G

HG

em

issi

on

(tC

O2

e)

Year

Ex-ante Baseline Ex-ante Policy/action

Ex-post Baseline Ex-post Policy/action

Ex-ante Baseline scenario emission

AMS I. D methodology;

Where:


EGBL,y

EFCO2,grid,y

Electricity supplied

to gridBaseline emission Electricity

supplied to grid

Baseline emission

(MWh) (tCO2) (MWh) (tCO2)

2012 - - 36.4032 26.97 26.97

2013 - - 4660.8105 3,453.66 3,453.66

2014 90,494.87 49,410.20 350617.1604 259,807.32 309,217.52

2015 521,529.80 284,755.27 1,581,855.58 1,172,154.98 1,456,910.25

2016 954,126.18 520,952.89 2,669,457.27 1,978,067.84 2,499,020.73

2017 1,488,270.60 812,595.75 4,008,779.90 2,970,505.91 3,783,101.65

2018 1,904,896.20 1,040,073.32 4,633,718.30 3,433,585.26 4,473,658.59

2019 2,201,860.20 1,202,215.67 5,079,164.30 3,763,660.75 4,965,876.42

2020 2,498,824.20 1,364,358.01 5,524,610.30 4,093,736.23 5,458,094.25

2021 2,599,564.20 1,419,362.05 5,675,720.30 4,205,708.74 5,625,070.80

2022 2,700,304.20 1,474,366.09 5,826,830.30 4,317,681.25 5,792,047.35

2023 2,801,044.20 1,529,370.13 5,977,940.30 4,429,653.76 5,959,023.90

2024 2,857,108.20 1,559,981.08 6,062,036.30 4,491,968.90 6,051,949.98

2025 2,913,172.20 1,590,592.02 6,146,132.30 4,554,284.03 6,144,876.06

2026 2,913,172.20 1,590,592.02 6,146,132.30 4,554,284.03 6,144,876.06

2027 2,913,172.20 1,590,592.02 6,146,132.30 4,554,284.03 6,144,876.06

2028 2,689,097.74 1,468,247.37 6,064,502.89 4,493,796.64 5,962,044.00

2029 2,689,097.74 1,468,247.37 6,015,943.32 4,457,814.00 5,926,061.36

2030 2,609,097.74 1,424,567.37 5,785,500.16 4,287,055.62 5,711,622.98

2031 2,473,475.41 1,350,517.57 5,354,869.68 3,967,958.44 5,318,476.01

2032 2,260,225.55 1,234,083.15 4,978,914.72 3,689,375.81 4,923,458.96

2033 2,166,636.92 1,182,983.76 4,332,313.22 3,210,244.09 4,393,227.85

2034 2,030,331.32 1,108,560.90 3,982,349.51 2,950,920.98 4,059,481.88

2035 1,861,677.11 1,016,475.70 3,527,385.36 2,613,792.55 3,630,268.25

2036 1,672,895.61 913,401.00 2,946,103.45 2,183,062.65 3,096,463.66

2037 1,352,809.09 738,633.76 2,083,346.71 1,543,759.92 2,282,393.68

2038 773,508.00 422,335.37 1,160,262.00 859,754.14 1,282,089.51

2039 392,448.00 214,276.61 588,672.00 436,205.95 650,482.56

2040 196,224.00 107,138.30 294,336.00 218,102.98 325,241.28

2041 196,224.00 107,138.30 294,336.00 218,102.98 325,241.28

112,698,633.49


Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the

implementation of project activity in year y (MWh)

CO2 emission factor of the grid in year y ( t CO2/MWh). Peninsular M"sia-

0.741 tCO2/MWh, Sabah - 0.546 tCO2/MWh

Total Baseline

emission for

Malaysia (tCO2)

Ex-ante Baseline Emission - electricity at grid (t CO2)

Peninsular MalaysiaSabah

Year

Ex-ante Policy/Action scenario emission


PEy = 0 ( for most renewable energy)

Where;

PEy Project emission in year y (tCO2)

Emission reduction;

ERy= BEy-PEy-LEy

Year Baseline

emission (BEy)

Project emission

(PEy)

Emission

reductions

(ERy)

Cumulative

baseline

Cumulative

project

(tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e)

2012 26.97 0 26.97 26.97 0

2013 3,453.66 0 3,453.66 3,480.64 0

2014 309,217.52 0 309,217.52 312,698.15 0

2015 1,456,910.25 0 1,456,910.25 1,769,608.41 0

2016 2,499,020.73 0 2,499,020.73 4,268,629.14 0

2017 3,783,101.65 0 3,783,101.65 8,051,730.79 0

2018 4,473,658.59 0 4,473,658.59 12,525,389.38 0

2019 4,965,876.42 0 4,965,876.42 17,491,265.79 0

2020 5,458,094.25 0 5,458,094.25 22,949,360.04 0

2021 5,625,070.80 0 5,625,070.80 28,574,430.83 0

2022 5,792,047.35 0 5,792,047.35 34,366,478.18 0

2023 5,959,023.90 0 5,959,023.90 40,325,502.07 0

2024 6,051,949.98 0 6,051,949.98 46,377,452.05 0

2025 6,144,876.06 0 6,144,876.06 52,522,328.11 0

2026 6,144,876.06 0 6,144,876.06 58,667,204.16 0

2027 6,144,876.06 0 6,144,876.06 64,812,080.22 0

2028 5,962,044.00 0 5,962,044.00 70,774,124.22 0

2029 5,926,061.36 0 5,926,061.36 76,700,185.58 0

2030 5,711,622.98 0 5,711,622.98 82,411,808.57 0

2031 5,318,476.01 0 5,318,476.01 87,730,284.58 0

2032 4,923,458.96 0 4,923,458.96 92,653,743.54 0

2033 4,393,227.85 0 4,393,227.85 97,046,971.39 0

2034 4,059,481.88 0 4,059,481.88 101,106,453.27 0

2035 3,630,268.25 0 3,630,268.25 104,736,721.52 0

2036 3,096,463.66 0 3,096,463.66 107,833,185.18 0

2037 2,282,393.68 0 2,282,393.68 110,115,578.86 0

2038 1,282,089.51 0 1,282,089.51 111,397,668.37 0

2039 650,482.56 0 650,482.56 112,048,150.93 0

2040 325,241.28 0 325,241.28 112,373,392.21 0

2041 325,241.28 0 325,241.28 112,698,633.49 0

Total 112,698,633.49 0 112,698,633.49

112,698,633.49


( Leakage is considered 0; assuming that there is no

transfer of energy generating equipment from another

project site)

Ex-ante emission reductions for operation of fossil-based

power plant

Ex-ante emission reductions ( tCO2 e)

Methane avoidance : AMS III-H methodology

Ex-ante Baseline emissions (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

Ex-ante Policy/Action emissions (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

Ex- ante Emission reduction (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

Note: LEy,ex ante is considered 0 as the equipment used in the biogas plants is not transferred from another project activity

