devoll hydro power (dhp), albania

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03

CDM – Executive Board

page 1

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD)

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006

CONTENTS

A. General description of project activity

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

D. Environmental impacts

E. Stakeholders‟ comments

Annexes

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan

Annex 5: Information regarding stakeholders

Annex 6: Notification letter to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat/CDM prior

consideration



page 2

SECTION A. General description of project activity

A.1. Title of the project activity:

Devoll Hydropower (DHP), Albania

Document version: PDD, version 01

Completion date: 22 July 2011

A.2. Description of the project activity:

Devoll Hydropower (DHP), Albania (hereinafter referred to as the “proposed project activity” or the

“project”) involves the installation of 3 accumulation reservoir hydro power plants (HPP Moglice – HPP

Kokel – HPP Banja) in a cascade development utilizing the hydropower potential of the Devoll river,

Albania. The planned total installed capacity of the project is 272 MW1. The project is expected to

generate around 789 GWh2 electricity per annum which will be supplied to the Albanian grid. The

generated electricity will be supplied to the national grid via newly constructed transmission lines. HPP

Moglice will be connected to Elbastan, the main hub in the southern primary grid, via 48.2 km long 220

kV3 double circuit line via HPP Kokel. HPP Kokel will be connected via the 220 kV

4 transmission line

from HPP Moglicë to Elbasan. HPP Banja will be connected to Cerrik sub-station in the secondary grid

by a 12.5 km long 110 kV5 single circuit line.

1*Note: The main technical and financial data of Devoll Hydropower (DHP) Project used in the PDD are from the

Feasibility Study Report (FSR), Revision November 2010, based on which the investment decision was taken as well

as from the Devoll Hydropower Project Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011 which indicates the most recent

technical data. There are small differences between the technical data of DHP at the time of the investment decision

and the most recent ones, however, those have no impact on the project concept and additionality. Therefore, it can

be accepted that the most recent technical data are also valid and applicable at time of the investment decision. In

order to demonstrate that the input values used in the PDD have not materially changed from the investment decision

(as per paragraph 54 of the EB38 report), the differences between the data are outlined in the PDD. The FSR of DHP

project and all other cited technical documents in the PDD are prepared by Norconsult, a leading Norwegian

engineering company having proven experience in developing power plants worldwide. 1 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

pages 12-13. For clarity, there are two small turbines with installed capacity of 1.2 MW at HPP Moglice and HPP

Banja which utilize the environmental flow. They are not productive but emergency release turbines for the night for

the environmental flow of the river. They will not be operated at the same time as the big turbines but only used

when the main turbines are out of operation (too little water or maintenance) in order to keep the minimum flow rate

in the river of 1 (-2) m3/s. 2 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

pages 12-13 3 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 3 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

pages 12-13 4 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 3 and Devoll Hydropower Project, Design

Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 13 5 DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 3 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

page 13



page 3

Under the existing scenario the electricity in Albania is delivered by the national grid which is dominated

by old HPPs which currently cannot cover the increasing electricity demand. The share of electricity

import is around 40%6 of overall power generation. Black-outs and cut-offs in the grid are frequently

observed, thus a considerable number of consumers rely on the service of stand-by generators which are

operated during the time when the grid cannot supply electricity in the required amount and/or quality.

This fact is taken into account as per the option to include off-grid power plants defined in the “Tool to

calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”. Since in recent years in Albania load shedding,

which refers to the existence of suppressed demand was widely observed, the condition of suppressed

demand was taken into consideration for the weights to calculate the CM Emission factor.

The project activity will generate renewable power with negligible GHG emissions which will displace

electricity otherwise supplied by the Albanian grid and fossil fuel fired stand-by generators.

The baseline scenario of the project activity is the same as the scenario existing prior to the start of the

implementation of the project activity.

The project includes the creation of 3 new reservoirs. For HPP Möglice the reservoir surface area7 is

7,210,000 m2 and the power density is 23.745 W/m

2, for HPP Kokel the reservoir surface area

8 is 710,000

m2 and the power density is 50.986 W/m

2, and for HPP Banja the reservoir surface area

9 is 14,110,000 m

2

and the power density is 4.578 W/m2. As the power density of HPP Banja is below 10 W/m², greenhouse

gas emissions from water reservoirs are accounted in the project activity. With an expected grid emission

factor of 0.4631 tCO2/MWh and a yearly production of 789 GWh10

, the project is expected to achieve

annual CO2 emission reductions of about 339,052 tCO2 and total reduction of 3,390,520 tCO2 over the 10

years crediting period.

The project will contribute to sustainable development of the local area and Albania as following:

Balance the electricity supply and demand gap (“suppressed demand”) thus reducing the

reliance on off-grid power generators and imports.

Creates new employment and infrastructure, especially in the commune of Gramsh, thus

contributing to economic growth, improved standard of live of the local people and poverty

alleviation. Around 2,000 people will be employed during the construction and operational

phases.

6 See information in Annex 3 provided by KESH j.s.c. – the Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation and OST j.s.c –

the Albanian Transmission System Operator

7 DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010,

page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94, table 5.3.1 Reservoir

8 DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 85, table 5.2.1 Reservoir. At time of the investment

decision, the reservoir surface area of HPP Kokel was 850,000 m2

- DHP Project, Engineering Services –

Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2. The difference in the values of the

reservoir surface area have no impact of the power density of HPP Kokel, as in both cases the value is above 10

W/m², hence no greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs have to be considered according to ACM0002.

9 DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6 and DHP Project,

Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74, table 5.1.1 Reservoir. 10

The net electricity generation is 781.1 GWh due to deduction of 1% for auxiliary services (as per the assumption

made in the Business Plan at the time of the investment decision)



page 4

Applies modern and highly efficient turbines and generators. The power transmission will be at

high voltage to ensure low loses.

Know-how and personnel training on local level are also important benefits from the project.

Sets an important benchmark by attracting foreign investments in the Albanian energy sector

and improving the security and stability of the country‟s power system.

Compliance with all international standards and best available technologies and practices.

The project will be granted to the Albanian Government after the expiry of the Concession

Agreement.

A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved

(host)

Private and/or public entity(ies)

project participants

(as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party

involved wishes to be

considered as project

participant (Yes/No)

Albania (host Party) Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. (DHP) No

Austria EVN AG No

Norway Statkraft AS No

Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. (DHP) is an Albanian Joint Stock company owned by EVN AG 50%

(Austria) and Statkraft AS 50% (Norway). It has been established for the purpose of implementing a

hydropower scheme on the Devoll River (South Albania) within a Build, Own, Operate and Transfer

(BOOT) concession (CA) from Government of Albania. More information about DHP is available on its

website: www.dhp.al.

EVN Group is an international energy and environmental services company, with headquarters in Lower

Austria. It operates in 19 countries and has more than 8,500 employees. EVN supplies more than 3

million direct customers with electricity, gas, heat, water, waste water treatment, waste incineration and

related services. More information about EVN is available on its website: www.evn.at.

Statkraft is Europe's leader in renewable energy. The company develops and generates hydropower,

wind power, gas power and district heating and is a major player on the European energy exchanges.

Statkraft has more than 3,400 employees in more than 20 countries. More information about Statkraft is

available on its website: www.statkraft.com.

A.4. Technical description of the project activity:

A.4.1. Location of the project activity:

A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies):

Albania

A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.:

http://www.dhp.al/

http://www.evn.at/

http://www.statkraft.com/



page 5

Prefectures of Elbasan and Korçë

A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.:

Gramsh Commune

A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page):

The proposed project activity is situated in the central-eastern part of Albania, south of Shkumbin River

and within 50-70 km southern from Tirana. It includes the mountainous region of the Devoll Valley with

utilisation of the head of Devoll River, including tributaries between Maliq at elevation +810 m a.s.l. and

elevation +95 m a.s.l. downstream of Banja Dam.

Table 1: Geographical coordinates of the dams and power houses of DHP project

Name X Y Lon Lat

Moglice dam 452701.52311

4504843.628 20ｰ 26' 24.692" E 40ｰ 41' 35.284" N

Moglice power house 444228.91712

4510076.444 20ｰ 20' 22.033" E 40ｰ 44' 23.072" N

Kokel dam 440589.38613

4514001.183 20ｰ 17' 45.519" E 40ｰ 46' 29.429" N

Kokel power house 440460.73814

4514015.262 20ｰ 17' 40.027" E 40ｰ 46' 29.852" N

Banja dam 42139815

4535213 20ｰ 3' 57.245" E 40ｰ 57' 51.444" N

Banja power house 42096116

4535417 20ｰ 3' 38.458" E 40ｰ 57' 57.907" N

11

HPP 3, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Moglice, ACC Dam, Dam and Intake Area Plan, NOR 351002 12

HPP 3, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Moglice, Powerhouse, NOR 366002 13

HPP 2, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Kokel Dam, General Dam Area Plan, NOR 251001 14

HPP 2, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Kokel Dam, General Dam Area Plan, NOR 251001 15

HPP 1, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Banja/HEC Banja, Dam and HPP Banja/Diga DHE HEC BANJA, 2011/06/08,

MUL 1000 16

HPP 1, Devoll Hydropower, HPP Banja/HEC Banja, Dam and HPP Banja/Diga DHE HEC BANJA, 2011/06/08,

MUL 1000



page 6

Figure 1: Map of Albania


CDM – Executive Board page 7

Figure 2: Layout of cascade HPP Moglice- HPP Kokel- HPP Banja (Devoll Hydropower Project)



page 8

A.4.2. Category(ies) of project activity:

Sectoral scope1: Energy industries (renewable sources)

A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity:

(a) The scenario existing prior to the start of the implementation of the project activity

Under the existing scenario the electricity in Albania is delivered by the national grid which is dominated

by old HPPs which currently cannot cover the increasing electricity demand. The share of electricity

import amounts to almost 40%17

of overall power generation. Black-outs and cut-offs in the grid are

frequently observed, thus a considerable number of consumers rely on the service of stand-by generators

which are operated during the time when the grid cannot supply electricity in the required amount and/or

quality. This fact is taken into account as per the option to include off-grid power plants defined in the

“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”. Since in recent years in Albania load

shedding, which refers to the existence of suppressed demand was widely observed, the condition of

suppressed demand was taken into consideration for the weights to calculate the CM Emission factor.

(b) The scope of activities/measures that are being implemented within the project activity

The proposed project activity involves the installation of 3 accumulation reservoir hydro power plants

(HPP Moglice – HPP Kokel – HPP Banja) in a cascade development utilizing the hydropower potential

of the Devoll river, Albania.

The Devoll hydropower development comprises:

Upper Plant (HPP3) - HPP Moglicë18

HPP Moglicë utilises a head of 300 m along an about 22 km long stretch of Devoll River. The intake is

situated in the Moglicë reservoir created by the approximately 150 m high Moglicë Dam, planned as an

asphalt core rockfill dam. The reservoir surface area19

is 7,210,000 m2

and the power density is 23.745

W/m2. A headrace tunnel of length 10.7 km conveys the water to the powerhouse located underground on

the north bank of Devoll River. The tailrace tunnel is approximately 900 m long leading to the Kokel

reservoir created by the Kokel Dam. HPP Moglicë is equipped with two Francis units with a total

combined capacity of 171.2 MW and an average annual energy production of 445 GWh. An additional

small unit of 1.2 MW for minimum release has been planned to at the toe of the HPP Moglice dam which

utilizes the environmental flow. HPP Moglicë will be connected to Elbasan, the main hub in the southern

primary grid, by a 48.2 km long 220 kV double circuit line via HPP Kokel.