-

53,980

-

-

-

53,980

-

4,309

-

-

-

Inefficiency of capture system (PEfugitive,y) 4,169

Incomplete flaring (PEflaring,y) -

Biomass storage (PEbiomass,y) -

8,478

Leakage -

45,502

Projected GHG

Emissions (tCO2e)

Total Project Emissions (PE,y)

Final sludge (PEs,final,y)

Pro

ject E

mis

sio

n

Total Baseline Emissions (BE,y)

Total Emission Reductions (ton CO2e)

Item

Electricity or fuel consumption (PEpower,y)

Wastewater treatment (PEww,treatment,y)

Sludge treatment (PEs,treatment,y)

Wastewater treatment (BEww,treatment,y)

Electricity or fuel consumption (BEpower,y)

Methane Avoidance

Baselin

e E

mis

sio

n

Inefficiency of project system (PEww,discharge,y)

Methane Avoidance

Sludge treatment (BEs,treatment,y)

Final discharge (BEww,discharge,y)

Final sludge (BEs,final,y)

Year Ex-ante emission

reduction (tCO2)

2012 0

2013 91,004

2014 45,502

2015 500,522

2016 182,008

2017 136,506

2018 45,502

2019 45,502

2020 318,514

2021 1,365,060

2022 1,365,060

2023 1,365,060

2024 1,365,060

2025 1,365,060

2026 1,365,060

2027 1,365,060

2028 1,365,060

2029 1,274,056

2030 1,228,554

2031 728,032

2032 546,024

2033 409,518

2034 364,016

2035 318,514

2036 0

2037 0

2038 0

2039 0

2040 0

2041 0

17,154,254

Ex-ante emission reduction due to methane avoidance

Ex-ante emission reduction (t CO2 e)

0

-

-

-

-

-

27

16

12

9

8

7

30

30

30

30

30

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30-

Cumulative biogas

plants

3

14

18

21

22

30

1

7

- 30

30

-

-

1

11

3

Projected biogas

plants in operation

1

23

4

-

2 2

Year Leakage ER Cumulative

baseline

Cumulative

project

2012 0 0 0 0

2013 0 91,004 107,960 16,956

2014 0 45,502 161,940 25,434

2015 0 500,522 755,720 118,692

2016 0 182,008 971,640 152,604

2017 0 136,506 1,133,580 178,038

2018 0 45,502 1,187,560 186,516

2019 0 45,502 1,241,540 194,994

2020 0 318,514 1,619,400 254,340

2021 0 1,365,060 3,238,800 508,680

2022 0 1,365,060 4,858,200 763,020

2023 0 1,365,060 6,477,600 1,017,360

2024 0 1,365,060 8,097,000 1,271,700

2025 0 1,365,060 9,716,400 1,526,040

2026 0 1,365,060 11,335,800 1,780,380

2027 0 1,365,060 12,955,200 2,034,720

2028 0 1,365,060 14,574,600 2,289,060

2029 0 1,274,056 16,086,040 2,526,444

2030 0 1,228,554 17,543,500 2,755,350

2031 0 728,032 18,407,180 2,890,998

2032 0 546,024 19,054,940 2,992,734

2033 0 409,518 19,540,760 3,069,036

2034 0 364,016 19,972,600 3,136,860

2035 0 318,514 20,350,460 3,196,206

2036 0 - 0 0

2037 0 - 0 0

2038 0 - 0 0

2039 0 - 0 0

2040 0 - 0 0

2041 0 - 0 0

Total 0 17,154,254 20,350,460 3,196,206

0

Baseline emission

0

0

0

0

647,760

485,820

0

0

0

0

0

101,736

76,302

67,824

59,346

0

431,840

377,860

0

0

1,511,440

1,457,460

863,680

237,384

228,906

135,648

1,619,400

1,619,400

1,619,400

254,340

254,340

254,340

1,619,400 254,340

1,619,400 254,340

1,619,400 254,340

1,619,400 254,340

1,619,400 254,340

53,980 8,478

377,860 59,346

161,940 25,434

53,980 8,478

Project emissions

215,920 33,912

593,780 93,258

107,960 16,956

53,980 8,478

0

Ex-post Baseline scenario emission


Where:


EGBL,y

EFCO2,grid,y

Electricity

supplied to grid

Baseline

emission

Electricity

supplied to

grid

Baseline

emission

(MWh) (tCO2) (MWh) (tCO2)

2012 103,528.56 56,526.59 1,376.55 1,020.02 57,546.62

2013 235,836.45 128,766.70 172,023.04 127,469.07 256,235.78

2014 293,865.33 160,450.47 581,671.95 431,018.91 591,469.38

Ex-post Policy/Action scenario emission


PEy = 0 ( for most renewable energy)

Where;

PEy Project emission in year y (tCO2)

Emission reduction;

ERy= BEy-PEy-LEy

Year Baseline

emission (BEy)

Project

emission

(PEy)

Emission

reductions

(ERy)

Cumulative

baseline

Cumulative

project

(tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e)(tons of CO2 e)(tons of CO2 e) (tons of CO2 e)

2012 57,546.62 0 57,546.62 57,546.62 0

2013 256,235.78 0 256,235.78 313,782.39 0

2014 591,469.38 0 591,469.38 905,251.78 0

Total 905,251.78 0 905,251.78

905,251.78

Ex-post emission reductions for operation of fossil-

based power plant

( Leakage is considered 0; assuming that there is

no transfer of energy generating equipment from

Ex-ante emission reductions ( tCO2 e)


Year

Sabah Peninsular Malaysia Total Baseline

emission for

Malaysia (tCO2)

Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the implementation

of project activity in year y (MWh)CO2 emission factor of the grid in year y ( t CO2/MWh). Peninsular M'sia-

0.741 tCO2/MWh, Sabah - 0.546 tCO2/MWh

Methane avoidance : AMS III-H methodology

Ex-post Baseline emissions (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

Ex-post Policy/Action emissions (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT mechanisms

Ex- post Emission reduction (t CO2e) for installed biogas plants under the FiT

Note: LEy,ex ante is considered 0 as the equipment used in the biogas plants was

not transferred from another project activity

BG1 BG2 BG3 Total

- - - -

39,661 50,923 59,030 149,614

- - - -

- 219 254 473

- - - -

39,661 51,142 59,284 150,087

- - - -

3,897 9,199 15,870 28,966

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

Inefficiency of capture system (PEfugitive,y) 4,804 5,213 6,348 16,365

Incomplete flaring (PEflaring,y) - - - -

Biomass storage (PEbiomass,y) - - - -

8,701 14,412 22,218 45,331

Leakage - - - -

30,960 36,730 37,066 104,756

Year Baseline

emission

Project

emission

Leakage

emission

ER Cum.

Baseline

Cum.

Project

emission 2012 0 0 0 0 - -

2013 39,661 8,701 0 30,960 39,661 8,701

2014 110,426 36,630 0 73,796 150,087 45,331

Year

2012

2013

2014

Total Emission Reductions (ton CO2e)

Final sludge (BEs,final,y)

Total Baseline Emissions (BE,y)

Pro

ject E

mis

sio

n

Methane Avoidance

Electricity or fuel consumption (PEpower,y)

Wastewater treatment (PEww,treatment,y)

Sludge treatment (PEs,treatment,y)

Inefficiency of project system (PEww,discharge,y)

Item GHG Emissions (tCO2e)B

aselin

e E

mis

sio

n Methane Avoidance

Electricity or fuel consumption (BEpower,y)

Wastewater treatment (BEww,treatment,y)

Sludge treatment (BEs,treatment,y)

Final discharge (BEww,discharge,y)

1 1 30,960

2 3 73,796

0 0 0

Final sludge (PEs,final,y)

Total Project Emissions (PE,y)

Ex-post emission reduction due to methane avoidance

Biogas plant installed Cum. Biogas plant Ex-post emission

reduction (tCO2)

Appendix III

Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) Malaysia Galeria PjH, Level 9, Jalan P4W, Persiaran Perdana, Precinct 4, 62100 Putrajaya, Malaysia

MYGHG Mitigation Action- MR Design Form SUSTAINABILITY ACHIEVED VIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY (SAVE) REBATE PROGRAMME FOR CHILLER (VER.4)

Table of Contents List of MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR versions ........................................................................................... 4

A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 5

B. MRV PROPONENT(S) ............................................................................................................................. 7

C. MR DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 8

D. OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION AND ANNEX ................................................................................ 15

Additional information to the MR Design ................................................................................................. 16






various updates, or that the MA proponent/developer alone keeps track of the versions. In any case, the

MA proponent should keep in his files a copy of each version of the MR.



Please note that performance monitoring of the GHG Mitigation Actions must always be carried out in

accordance with the latest approved version of the MR design, except in cases where an update of the

MR has already been submitted to the CA and/or is pending approval. And MA proponent is required to

use the latest version of the MYGHG Mitigation Action-MR Design as supported by the National MRV

Framework.

Version

No

Reference

date

Status at reference

date




competent authority

New MR design for meeting the requirements of the

MR Guideline.

2 19/9/2015 returned with

remarks

Correction required for the emission reduction

calculation.


competent authority

MR Design updated according to CA's suggestions.

4 10/11/2015 approved by

competent authority

Approved without further changes. MA Proponent has

received paper copy together with the updated permit

for ensuring authentic content of the MR Design file

returned electronically.

MYGHG Mitigation Reporting Template Ver. 01 March 2015

(This GHG mitigation reporting template is to be cross-referred with the latest Measurement and Reporting (MR) Guidance document for full description of the required information) A. Policy level GHG Mitigation-MR SUMMARY

A.1 Summary


Sustainability Achieved via Energy Efficiency (SAVE) Rebate Programme for Chiller

Level of assessment

Programme level


NKEA ETP EPP9 – Oil Gas & Energy


Subsidies and incentives


Implemented


7 July, 2011


31 December, 2016


The SAVE Program is a project under the NKEA Oil, Gas & Energy EPP 9: Improving Energy Efficiency. Malaysia’s electricity and energy usage is largely dependent on fossil fuels. However, limited availability of fossil fuels and growing demand has created the need to improve the country’s energy efficiency and spurred the use of alternative sources of energy. The SAVE programme was initiated to boost the usage and encourage the market development of energy efficient appliances/equipment. The SAVE programme was a Government-led initiative to increase sales of energy efficient appliances by providing rebates to purchase 5-Star energy efficient rated home appliances, such as refrigerators and air-conditioners to domestic consumers and the installation of energy efficient chillers for commercial buildings.

However for the purpose of this MR, the focus is only on energy efficient chillers. The SAVE programme has the primary aim of saving energy costs and consumption on a daily basis as well as managing the growth of energy demand for effective Demand Side Management of energy resources. It also aims to increase the share of EE appliances in the market and to eventually phase out inefficient models. The additional effect of using energy efficiently will be reducing GHG emissions.


Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS)




☒Buildings ☐Waste



Domestic


National


53,221 tCO2 (ex-post assessment from 2011-2014 )


SAVE or Sustainability Achieved via Energy Efficiency, is a programme spearheaded by the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (MEGTW), to improve energy efficiency in Malaysia. It was targeted at stimulating sales of energy efficient chillers by providing rebates to qualified business owner to replace existing electric chillers installed before or in 2002 with new energy efficient chillers with a rebate amount of RM200 per Refrigeration Ton. The increase in efficiency of the chillers is to be measured as kW/RT and must meet the Malaysian Standard MS 1525:2007 (Code of Practice on Energy Efficiency and use of Renewable Energy for Non-Residential Buildings). GHG reduction is expected to come from:

i) More energy efficient chillers complying to kW/RT ii) Refrigerants that have similar or lower GWPs compared to the replaced chiller, excluding the banned refrigerants.

B. MRV PROPONENT(S)



SEDA Malaysia


Energy Efficiency project - Managing and implementing projects

mandated to SEDA


SEDA is responsible for processing applications for the SAVE programme, appoint authorized verifiers, the distribution of rebate and random monitoring of the recipients of the rebate and provide human capital development (training).

Contact person

Steve Lojutin

Details of contact Tel: 03-8870 5841 Fax: 03-8870 5900 Email: [email protected] / [email protected]


a) Provider of energy efficient chillers: Participating manufacturers b) Verifying of energy efficient chillers: Appointed by KETTHA/SEDA, and assisted by SIRIM QAS,

MASHRAE, ACEM and IEM (Technical Committee SAVE Chiller) c) Awareness and promotion: Coordinated and implemented by KeTTHA/SEDA and assisted by

MASHRAE and manufacturers

Collaborator 1

Name of the Collaborator


Contact person



Responsibilities



C. MR DESCRIPTION




NKEA ETP EPP9 – Oil Gas & Energy :Energy


SEDA Malaysia

Policy brief

The SAVE Program is a project under the NKEA Oil, Gas & Energy EPP 9: Improving Energy Efficiency. Malaysia’s electricity and energy usage is largely dependent on fossil fuels. However, limited availability of fossil fuels and growing demand has created the need to improve the country’s energy efficiency and spurred the use of alternative sources of energy.


National acceptance


http://etp.pemandu.gov.my/13_June_2011-@-Sustainability_Achieved_via_Energy_Efficiency_(SAVE).aspx






Regulation brief Click here to enter text.









ENERGY

a) Fuel Combustion Activities: Energy

Industries b) Fugitive Emissions from Fuels: Choose

an item.







f) Product uses as substitutes for ozone depleting substances: Refrigeration and air conditioning







WASTE




OTHER



National


2011 to 2014 (ex-post assessment)



☒Stationary fossil fuel combustion, CO2,CH4, N2O



☐Natural gas system, CO2,CH4 ☐Landfills, CH4

☐Electrical transmission and distribution, SF6 ☒Refrigeration and air conditioning equipment, HFCs





List the target beneficiaries e.g. manufacturers, consumers – domestic or industrial or commercial, project developers a) Provider of energy efficient chillers: Participating

manufacturers b) Owners of buildings that utilise chillers for comfort

cooling.