17

See information in Annex 3 provided by KESH j.s.c. – the Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation and OST j.s.c

– the Albanian Transmission System Operator 18

DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2-3 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report,

dated 07/07/2011, page 12

19

DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010,

page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94, table 5.3.1 Reservoir



page 9

Middle Plant (HPP2) – HPP Kokel20

HPP Kokel utilises different heads from the Kokel reservoir created by the approximately 50 m high

Kokel Dam. The reservoir surface area21

is 710,000 m2

and the power density is 50.986 W/m2. The

powerhouse is located at surface at the toe of Kokel Dam. A 300 m long headrace tunnel conveys the

water from the reservoir via an embedded penstock to two Francis units with a total combined capacity of

36.2 MW. The estimated average annual energy production is 92 GWh. The middle plant is connected

via the 220 kV transmission line from HPP Moglicë to Elbasan.

Lower Plant (HPP1) - HPP Banja22

The lower plant, HPP Banja, utilises the head of 80 m along an approximately 16 km long stretch of

Devoll River. The intake is situated in the Banja reservoir next to the south bank abutment of Banja Dam,

designed as a clay core embankment dam (approximately 80 m high). The reservoir surface area23

is

14,110,000 m2

and the power density is 4.578 W/m2. The powerhouse and the tailrace outlet are situated

on the south bank. The layout is the same as the original Albanian plans for the project. The dam and

headrace tunnel was left half completed after the site was abandoned in the 1980‟s. The plant is equipped

with two Francis units with a combined capacity of 64.6 MW and an additional small unit of 1.2 MW for

minimum release. The estimated average annual energy production is 252 GWh. HPP Banja will be

connected to Cerrik sub-station in the secondary grid by a 12.5 km long 110 kV single circuit line.

The planned total installed capacity of the project is 27224

. The project is expected to generate around

78925

GWh electricity per annum, of which approximately 99% (781.1 GWh) will be supplied to the

Albanian grid, and the rest 1% will be used for auxiliary services.

As the power density of HPP Banja is below 10 W/m², greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs

are accounted in the project activity. With an expected grid emission factor of 0.4631 tCO2/MWh and a

yearly production of 789 GWh26

, the project is expected to achieve annual CO2 emission reductions of

about 339,052 tCO2 and total reduction of 3,390,520 tCO2 over the 10 years crediting period.

20

DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2-3 and Devoll Hydropower Project, Design

Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, pages 12-13

21

DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 85, table 5.2.1 Reservoir 22

DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2-3 and Devoll Hydropower Project, Design

Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 13

23

DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6 and DHP Project,

Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74, Table 5.1.1 Reservoir. 24

DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

pages 12-13. For clarity, there are two small turbines with installed capacity of 1.2 MW at HPP Moglice and HPP

Banja which utilize the environmental flow. They are not productive but emergency release turbines for the night for

the environmental flow of the river. They will not be operated at the same time as the big turbines but only used

when the main turbines are out of operation (too little water or maintenance) in order to keep the minimum flow rate

in the river of 1 (-2) m3/s. 25

DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 and Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

pages 12-13 26

The net electricity generation is 781.1 GWh due to deduction of 1% for auxiliary services (as per the assumption

made in the Business Plan at the time of the investment decision)



page 10

The project activity will generate renewable power with negligible GHG emissions which will displace

electricity otherwise supplied by the Albanian grid and fossil fuel fired stand-by generators.

The main technical parameters of DHP are shown in the table below.

Table 2: Manufacture and technical indicators of the main equipment of the proposed project activity

Equipment/

Technical Parameters

Units Values

HPP Moglice

Turbine27

Type - Francis

Number turbines - 2

Orientation - Vertical

Maximum turbine output (one

unit in operation)

MW 90.2

Maximum turbine output (two

units in operation)

MW 171.2

Speed

rpm 428.5728

Expected lifetime29

years 50

Generator30


No of generators - 2

Nominal frequency Hz 50

Nominal generator output per

unit

MW 88.8

Maximum generator output per

unit

MVA 104.531

27


page 41, Table 10.6-3 Main data for turbines and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 117,

Table 5.3.19 Mechanical Works. For clarity, the additional small unit of 1.2 MW at HPP Moglice has not been

considered in the FSR from November 2010 but subsequently planned in the most recent Design Basis Report, dated

07/07/2011. 28

At time of the investment decision, the Turbine speed has been assumed at 428.7 rpm - DHP Project, Engineering

Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 41, Table 10.6-3 Main

data for turbines 29

The expected lifetime of the components of the project equipment is based on experience of Norconsult with

similar HPPs already constructed 30


page 46, Table 10.6-9 Main data for generators and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 118,

Table 5.3.20 Electrical Works 31

At time of the investment decision, the Maximum generator power output has been assumed at 101 MVA - DHP

Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 46,

Table 10.6-9 Main data for generators



page 11

Speed rpm 42832

Expected lifetime years 50

Main transformers33

Nominal power per unit MVA 104.534

Ratio kV 220/gen

Voltage +/-5%


High voltage switchgear35

System voltage kV 220

Frequency Hz 50


Dam36

Type

- Embankment dam with a centrally

placed asphalt concrete core

Height (m) 15037

Reservoir38

HRWL surface area km2 7.21

Plant Load Factor (PLF)39

30

HPP Kokel

Turbine40

32

At time of the investment decision, the Generator speed has been assumed at 428.7 rpm - DHP Project,

Engineering Services - Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 46, Table

10.6-9 Main data for generators 33


page 48, Table 10.6-10 Main data for transformers and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page

118, Table 5.3.20 Electrical Works 34

At time of the investment decision the Nominal power has been assumed at 101 MVA - DHP Project, Engineering

Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 48, Table 10.6-10 Main

data for transformers 35


page 49, Table 10.6-7 Main data High voltage switchgear and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

page 118, Table 5.3.20 Electrical Works 36


page 1 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94-95 37

At time of the investment decision, the Dam height has been assumed at 147 m - DHP Project, Engineering

Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 10, HPP Moglice, Revision Nov. 2010, page 1 38


page 2 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 94, Table 5.3.1 Reservoir 39

The PLF of HPP Moglice is determined as the annual electricity output / (installed capacity*8760)*100%). The

total operating hours per year are 8760. Thus, the PLF = 445,000/(171.2*8760)*100%) = 30%. The PLF of HPP

Moglice is confirmed by Norconsult, the engineering company responsible for development of the FSR of DHP

project with issuance of a Confirmation letter, dated 05/07/2011 and is in compliance with the Guidelines for the

reporting and validation of plant load factors, EB48, Annex 11 40

DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010,


Table 5.2.8 Mechanical Works



page 12

Type - Francis

Number turbines - 2



unit in operation)

MW 17.9


units in operation)

MW 36.2

Speed rpm 300


Generator41

Number of units - 2




unit

MW 17.6


unit

MVA 20.842

Speed rpm 300


Main transformers43


Ratio kV 220/gen

Voltage +/-5%




Frequency Hz 50


Dam46

41




At time of the investment decision, the Maximum generator power output has been assumed at 21.4 MVA - DHP

Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 28,

Table 11.6-8 Main data for transformers 43




At time of the investment decision, the Nominal power output has been assumed at 21.4 MVA - DHP Project,

Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 28, Table

11.6-8 Main data for transformers 45


page 29, Table 11.6-9 Main data High voltage switchgear and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

page 91, Table 5.2.9 Electrical Works



page 13

Type

Half concrete gravity dam and half

asphalt faced rockfill dam and

Height 5047

Reservoir48


Plant Load Factor49

% 29

HPP Banja

Turbine50

Type - Francis

Number turbines - 3

Turbine unit 1&2



unit in operation)

MW 32.851


units in operation)

MW 64.6

Speed rpm 300


Turbine unit 3

Type - Francis

Orientation - Horizontal

Maximum turbine output MW 1.252

Speed rpm 1000


46


page 2 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 86 47

At time of the investment decision, the Dam height has been assumed at 55 m - DHP Project, Engineering Services

– Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2 48

DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 85, Table 5.2.1 Reservoir. At time of the investment

decision, the Reservoir surface area of HPP Kokel was 850,000 m2

- DHP Project, Engineering Services –

Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 11, HPP Kokel, Revision Nov. 2010, page 2. The difference in the values of the

reservoir surface area have no impact of the power density of HPP Kokel, as in both cases the value is above 10

W/m², hence no greenhouse gas emissions from water reservoirs have to be considered according to ACM0002. 49

The PLF of HPP Kokel = 92,000/(36.2*8760)*100%) = 29%. The PLF of HPP Kokel is confirmed by Norconsult,

the engineering company responsible for development of the FSR of DHP project with issuance of a Confirmation

letter, dated 05/07/2011 and is in compliance with the Guidelines for the reporting and validation of plant load

factors, EB48, Annex 11 50

DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010,


Table 5.1.8 Mechanical Works. 51

At time of the investment decision, the Maximum turbine power output (one unit in operation) was assumed at

32.1 MW - DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov.

2010, page 23, Table 13.9-2 Main data for turbines 52 The 1.2 MW turbine is not a productive but an emergency release turbine for the night for the environmental flow

of the river. It will not be operated at the same time as the big turbines but only used when the main turbines are out

of operation (too little water or maintenance) in order to keep the minimum flow rate in the river of 1 (-2) m3/s.



page 14

Generator53

Number of units - 3

Generator unit 1&2




unit

MW 32.454


unit

MVA 38.3

Speed rpm 300


Generator unit 3 -

Orientation - Horizontal


Nominal generator output MW 1.255

Maximum generator output MVA 1.4

Speed rpm 1000


Main transformers56

Number of units - 3

Main transformers units 1&2


Ratio kV 110/gen

Voltage +/- 5%


Main transformer unit 3 -

Nominal power MVA 1.3

Ratio kV Distr. voltage/gen

Voltage +/- 5%


53




At time of the investment decision, the Nominal generator power output was assumed at 31.7 MW - DHP Project,

Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 29, Table


At time of the investment decision, the Nominal generator power output was assumed at 1.1 MW - DHP Project,

Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 29, Table



page 30, Table 13.9-7 Main data for transformers and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page

82, Table 5.1.9 Electrical Works 57

At time of the investment decision, the Nominal power was assumed at 37.3 MW - DHP Project, Engineering

Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 13, HPP Banja, Revision Nov. 2010, page 30, Table 13.9-7 Main data

for transformers



page 15



Frequency 50


Dam59

Type - Clay core embankment dam

Height m 80

Reservoir60


Plant Load Factor61

% 44

The tender documentation for selection of the supplier of the equipment is under elaboration and will be

based on Statkraft standard. The main equipment of Devoll Hydropower project will be imported. The

country from which the equipment will be imported will be known after the selection of the supplier.

In order to ensure appropriate collection and archiving of the data during the monitoring, the project

owner and the supplier of the equipment will provide training to the project operators of Devoll

Hydropower plant.

(c) The baseline scenario

The baseline scenario of the project activity is the same as the scenario existing prior to the start of the

implementation of the project activity.