Provide quantitative assessment of the size of the beneficiaries under the MRV At the end of 2014, the SAVE Rebate Chiller application recorded 56 companies completed retrofitting their existing inefficient chiller to energy efficient chiller while two (2) companies were still in-progress. There was still a balance of 6,084 RT for the chiller rebates which were carried forward to 2015.

Inclusion Criteria

List the criteria likely to be followed for including any beneficiary situated in the MRV boundary to join NAMA e.g. size of the activity (MWe o MWth), current efficiency levels, technology etc., Chillers for comfort cooling or commercial building at operation or non-operational condition installed before or in the year 2002 for Peninsular Malaysia. Chillers for cooling or chilling for process activities and buildings installed before or in the year 2002 in East Malaysia (more than 10 years). Only water-cooled electric chillers can apply for rebates. Replacement chillers must comply with the minimum kW/RT rating stipulated in MS1525:2007.


Provide a brief of business as usual scenario of the sector / sub-sector and latest emissions data set with sources Historical data not available.

Emissions Data Set


GHG Emission factor for electricity generation: 0.741 kg CO2e/KWh for Peninsular Malaysia (source :MGTC) Emission data of refrigerants in terms of % of initial charge/year (IPCC)

GWP of refrigerants (IPCC)



Chillers have cross-sector applications. The SAVE Programme for chillers however targets at chillers that are part of the HVAC system, and of capacity relevant to the non-residential buildings. In principle, emissions prior to introducing the SAVE programme would have been 53,221 ton CO2, avoided through replacement with energy efficient chillers since July 2011 to 2014.



Reference: Kyoto Protocol and Montreal Protocol. Have to compare between these two standards the relevant gases involve. Projection: To contact chiller’s supplier (Malaysia chiller and refrigerant association – MACRA). Estimate how much refrigerant refill during maintenance.

BAU scenario

List the major assumptions and the future outlook (projections) of GHG emission levels / development pattern in the sector / sub-sector under the MRV in the BAU scenario

Continued use of low energy efficiency chillers with possible leakage of refrigerants of high GWP during operation in HVAC systems of commercial buildings, and also industrial processes in East Malaysia. The higher consumption of electricity means higher GHG emission from the power plants


Chillers are not included in the Minimum Energy Performance (MEP) equipment list regulated by Energy Commission.

C.4 Barriers


Barriers


A typical barrier is the initial high investment for energy efficient chillers.


The SAVE Programme provides rebates to private entities who had completed the replacement of existing inefficient chillers to new efficient ones.



Proposed Activities



Rebate chiller (RM200/ton) for retrofit inefficient chillers for comfort cooling.

Date of Start 2011

Date of Completion 2016

(a) Submit information on existing chillers for verification and approval of SEDA

Old chillers that will be replaced

(b) Purchase and install new chillers within 6 months of approval from SEDA and get ready information for site verification

Old chillers replaced, with potential release of refrigerants during recovery and disposal phase New chillers installed with reduced energy consumption and reduced GHG emission

(c) Monitor performance and GHG reduction of new chillers over stipulated period

GHG reduction measured based on site-measurements of electricity consumed during operation of new chillers




The estimation methodology will be adapted from AM 0060 Rev.1.1 “Power saving through replacement by energy efficient chillers, and EB34 Paragraph 17 Type of GHGs to be Considered in Accounting for Project and Leakage Emissions. Emission reductions are based on:

Electricity consumed (ex-ante) to operate the new chiller for the one year

% of total refrigerant from the new chiller that would be released over one year after replacement



YYYY 1

YYYY 2

……

YYYY n

Total (2011-2014) 53,221 ton CO2




Environmental

Reduction in GHG emissions, use of low GWP refrigerants.

Economic (optional)

Cost reduction in term of electricity bill

Societal (optional)

Cooler environment

Others (optional)




Provide a brief summary of MRV concept and approach for the proposed activities under the mitigation actions/strategies. (Create hyperlink to the completed MR plan excel sheet) The monitoring activities address both the energy efficiency aspect of the newly chiller and the refrigerant contribution to GHG reduction.

Measuring


The SAVE Programme requires the applicant to install a permanent sub-metering (power meter) to measure and monitor the kW/RT of the new chiller(s).


Data recorder is installed together with the sub-metering (power meter) or applicant is expected to keep a log book of the readings from the power meter at frequencies stipulated in the official approval letter from SEDA.

Reporting


Random reporting as required by SEDA Malaysia in the official approval letter.


Summarise the proposed type of verification, approach, frequency, standards and engagement of third party including whether it is mandated by donor or as per host country requirements N/A





Implementation Guidelines Version 3

Sustainability Achieved Via Energy Efficiency (SAVE) Rebate Program for Chiller. KeTTHA and SEDA



Annex I

List of Chiller Verifiers

Annex II

Annex III

Annex IV

Additional information to the MR Design (The step by step processes undertaken by the MA developer to identify the GHG effects of the mitigation

action prior to filling up of the abovementioned MR Design Form. This additional information is pre-

requisite for the approval of the submitted MR Design Form by the appointed Competent Authority (CA))

The SAVE Program is a project under the NKEA Oil, Gas & Energy EPP 9: Improving Energy Efficiency.

Malaysia’s electricity and energy usage is largely dependent on fossil fuels. However, limited availability

of fossil fuels and growing demand has created the need to improve the country’s energy efficiency and

spurred the use of alternative sources of energy.

The SAVE programme was a Government-led initiative to increase sales of energy efficient appliances by

providing rebates to purchase 5-Star energy efficient rated home appliances, such as refrigerators and air-

conditioners to domestic consumers and the installation of energy efficient chillers for commercial

buildings.

However for the purpose of this MR, the focus is only on energy efficient chillers. The SAVE programme

has the primary aim of saving energy costs and consumption on a daily basis as well as managing the

growth of energy demand for effective Demand Side Management of energy resources. It also aims to

increase the share of EE appliances in the market and to eventually phase out inefficient models.

The mitigation potential against the baseline level can be achieved mainly by lowering the energy

consumption required to power the chiller system i.e. increased use of energy efficient chillers and

reduction of direct emission resulting from the use of low GWP refrigerants.

For the above said mitigation action, all potential GHG effects are considered independently in order to

ensure that the assessment is manageable with the available data. It is also to inform the decision makers

on the overall impact of the MA and to formulate future direction on cost-effective MA on a sectoral level

i.e. Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Foam (R,C& F) sector.

The MA is currently under implementation and the MA proponent would want to estimate the GHG

effects to date. Hence, this will be an ex-post assessment.

The MA developer has identified and report all potential GHG effects arising from the implementation of

the SAVE programme and this includes GHG emissions (both increases and decreases) and GHG removals.

These are done through experts’ judgmental experience and literature review. Important point, all

possible intermediate effects and the corresponding GHG effects of the MA had been listed out to their

best knowledge.

Tabulation for identification of Sources and Sinks

Table 1: Summary of inputs, activities and effects

Inputs Financing, old chillers, new chillers that are energy efficient, associated equipment with the chiller, authorised verifier, testing facilities, site measurement equipment (sub-metering or power meter)

Activities Procurement of energy efficient chillers and associated equipment, Site verification, provision of rebates, monitoring, measurement and monitor the indicator (kW/RT) using power meters, disposal of old chillers

Intermediate effects

Stimulate purchase of energy efficient chillers, stimulate production of refrigerants with lower GWP, stimulate production of associated equipment such as pumps, cooling towers, valves that will enhance the performance of the chillers, old chillers and associated equipment contribute to recycling industry as feedstock, reduce in electricity consumption, reduce production, leakage and disposal of high GWP refrigerants

GHG effects Reduce CO2, CH4 and N2O from reduced electricity consumption, reduced refrigerant with high GWP, leading to reduced CO2eq emission from possible fugitive emission of refrigerants with lower GWP

Non-GHG effects

Enhance resource recovery industry with availability of old chillers parts made of copper and iron.

Table 2: Identification of Intermediate Effects

Intended effect Electricity consumption by chillers is reduced Consumption of high GWP refrigerants is reduced

Unintended effect

Availability of chillers that are energy efficient based on the indicator (kW/RT) but uses high GWP refrigerants with potential leakage and fugitive emission, resulting in higher GHG emission from the equivalent ghg of the replaced old chillers

In-jurisdiction effect

Local chiller manufacturers produce energy efficient chillers, importers will bring in energy efficient chillers Availability of replaced chillers as feedstock for recycling industry such as copper parts, and iron parts for the steel-making industry

Out-of-jurisdiction effect

Functional old chillers that are replaced may be sold in other ASEAN markets as recond-chillers, thus increasing ghg emissions in other countries

Technology effect

Technological development to increase kW/RT

Table 3: Identify sources/ sink categories and GHG associated with the GHG effects - GHG assessment

boundary

Potential GHG effects

Source/sink categories GHG targeted

GHG effect

Justification

Emissions from electricity generation

Stationary fossil combustion in grid-connected power

plants

CO2 Reduced emission

Significant from purchasing more energy

efficient chillers

Emission from leakage of

refrigerants during deinstallation and disposal/recovery

Release of refrigerants HCFCs Increase emission

Leakage may not have happened if no

replacement was done

Emission from recovery/ disposal

of refrigerant

Release of refrigerants HCFCs Increase emission

Release may not have happened if no

replacement was done

Figure 1 : Identification of sources of GHG emission from mapping the input, activities, intermediate

effects and the corresponding GHG effects in the SAVE Rebate Programme for Chiller.

Methodology approach

The most relevant MRV methodology under the UNFCCC was established under the Clean Development Mechanism and consequently, is project related. AM 0060 Rev.1.1 “Power saving through replacement by energy efficient chillers” methodology, to some extent, can be applied for calculating the ex-post GHG effects resulting from the policy/action intervention. Sources of indirect emissions Indirect emissions resulted mainly from the energy consumption required to power the chillers. The energy supply is predominantly from fossil-based fuels which contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. Sources of direct emissions Manufacture emissions: Manufacture emissions or assembly emissions occur during domestic production of appliances when new equipment is filled for the first time. This includes emissions that occur on-site after installation or during filling of imported uncharged equipment. In-use emissions: RAC equipment is usually topped-up regularly due to leakage. This amount is referred to as in-use emissions or operating emissions. However, these emissions also include losses due to technicians’ activities during servicing. The amount reflects the service demand or refill.

Accounting of indirect emission

Baseline emission

Baseline emissions are determined as the product of the baseline electricity consumption of the existing

chiller and the emission factor for electricity generation, as follows:

BEy = EFELEC,y × ECBL,y

Where:

BEy Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)

EFELEC,y Emission factor for electricity generation in year y (t CO2/MWh)

ECBL,y Quantity of electricity that would be consumed by the existing chiller in the absence of

the project activity in year y (MWh)

Project emission

Emissions from electricity consumption of the new chiller installed under the project activity are calculated based on the monitored electricity consumption by the new chiller and the emission factor for electricity generation, as follows:

PEEC,y = EFELEC,y × ECPJ,y Where:

PEEC,y Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (t CO2/yr) ECPJ,y Quantity of electricity consumed in year y by the new chiller installed under the

project activity (MWh/yr) EFELEC,y Emission factor for electricity generation in year y (t CO2/yr)

Accounting of direct emission

PEy = PEref,y + PEEC,y

Where:

PEy Project emissions in year y (t CO2/yr)

PEref,y Project emissions from physical leakage of refrigerant from the new chiller(s) in year y (t

CO2e/yr)

PEEC,y Project emissions from electricity consumption in year y (t CO2yr)

Emissions from physical leakage of the refrigerant The use of refrigerant in the new chiller includes the initial charge of refrigerant before starting the

operation of the new chiller and refrigerant used during the lifetime of the new chiller to replace

refrigerant that has leaked. As a conservative simplification, it is assumed that all refrigerant used in the

new chiller is released to the atmosphere. The emissions are determined as follows:

Where:

PE ref,y Project emissions from physical leakage of refrigerant from the new chiller in year y (t

CO2e/yr)

Q ref,PJ,start Quantity of refrigerant charge in the new chiller at its start of operation (only accounted

in the first year of the first crediting period) (tonnes/year)

Qref,PJ,y Average annual quantity of refrigerant used in year y to replace refrigerant that has

leaked in year y (tonnes/year).

GWPref,PJ Global Warming Potential valid for the commitment period of the refrigerant that is used

in new chiller (only to be accounted if the refrigerant is classified as a GHG) (t CO2e/t

refrigerant)

Qref,BL In case the refrigerant used in the existing chiller is listed in Annex A of Kyoto Protocol,

three year average quantity of refrigerant used by existing chiller in baseline, prior to

implementation of project activity (tonnes/yr).

GWP ref,BL Global Warming Potential valid for the commitment period of the refrigerant that is used

in existing chiller (only to be accounted if the refrigerant is classified as a GHG listed in

Annex A of Kyoto protocol) (t CO2e/t refrigerant)

Emissions Reductions Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

ERy = BEy – PEy − LEHFC23,y Where: ERy Emission reductions in year y (t CO2/yr) BEy Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2/yr) PEy Project emissions in year y (t CO2/yr) LEHFC23,y Leakage emissions due to production of HFC-23 during manufacturing of HCFC-22

in year y (tCO2e/yr)

Table 4: Example calculation of GHG emission reduction by energy efficiency and use of refrigerant of

low GWP of chiller units replaced

Item Baseline emission (existing chiller)

Project emission (new chiller)

No. of chiller replacement 2 to 2 unit

Date installed/manufactured 1997 2014

Cooling Capacity (ton refrigerant)

1023 x 2 = 2046 ton 1000 x 2= 2000 ton

Chiller Full Load Amperage (FLA) 1106 862

Power capacity (kW at full load) 705 550

Coefficient of performance, COP (kW/RT)

0.689 0.55

Assumption: Annual runtime (operation period =24 hr/d x 365 d =8760 hr)

Estimated energy usage annually ( kW)