A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period:

The project applies 10 years crediting period. The crediting period is expected to start on 01/07/2020.

The expected amount of emission reductions to be achieved by the project over the 10 years crediting

period are indicated in the table below:

Table 3: Estimation of emission reductions over the crediting period

58


page 31, Table 13.9-8 Main data high voltage switchgear and DHP Project, Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011,

page 82, Table 5.1.9 Electrical Works 59

DHP Project, FSR, Executive Summary, Revision Nov. 2010, pages 2 and DHP Project, Design Basis Report,

dated 07/07/2011, page 74. 60

DHP Project, Engineering Services – Development Phase, FSR, Chapter 1, Introduction, page 6 and DHP Project,

Design Basis Report, dated 07/07/2011, page 74, Table 5.1.1 Reservoir. 61

The PLF of HPP Banja = 252,000/(64.6*8760)*100%) = 44%. The PLF of HPP Banja is confirmed by

Norconsult, the engineering company responsible for development of the FSR of DHP project with issuance of a

Confirmation letter, dated 05/07/2011 and is in compliance with the Guidelines for the reporting and validation of

plant load factors, EB48, Annex 11



page 16

Years Annual estimation of emission reductions

in tonnes of CO2 e

01/07/2020 169,526

2021 339,052

2022 339,052

2023 339,052

2024 339,052

2025 339,052

2026 339,052

2027 339,052

2028 339,052

2029 339,052

30/06/2030 169,526

Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 ) 3,390,520

Total number of crediting years 10

Annual average over the crediting period of

estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2 e)

339,052

Three HPP units will be put into operation in a phased manner, as following: HPP Banja on 01/07/2015,

HPP Moglice on 01/12/2017 and HPP Kokel on 01/10/2018.

All three power plants will be in operation most likely in middle of 2019. Taking into consideration that

it needs time to fill the storage, the commercial operation of all three hydro power plants is envisaged for

the middle of 2020.

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity:

No public funding from parties included in Annex I of the UNFCCC has been involved in the proposed

project activity62

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology

B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the

project activity:

Applied methodology:

ACM0002: “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from

renewable sources”, ver. 12.1.0

Related Tools:

62 The project owner presented declarations to the DOE that no public funding from parties included in Annex I has

been involved in DHP



page 17

“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”, ver. 02.1.0

“Tool for the demonstration and assessment of the additionality”, ver. 05.2

B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project

activity:

The applicability of the methodology ACM0002: “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-

connected electricity generation from renewable sources”, ver. 12.1.0 to the proposed project activity is

demonstrated in the table below:

Table 4: Justification of the applicability of the methodology ACM0002

Aplicability conditions of ACM0002

Characteristics of the project

activity

Fulfilment of applicability

criterion

This methodology is applicable to

grid-connected renewable power

generation project activities that:

(a) install a new power plant at a site

where no renewable power plant was

operated prior to the implementation

of the project activity (greenfield

plant);

(b) involve a capacity addition;

(c) involve a retrofit of (an) existing

plant(s); or

(d) involve a replacement of (an)

existing plant(s).

The proposed project activity

consists of the installation of

new grid connected renewable

power plants at a site where no

renewable power plant was

operated prior to the

implementation of the project

activity (greenfield plant).

Yes

The project activity is the installation,

capacity addition, retrofit or

replacement of a power plant/unit of

one of the following types: hydro

power plant/unit (either with a run-of-

river reservoir or an accumulation

reservoir), wind power plant/unit,

geothermal power plant/unit, solar

power plant/unit, wave power

plant/unit or tidal power plant/unit;

The proposed project activity is

the installation of new

hydropower plants.

Yes

In the case of capacity additions,

retrofits or replacements (except for

wind, solar, wave or tidal power

capacity addition projects which use

Option 2: on page 11 to calculate the

parameter EGPJ,y): the existing plant

started commercial operation prior to



hydropower plants.



page 18

the start of a minimum historical

reference period of five years, used for

the calculation of baseline emissions

and defined in the baseline emission

section, and no capacity expansion or

retrofit of the plant has been

undertaken between the start of this

minimum historical reference period

and the implementation of the project

activity;

Yes

In case of hydro power plants, one of

the following conditions must apply:

The project activity is

implemented in an existing

reservoir, with no change in

the volume of reservoir; or

The project activity is

implemented in an existing

reservoir, where the volume of

reservoir is increased and the

power density of the project

activity, as per definitions

given in the Project Emissions

section, is greater than 4

W/m2; or

The project activity results in

new reservoirs and the power

density of the power plant, as

per definitions given in the

Project Emissions section, is

greater than 4 W/m2.

The project activity includes the

creation of new reservoirs and

the power density of the power

plants is higher than 4 W/m2, as

following:

HPP Möglice - 23.745

W/m2

HPP Kokel - 50.986

W/m2

HPP Banja - 4.578

W/m2

Yes

The methodology is not applicable to

the following:

Project activities that involve

switching from fossil fuels to

renewable energy sources at

the site of the project activity,

since in this case the baseline

may be the continued use of

fossil fuels at the site;

Biomass fired power plants;



hydropower plants and does not

involve switching from fossil

fuels to renewable energy

sources at the site of the project.


Yes

Yes



page 19

Hydro power plants that result

in new reservoirs or in the

increase in existing reservoirs

where the power density of

the power plant is less than 4

W/m2.

the development and installation

of a hydropower plant.

The project activity includes the

creation of new reservoirs and

the power density of the power

plants is higher than 4 W/m2, as

following:

HPP Möglice - 23.745

W/m2

HPP Kokel - 50.986

W/m2

HPP Banja - 4.578

W/m2

Yes

All applicability criteria of ACM0002, ver.12.1.0 have been fulfilled, hence the methodology is

applicable to the proposed project activity.