0.689 kW/ton x 2046 ton x 8760 hr = 12,348,919.44 kWh

0.55 kW/ton x 2000 ton x 8760 hr = 9,636,000 kWh

GHG Emission/year due to electricity consumption

12,348,919.44 kWh x 0.741 kg CO2/kWh= 9,150,549.31 kg CO2

9,636,000 kWh x 0.741 kg CO2/kWh=7,140,276 kg CO2

PEEC,y, Indirect emission reduction (ton CO2) 2,010.27

Refrigerant R-11 R-123

Amount refrigerant charge at installation (kg)

Assumption; 1000 kg x 2

Assumption; 1000 kg x 2

Leakage at assembly Assumption; 0.6 % leakage Q ref,PJ,start = 0.6/100*1000*2 = 12 kg R-123

*Leakage during operation Assumption; % of lose refrigerant = 8.5%/year

Qref,BL = 8.5/100 x 1000 x 2 kg = 170 kg R-11/year

Assumption; % of lose refrigerant = 0.1 %/year Qref,PJ,y = 0.1 /100 x 1000 x 2 kg = 2 kg R-123/year

**GWP 4,750 77

GHG emission/year 170 kg R-11 x 4750 GWP = 807,500 kg CO2e/year

14 kg R-123 x 77 GWP = 1078 kg CO2e/year

PE ref,y, Direct emission reduction (ton CO2) 806.42

Total GHG emission reduction from indirect and direct emission (ton CO2/yr)

2,816.69

Note * - Older chillers can lose refrigerant at 2-15 percent annually. Newer chillers equipped with

specially design pressure vessels and high-performance seals can cut the loss rate to 0.1 percent per

year. Chillers Performance: (Source: http://www.facilitiesnet.com. Challenge and Solutions – Facility

Management Energy Efficiency Feature.

Default assumption for leakage during assembly is between 0.2 to 1% (source: IPCC Good Practice

Guidelines and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2000); Calculating

HFC and PFC Emissions from the Manufacturing, Servicing, and/or Disposal of Refrigeration and Air-

Conditioning Equipment Calculation Worksheets (Version 1.0)

Note ** - GWP for 100-year time horizon. 4th assessment report (AR4).

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/

Annex 1: List of Chiller Verifiers

1st Verifiers Name

1 IR LEONG SAIK KONG (SELANGOR)

2 IR PHANG CHEN FAUT (K.LUMPUR)

3 IR WONG YEE FOONG (JOHOR)

4 IR ARUL HISHAM BIN ABDUL RAHIM (SELANGOR)

5 IR WONG KIAT CHOONG (SELANGOR)

6 IR TAN BAK PING (PENANG)

7 MR TAN WEE HAN (SELANGOR)

8 IR LEE KHEK MUI (PENANG)

9 IR LYE KAH HSIUNG (SELANGOR)

10 IR CHAN WENG LOON (SELANGOR)

11 IR ROSHAN THAMARAKSHAN (PENANG)

12 IR TEH CHIN FOO (PENANG)

13 MR WU CHING LEE (SELANGOR)

14 IR. LIM KEK SIA (SELANGOR)

15 MR. VEKNESWARAN ARASAPPAN (K.LUMPUR)

16 IR. TAN WEE KEONG (SELANGOR)

17 IR. MOHAMAD ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN IBRAHIM (TERENGGANU)

18 IR. DR. CHOK LIAN FATT (KEDAH)

19 IR. KUMARASON S. KANDIAH (SELANGOR)

20 MR. LIM CHEAN EE (SELANGOR)

21 MS. LEE AILEEN (SELANGOR)

22 MR. WONG FOOK KEE (SELANGOR)

23 IR. KONG KOK HAW (SELANGOR)

24 IR. POH CHOU CHUEN (K.LUMPUR)

25 IR. MUI HENG CHOR (K.LUMPUR)

26 IR. CHONG VUI HEN @ JOHN (SABAH)

27 MR. RIZA ABDILLAH KAMARUZZAMAN (SELANGOR)

28 IR. BERNAD SAGAIYARAJ (SELANGOR)

29 IR. NG. CHEE SING (SELANGOR)

2nd Verifiers Name

1 IR. KASIM AHMAD (SIRIM BERHAD)

2 EN. MOHAMAD BIN ZAKARIA (CAWANGAN PENANG)

3 CIK NORZAILA NOORDIN, (CAWANGAN MELAKA)

4 EN. KASVENDA KASIM (CAWANGAN SARAWAK)

5 EN. MOHD SOLEHAM JURAIMI KAMARUDIN (CAWANGAN TERENGGANU)

6 EN. AHMAD MIZAN MD. YUSOF, PENSIJILAN BARANGAN (SEKTOR

PEMERIKSAAN)

7 EN. NORAZLAN SHAH NORDIN, PENSIJILAN BARANGAN (SEKTOR

PEMERIKSAAN)

8 PN. NORIZA MOHAMED SUFIAN, PENSIJILAN BARANGAN (SEKTOR

PEMERIKSAAN)

9 PN. NORSHUHADA KAMARUDIN, PENSIJILAN BARANGAN (SEKTOR

PEMERIKSAAN)

10 EN. HARMAN ALANG KASIM, PENSIJILAN BARANGAN (SEKTOR PEMERIKSAAN)

11 MR. MUHAMMAD NAZIF ZAKARIA

12 MR. MOHD HAMIZI MOHD SAMSI

Appendix IV

Version 2.0, March 2015

Contents

Step 1: Defining the Policy or Action 1

Step 2: Identifying Effects, Mapping the Causal Chain

and Setting the GHG assessment Boundary 3

Step 3: Estimating Baseline Emissions 6

Step 4: Estimating GHG effects Ex-Ante 9

Step 5: Monitoring Performance 12

Step 6: Estimating GHG Effects Ex-Post 14

Step 7: Assessing Uncertainty 16

Step 8: Reporting 17

MR mitigation actions- checklist of accounting requirements

Methodology

STEP 1: Defining the Policy or Action ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er

Action required Setting priority

1. Have you select the policy or action to be assessed? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Cross refer with MYGHG Mitigation-MR Guidelines document

for types of policies and actions that may be assessed. Choose an item.

2. Have you define the policy or action to be assessed? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To clearly define the policy/action that is assessed. Part A and B of the GHG Mitigation-MR Design template has to be

completed. Choose an item.

Optional step 3. Decide whether to assess

an individual policy/action or a package of policies/actions.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

When making the decision, do consider the assessment objectives, feasibility and the degree of interaction between the policies or actions under consideration. Below is a stepwise guidance; Step 1: Characterise the type and degree of interaction Step 2: Apply criteria to determine whether to assess an individual policy/action or a package of policies/actions. Users may skip above steps and proceed with assessing individual programme/actions only.

Any potential overlaps of GHG effects that can be attributed from more than one policy/programme/measure shall be considered independently.

Choose an item.

4. Have you choose to carry out an ex ante assessment, ex post assessment or a combination of both?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ If the policy has been implemented, the assessment can be ex- ante, ex-post or combination of both.

Choose an item.

STEP 2: Identifying Effects, Mapping the Causal Chain and Setting the GHG Assessment Boundary

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er


1. Have you identified the potential GHG effects of the policy or action?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance on how to identify the GHG effects; Step 1: Identify the inputs and activities associated with implementing the policy/action. Step 2: Identify all intermediate effects of the policy/action that may lead to GHG effects and/or non-GHG effects. Step 3: Identify the type of GHG effects whether it is

a) in- or out jurisdiction effects, b) short or long term effects, intended and unintended

effects, c) all potential effects whether likely, possible and

unlikely, whether it causes GHG increase or removal. Step 4: Consider the potential GHG effects due to either;

a) Deployment of technology b) Development of new infrastructure c) Changes in human purchasing behaviour d) Changes in manufacturing practices e) Changes in supply and demand, pricing or market

share f) Changes in product upstream or downstream activities

or effects of sector not targeted by the policy. g) Changes in macroeconomics h) Changes in import/exports contributing to GHG leakage

Choose an item.

2. Have you identified the source/sink categories and GHG associated with the GHG effects?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To define the source/sink as either as individual or aggregated categories and these depend on the policy assessed, types of data collected and monitored and the estimation method use. Guidance;

- Individual sources correspond to bottom up data. - Aggregated sources correspond to top down data.

Choose an item.

3. Have you map the causal chain? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To develop and report a causal chain for the policy /action assessed based on above items. The causal chain represent the changes likely to occur as a result of the policy. It has to be comprehensive and not limited by geographical or temporal boundaries. Guidance; Step 1: Include the intermediate effects and GHG effects that have been identified. Step 2: Identify the first stage of the immediate effects and then create branch of the causal chain through a series of cause-and effect relationship until it leads to a GHG effect (i.e GHG emission or sink).

Choose an item.

4. Have you assess the significance of potential GHG effects?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance; Step 1: Estimate the likelihood that each GHG effect will occur. For ex-ante assessment, this involves predicting the likelihood of the effect occurring in the future as a result of the policy/action. For ex post assessment, this involves predicting the likelihood of the effect occurring in the past as a result of the policy/action. If the likelihood is unknown, to classified as “possible” Step2: Estimate the relative magnitude of each GHG effect.

a) Categorise based on major, moderate or minor of each effect. This can be based on the size of the source/sink category and the magnitude of change expected to occur as the result of from each source/sink category.or

b) Estimate the relative magnitude based on absolute value. To determine the total change of GHG emission in ton CO2e of each of the GHG effect. Then, compare the GHG effect against the total change.

Choose an item.

5. Have you identified which GHG effect to include in the GHG assessment boundary?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To include all significant GHG effects in the GHG assessment boundary. Omit those that has been estimated as minor in size and expected to be unlikely or very unlikely to occur. To report the approach used to determine the significance of GHG effects. To disclose and justify any exclusions of GHG effects.

Choose an item.

Step 3: Estimating Baseline Emissions

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er


1. Have you review the key concepts and determine sequence of steps?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To estimate the change in GHG emissions resulting from a given policy or action, must define two scenarios:

a) The baseline scenario, which represents the events or

conditions most likely to occur in the absence of the policy or action (or package of policies and actions) being assessed; and

b) The policy scenario, which represents the events or

conditions most likely to occur in the presence of the policy or action (or package of policies and actions) being assessed.

Choose an item.

2. Have you choose type of baseline comparison?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Baseline scenarios can be determined ex-ante or ex-post:

a) An ex-ante baseline scenario is a forward-looking

baseline scenario, typically established prior to implementation of the policy or action, which is based on forecasts of emissions drivers (such as projected changes in population, economic activity or other drivers that affect emissions), in addition to historical data.

b) An ex-post baseline scenario is a backward-looking

baseline scenario established during or after implementation of the policy or action. Ex-post baseline scenarios should include updates to the ex-ante forecasts of emission drivers, if an ex-ante assessment was first undertaken.

Choose an item.

3. Have you estimated the baseline emissions using scenario method or comparison group method?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance:

Estimating baseline emissions using the scenario method:

a) Define the most likely baseline scenario. b) Select a desired level of accuracy. c) Define emissions estimation method(s) and parameters

needed to calculate baseline emissions. d) Estimate baseline values for each parameter.

i. Option 1: Using baseline values from published

data sources ii. Option 2: Developing new baseline values

1) Collect historical data for the parameter 2) Identify other policies/ actions and non-policy

drivers that affect each parameters 3) Estimate baseline values for each parameter,

based on assumptions of each driver e) Estimate baseline emissions for each source/ sink

category. f) Apply GWP values provided by the IPCC based on a

100-year time horizon.

Choose an item.

Choose type of baseline comparison

ex-post

comparison group method feasible and appropriate

No

use scenario method

Yes

use scenario or comparison group method

ex-ante

use scenario method

Estimating baseline emissions and GHG effects using the comparison group method:

a) Identify the policy group and comparison group. b) Collect data from the policy group and comparison

group. c) Estimate emissions from both groups and estimate

the GHG effect of the policy or action.

4. Have you aggregate the baseline emissions across all sources/ sinks?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance:

a) Calculate the aggregated baseline emissions across sources and sinks using the scenario method and/ or the comparison group method.

b) Address any possible overlaps or interactions between sources and sinks to avoid over- or underestimation of total baseline emissions.

c) Report total annual and cumulative baseline scenario emissions and removals over the GHG assessment period, if feasible based on the method used.

Choose an item.

Step 4: Estimating GHG effects Ex-Ante

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er


1. Have you define the most likely policy scenario?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance: a) Define a policy scenario that represents the condition

most likely to occur in the presence of the policy or action.

b) Report a description of the policy scenario.

Choose an item.

2. Have you identify parameters to be estimated?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To estimate policy scenario emissions;

1. Identify all the parameters (such as activity data and emissions factors) in the emissions estimation method(s) that are affected by the policy or action.

2. Estimate parameters that are affected by the policy or action in the policy scenario (because values between the baseline scenario and policy scenario differ).

Choose an item.

3. Have you select a desired level of accuracy?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To select a desired level of accuracy, must be based on:

a) objectives of the assessment b) data availability c) capacity/ resources d) report the methodology used to estimate policy

scenario emissions (including the emissions estimation method(s) of any model used).

Choose an item.

4. Have you estimate policy scenario values for parameters?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The approach to estimating policy scenario values for each parameter depends on whether the parameter is expected to be affected by the policy or action. Must report the following:

a) The policy scenario values for key parameters in the emissions estimation method(s).

b) The methodologies and assumptions used to estimate policy scenario values for key parameters, including whether each parameter is assumed to be static or dynamic.

c) All sources of data for key parameters, including activity data, emission factors, GWP values and assupmtions.

d) Any potential interactions with other policies and actions and whether and how policy interactions were estimated.

Justification is needed for unreported source.

Choose an item.

5. Have you estimate policy scenario emissions?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Refer to number 2: To estimate policy scenario emissions. After completed the estimation exercise, aggregation of policy scenario emissions across all categories of sources and sinks including the GHG assessment boundary to estimate total policy scenario emissions. Remember to address any possible overlaps or interactions between sources and sinks to avoid over- or underestimation of total policy scenario emissions. Need to report total annual and cumulative policy scenario emissions and removals over the GHG assessment period.