B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary:

According to ACM0002, ver. 12.1.0, the spatial extent of the project boundary includes the DHP plants

and all power plants connected physically to the Albanian electricity grid to which the proposed project

is also connected.

In Albania, the national electricity grid is the unique transmission and distribution line, to which all

power plants in Albania are physically connected to.

Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) 63

, following the split of OST j.s.c and OSSH j.s.c.,

carries out only functions in the field of generation and Public Wholesale Supplier.

Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) 64

, has been established in December 2003, and carries out the

function of management and operation of the transmission system, including also the role of the

electricity market operator as a state owned company.

Distribution System Operator65

(OSSH j.s.c) has been established with a DCM No.862, on 20/12/2006 on

“Establishment of the company “Distribution System Operator” j.s.c Tirane” and carries out the

functions of the Distribution Operator and that of Public retail supplier. The majority stake of OSSH was

taken over by CEZ in March 2009 and was renamed to CEZ SHPËRNDARJE66

in October 2010.

63

http://www.kesh.com.al/ 64

http://www.ost.al/ 65

The company has been renamed to CEZ SHPËRNDARJE 66

www.cez.al

http://www.kesh.com.al/

http://www.ost.al/

../../../../../../../AppData/12_Commercial/09%20CDM/4%20Project%20Design%20Document%20-%20PDD/PDD%20DRAFTS/www.cez.al



page 20

Figure 3: DHP project boundary

The GHGs and emission sources included in or excluded from the project boundary are shown in the

table below:

Table 5: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary

Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation

Base

lin

e

Grid electricity

production

including off-

grid generators

CO2 Included According to ACM0002 only CO2

emissions from electricity generation

shall be accounted.

CH4 Excluded According to ACM0002

N2O Excluded According to ACM0002

Pro

ject

Act

ivit

y

Hydro electric

electricity

production

CO2 Included As the power density of the HPP Banja

is below 10 W/m², greenhouse gas

emissions from water reservoirs have to

be considered according to ACM0002.

CH4 Excluded

N2O Excluded

B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified

baseline scenario:

According to ACM0002, Version 12.1.0, the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected

renewable power plant/unit, therefore the plausible baseline scenarios are the following:



page 21

Alternative 1: The proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project

activity.

Alternative 2: Construction of a fossil fuel fired power plant providing the same annual electricity

output.

Alternative 3: Construction of a renewable power plant other than hydropower providing the same

annual electricity output.

Alternative 4: Continuation of the current situation – providing the same amount of electricity by the

Albanian grid.


activity.

Financial analysis of this alternative is presented in section B.5. The results show that the internal rate of

return of the proposed project without CDM revenue is 8.9% which is below the WACC benchmark of

10.9%, demonstrating that the project is not financially attractive, therefore Alternative 1 is not plausible

baseline scenario.


output.

There are only two fossil fuel fired power plants serving the Albanian grid – TPP Fier with installed

capacity of 75 MW and TPP Vlora with installed capacity of 97 MW. TPP Fier was shut down in the

year 2008. TPP Vlora constructed in year 2009 has not been operational67

over the last two years due to

high prices of oil. Electricity production by TPP Vlora is not economically attractive and the power plant

serves as a cold reserve in the Albanian power system. Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be considered as a

baseline scenario to the proposed project activity.



Currently there are no other existing large scale renewable power plants in the Albanian power system

beside hydropower. Generation of annual electricity output by solar, wind, biomass and geothermal

energy sources as high as the proposed project activity is not realistic. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not

considered as a baseline scenario to the project activity.


Albanian grid.

This scenario is financially feasible, therefore the baseline scenario of the proposed project is the

delivery of the equivalent amount of annual power output from the Albanian national grid to which the

project will also be connected.

67 See Annex 3, Tables Net Electricity Production based on information from the Albanian Electro-Energetic

Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/


http://www.ost.al/



page 22

In conclusion, the only realistic and reasonable baseline scenario to the project activity is Alternative 4,

providing the same amount of electricity by the Albanian grid.

The data used for calculating the baseline emissions is provided in Annex 3.

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below

those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment

and demonstration of additionality):

According to ACM0002, ver. 12.1.0, the additionality of the proposed project activity is demonstrated as

per the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of the additionality”, 05.2.

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

regulations

Sub-Step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity:

In absence of the proposed project, reasonable and credible alternatives that are in accordance with laws

and regulations include:


activity.


output.




Albanian grid.

Sub-Step 1b. Consistency with appropriate laws and regulations:

Analysis of the identified alternatives which are in compliance with mandatory legislation and

regulations is presented below:


activity.

Financial analysis of this alternative is presented below. The results show that the internal rate of return

of the proposed project without CDM revenue is 8.9% which is below the WACC benchmark of 10.9%,

demonstrating that the project is not financially attractive, therefore not plausible baseline scenario.


output.

There are only two fossil fuel fired power plants serving the Albanian grid – TPP Fier with installed

capacity of 75 MW and TPP Vlora with installed capacity of 97 MW. TPP Fier was shut down in the



page 23

year 2008. TPP Vlora constructed in year 2009 has not been operational68

over the last two years due to

high prices of oil. Electricity production by TPP Vlora is not economically attractive and the power plant

serves as a cold reserve in the Albanian power system. Therefore, Alternative 2 cannot be considered as a

baseline scenario to the proposed project activity.



Currently there are no other existing large scale renewable power plants in the Albanian power system

beside hydropower. Generation of annual electricity output by solar, wind, biomass and geothermal

energy sources as high as by the proposed project activity is not realistic. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not

considered a reasonable and credible alternative.


Albanian grid.