Choose an item.

6. Have you estimate the GHG effect of the policy or action?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance in estimating the GHG effect for each source/ sink category separately:

a) Estimate baseline emissions from each source/ sink category (refer to Step 4: Estimating Baseline Emissions).

b) Estimate policy scenario emissions for each source/ sink category.

c) For each source/ sink category, substract baseline emissions from policy scenario emissions to estimate the GHG effect of the policy or action for each source/ sink category.

d) Aggregate GHG effects across all source/ sink categories to estimate total GHG effect of the policy or action.

Choose an item.

Step 5: Monitoring Performance

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er


1. Have you define the key performance indicators?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To report the selected key performance indicators and rationale for their selection. Key performance indicators are metrics that indicate the performance of a policy or action, such as tracking changes in targeted outcomes. Guidance: The selection of the indicators should be tailored to the list below:

a) Policy or action in question b) Based on the type of policy or action c) The stakeholders’s requirements d) The availability of existing data e) The cost of collecting new data

Choose an item.

2. Have you define the parameters for ex-post assessment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Define the methods needed for ex-post assessment in order to identify the parameters that should be monitored (either bottom-up and top-down estimation methods).

Choose an item.

3. Have you define the policy monitoring period?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance:

1. Include the policy implementation period (refer Step 1: Defining the Policy or Action)

2. Include pre-policy monitoring of relevant activities prior to the implementation of the policy

3. Include post-policy monitoring of relevant activities after the policy implementation period.

Choose an item.

4. Have you create a monitoring plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Include the following elements in a monitoring plan: 1. Measurement or data collection methods 2. Sources of data (either existing data sources or

additional data collected specifically to monitor indicators)

3. Monitoring frequency 4. Units of measure 5. Level of uncertainty in any emasurements or estimates

(how it is accounted for) 6. Sampling procedures (if applicable) 7. Data verification (including the verification procedure

used) 8. Entity(ies) or person responsible for monitoring

activities and roles and responsibilities of relevant personnel

9. Competencies required and any training needed to ensure personnel have necessary skills

10. Methods for generating, storing, collating and reporting on monitored parameters

11. Databases, tools or software systems to be used for collecting and managing

12. Procedures for internal auditing, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC)

13. Record keeping and internal documentation procedures needed for QA/ QC, including length of time data will be archived

14. Any other relevant information

Choose an item.

5. How to monitor parameters over time? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

1. Report the performance of the policy or action over

time, as measured by the key performance of the policy or action (and check whether the performance of the policy or action is on tract relative to expectations).

2. If monitoring indicates that the assumptions used in the ex-ante assessment are no longer valid, should document the differences and take the monitoring results into account when updating the ex-ante estimates or when estimating GHG effects ex-post.

3. Report whether the assumptions on key parameters within the ex-ante assessment remain valid.

Choose an item.

Step 6: Estimating GHG Effects Ex-Post

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er


1. Do you have an update baseline emissions or ex-ante assessment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance: Step 1: Baseline emissions should be recalculated every time an ex-post assessment is undertaken. Ex-post assessment may either estimate ex-post policy scenario emissions before or after estimating ex-post baseline emissions. Step 2: The ex-post baseline scenario should include all other policies or actions with a significant effect on emissions that were implemented both;

a) Prior to the implementation of the policy or action being assessed; and

b) After the implementation of the policy/ action being assessed but prior to the ex-post GHG assessment.

Step 3: Report any potential interactions with other policies and actions together with its estimation. If an ex-ante assessment was carried out prior to the ex-post assessment; use the same method above by replacing the forecasted parameter values (ex-ante) with observed parameter values (ex-post).

Choose an item.

2. Have you select an ex-post assessment method?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance: Select between top-down, bottom-up or integrated top-down/ bottom-up methods based on:

a) Data availability b) Type of policy and sector c) Number of interacting policyies and actions d) Number of actors influenced by the policy e) Capacity, resources and level of expertise available to

acrry out the methods

Choose an item.

3. Have you select a desired level of accuracy?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Ex-post assessment method:

a) Bottom-up method i. Collection of data from affected participants/ sources/

other affected actors ii. Engineering estimates iii. Deemed estimates b) Integrated top-down/ bottom-up methods (depending

on the context) i. Stock modelling ii. Diffusion indicators

c) Top-down method i. Monitoring of indicators ii. Economic modelling

Choose an item.

4. Have you estimate policy scenario emissions?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

After applying the above exercise (ex-post assessment method) with data collected in Step 6: Monitoring Performance with the same GWP values used to estimate baseline emissions. Disclosed, justified and described qualitatively:

a) any sources b) sinks c) greenhouse gas in the GHG assessment boundary d) total annual and cumulative policy scenario emmissions

and removals over the GHG assessment period e) the methodology used to estimate policy scenario

emmisions f) data for key parameters (including activity data,

emission factors, GWP values and assumptions

Choose an item.

5. Have you estimate the GHG effect of the policy or action?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance:

1. Estimate baseline from each source/ sink category 2. Estimate policy scenario esmissions for each source/

sink category 3. For each source/ sink category, substract baseline

emissions from policy scenario emissions to estimate the GHG effect of the policy or action for each source/ sink category

4. Aggregate GHG effects across all source/ sink categories to estimate total GHG effect of the policy or action

Choose an item.

6. Have you taken additional steps to inform decision making?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance:

a) Normalizing results b) Harmonizing top-down and bottom-up assessments c) Comparing the GHG effects of policies to the GHG

inventory d) Applying decomposition analysis e) Combining ex-ante and ex-post assessments

Choose an item.

Step 7: Assessing Uncertainty

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

Yes

Pla

nn

ing

Imp

lem

en

ted

No

an

sw

er


1. Have you calculate sensitivity analysis? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Guidance:

1. Conduct sensitivity analysis for key parameters and assumptions in the assessment.

2. Adjust the value of key parameters to determine the impact of such variations on the overall results.

A general rule: variations should be between 10%

Choose an item.

2. Have you perform qualitative uncertainty analysis?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Characterize the level of confidence of the results based on:

a) The quantity and quality of evidence b) The degree of evidence’s agreement

Choose an item.

3. Have you perform quantitative uncertainty analysis?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Approaches of quantifying single parameter uncertainty:

a) Measured uncertainty approach b) Default uncertainty estimates for specific activities or

parameters c) Probability distributions from commercial databases d) Uncertainty factors for parameters reported in literature e) Pedigree matrix approach f) Survey of experts to generate upper- and lower-bound

estimates g) Expert judgement

Approaches to combine uncertainties:

i. Error propagation equations ii. Monte Carlo simulation

Choose an item.

Step 8: Reporting

CHECKLIST ACTIONS

Questions No

In P

lan

nin

g

Part

iall

y

Imp

lem

en

ted

Yes

No

an

sw

er

Action required Urgency of Action

1. Have you completed the studied GHG assessment?

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

To complete the MYGHG Mitigation MR Design Form and provide additional information to support the GHG assessment of the mitigation action.

Choose an item.

appendix 4.3.1

Documents