This scenario is in compliance with current laws and regulations of Albania, therefore the baseline

scenario of the proposed project is the delivery of the equivalent amount of annual power output from the

Albanian national grid to which the project will also be connected.

Hence, Alternatives 4 is considered reasonable and credible alternative to the project which is in line

with relevant rules and regulations.

Step 2: Investment Analysis

Sub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method

The CDM project activity and the alternatives identified in step 1 generate financial benefits other than

CDM related income, therefore the simple cost analysis (Option I) is not applicable.

The investment comparison analysis (Option II) is not used because the alternative to the CDM project is

delivery of electricity from the Albanian grid, which is outside the control of the project developers.

Thus, Option III, benchmark analysis is chosen as it represents the most appropriate option for assessing

the financial attractiveness of the project activity.

Sub-step 2b: Option III. Apply benchmark analysis

The financial analysis for the CDM DHP69

project fulfills all requirements set out in the Guidelines on

the Assessment of Investment Analysis (version 5.0) and is in accordance with the following issues:

General issues in calculation and presentation

68 See Annex 3, Tables Net Electricity Production based on information from the Albanian Electro-Energetic

Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/

69 The Excel spreadsheets of CDM DHP investment analyses are presented to the DOE for assessment


http://www.ost.al/



page 24

The model reflects the period of expected operation of the underlying project activity (technical

lifetime).

Depreciations and other non-cash items relating to the project activity, which have been deducted

in estimating gross profits on which tax is calculated, have been added back to net profits for the

purpose of calculating the financial indicator (e.g. IRR, NPV)

Taxation has been included in the cash flows due to the fact that the benchmark is intended for

post-tax comparisons.

All input values used in the investment analyses are valid and applicable at time of the

investment decision which was taken on 22/12/2010 with the approval of the FSR and the

Business Plan by DHP Administration Council at its 4th Meeting. The Minutes of Meeting from

DHP Administration Council is presented to the DOE as evidence supporting the time of the

investment decision.

All expenditures which occurred prior to the date of the investment decision 22/12/2010 were

considered as sunk cost.

The residual value for DHP is zero as the ownership of the plant will be transferred for a price of

zero to the Albanian Government in 2091, as stipulated by the Concession Agreement.

Specific Guidance on the Calculation of Project IRR and Equity IRR

The cost of financing expenditures (i.e. loan repayments and interest) has not been included in

the calculation of the project IRR.

Seeing that the WACC is applied as a post- tax benchmark, the EBIT (earnings before interest

and tax) is used as a base for the calculation of income tax.

Selection and Validation of Appropriate Benchmarks

The financial model applies the weighted average costs of capital (WACC) as an appropriate

benchmark for the project IRR.

The applied benchmark is based on parameters that are standard in the market, considering

specific characteristics of the project type but not linked to subjective profitability expectations

or risk profiles of particular project developers.

The costs of equity are based on the Albanian values provided in Appendix A: Default

values for the expected return on investment of the Guidelines on the Assessment of

Investment Analysis, ver.05. The applicable value for the correct Group 1: Energy

Industries is 13%. Please note that this value is given in real terms, while the financial

model uses nominal values in EUR. Therefore, the 13% are corrected to 15.3% in

nominal terms, assuming EUR inflation of 2% which was the value used in the FSR of

DHP.

Seeing that the debt financing structure for the project was not available (no letter of

intent by any bank was made available), the cost of debt was assumed as the commercial

lending rate in Albania.

o The investment decision was taken on 22/12/2010 with the approval of the FSR

and the Business Plan by DHP Administration Council at its 4th Meeting FSR.

The latest available credit rate value to this date was the November 2010 value



page 25

of the “Average monthly credit rates in EUR for the banking system” for

maturity over 5 years was 6.77%70

as published by the National Bank of Albania.

o The financial analysis in the FSR was done in EUR currency as the project‟s

main influencing factors (investment costs, debt/equity financing of the project,

etc.) are in EUR as well. The above mentioned Albanian credit rates in EUR are

therefore considered appropriate.

Based on the FSR71

, a 50% debt and 50% equity financing has been assumed for the WACC

calculation. This is also the default value provided by the Guidelines on the Assessment of

Investment Analysis, ver. 05

Based on the cost of equity and debt mentioned above and an income tax rate of 10%, the

benchmark WACC is calculated as 10.9%.72

Sub-step 2c: Calculation and comparison of financial indicators

The financial model calculates the project IRR using the inputs set out below. The inputs were valid and

applicable at the time of the investment decision which was taken with the approval of the FSR on

22/12/2010.

Traceable information for the sources of the input parameters is given in the table below as well as in the

investment analysis Excel spreadsheet. The main source is the Feasibility Study report (FSR). Some

input parameters are not explicitly mentioned in the FSR. In these cases, the source is the Financial Excel

model of the Business Plan, dated 17/12/2010 which was approved along with the FSR on 22/12/2010.

Table 6: Key assumptions for investment analysis

Input Unit Value Source Comment

Investment cost EUR 855,300,000 Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

CAPEX

In the FSR only the

investment cost in

real value (base year

2010) is given (791

million EUR).

For the CDM

financial analysis,

70

The November 2010 value is lower than any comparable average value (e.g. average for 3 months (September-

November 2010) or 6 months (June-November 2010)). Hence, the November 2010 value is used as it is the most

conservative in terms of CDM.

http://www.bankofalbania.org/web/Time_series_22_2.php?crd=0,3,4,0,0,22&uni=201104291652492011429165213

04088&mode=alone&format=3&ln=2&id=146&p_id=1&agr_shfaq=tab&shfaq=0&periudha_nga=1172&periudha_

deri=1192&cregfld_bashkesi=167095,3487 71

FSR, Chapter 25 Financial Analysis, Figure 25.2-1, Page 5 72

The WACC calculation used the formula given in the Information Note “Default values for the expected return on

equity”, published by the CDM Meth Panel as Annex 14 to its 49th

meeting report. The hurdle rate can be calculated

as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which is the weighted average cost of obtaining finance in the form

of equity and debt. Mathematically, this is denoted as follows:

WACC = ke x re + kd x rd x (1 – T),

where T is the applicable tax rate, ke and kd are respectively the proportion of equity and debt, and re and rd are the

cost of equity and debt respectively.

http://www.bankofalbania.org/web/Time_series_22_2.php?crd=0,3,4,0,0,22&uni=20110429165249201142916521304088&mode=alone&format=3&ln=2&id=146&p_id=1&agr_shfaq=tab&shfaq=0&periudha_nga=1172&periudha_deri=1192&cregfld_bashkesi=167095,3487





page 26

the annual

distribution of the

nominal investment

cost (considering a

EUR inflation rate of

2%) was taken from

the financial model.

Project life-time (years

of operation)

Years 77 Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

FCF

The terms and

conditions for the

length of the

operation period are

defined in the

Concession

Agreement,

Paragraph 10.1.73

Start of operational

generation

Date 01/07/2015

01/12/2017

01/10/2018

Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

Alternatives, cells

U62, U92 and

U122

HPP Banje

HPP Moglice

HPP Kokel

Installed capacity MW 272 FSR, Executive

Summary, Page 2

Annual gross generation GWh 789 FSR, Executive

Summary, Page 9

When all 3 plants are

operational

Losses (for auxiliary

services

% 1 Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

Project

Assumptions, cell

D15

Base: gross

generation

Concession fee %

2%

4%

FSR, Executive

Summary, Page 9

Percentage of annual

generation

2015-2051

After 2051

Wholesale Power Price

(Base Load)

EUR/MWh From 93.6 (in

year 2015) to

124.2 (year

2030), after

2030

increased by

Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

FCF, line 18

Nominal values from

Pöyry market report

(wholesale price

forecast)

73

Paragraph 10.1 of the Concession Agreement defines the minimum concession period of 35 years. After that, it

will be checked annually if either the “Production Achievement Event” (Definition on Page 18) or the “IRR

Achievement Event” (Page 14) has been fulfilled. These events refer to the definition of the “Required minimum

IRR“(10%, Page 19) and the „Contracted Production Volume“(59 TWh, Page 10). Only the 59 TWh net

generations can be reached in 2091 (operation period 2015-2091).



page 27

EUR inflation

Optional value EUR/MWh 2.25 in 2008,

increased by

EUR inflation

rate

FSR, Executive

Summary, Page 9

Additional price due

to flexibility of

hydro power

generation

Administration costs EUR/MW 3,000 Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

Project

assumptions, cell

D32

Value in year 2010,

then increased by

EUR inflation rate

OPEX EUR/MW 6,000 Financial model

of the Business

Plan, Spreadsheet

Project

assumptions, cell

D35/36

Value in year 2010,

then increased by

EUR inflation rate

Income tax % 10 FSR, Executive

Summary, Page 9

The FSR increases

the tax rate to 18% in

2016 which is not

based on any official

document. Therefore,

for the CDM

financial analysis the

10% has been used

for the whole project

period. This is

conservative as it

overestimates the

profits.

Depreciation % 5 FSR, Executive

Summary, Page 9

20 years of

depreciation

EUR inflation rate % 1.8 IMF World

Economic

Outlook, April

2011

Based on Guidelines

on the Assessment of

Investment Analysis

(version 5.0) this

source has to be used

for calculating the

expected return on

equity in nominal

terms. As the start of

project activity is

planned for 2011, the

average value of the

period 2012-2016

has been calculated.

This value is very



page 28

similar to the FSR

where 2.0% is used.

Further detailed reference to the source and calculation of the input variables is given in the spreadsheet

“Input” of the Excel file of the financial analysis.

The resulting project IRR is below the WACC benchmark for a project of this type in Albania. The

contribution of the CER revenues improves the financial attractiveness of DHP project.

Table 7: Project IRR without CER revenues and the WACC benchmark

Project IRR without CER revenues 8.9%

WACC benchmark 10.9%

Sub-Step 2d: Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis of the project activity has been performed in order to test the robustness of the

calculations.

The variables “investment cost”, “electricity price” and “annual generation” constitute more than 20% of

either total project costs or total project revenues. Hence, they are subjected to variations of +/-10% and

+/– 5% in the sensitivity analysis. All other variables (e.g. O&M cost equals less than 5% of revenues)

are significantly below the 20% threshold and are therefore not considered in the sensitivity analysis.

The results of the variation are presented in this PDD and are reproduced in the associated spreadsheet.

Table 8: Variations of input parameters

IRR Sensitivity

Analysis 90% 95% 100% 105% 110%

Investment costs 9,6% 9,2% 8,9% 8,6% 8,3%

Generation volume 8,2% 8,5% 8,9% 9,2% 9,5%

Electricity price 8,2% 8,5% 8,9% 9,2% 9,5%

The following table indicates which change would be necessary to surpass the benchmark of 10.9%.

Table 9: Changes which would be necessary to surpass the benchmark

NPV=0 with WACC= 10,9% is fulfilled if the following parameters are changed from the original values

Investment 75%

Generation volume 131%

Electricity price 131%

In order to be above the benchmark, a reduction of the investment cost by 25% or an increase of the

revenues (either by generation volume or electricity price) by 31% would be necessary.



page 29

All these scenarios are highly unrealistic to happen.

The project owners (Statkraft and EVN) as well as the engineering company Norconsult (which prepared

the FSR) have senior expertise to adequately estimate the investment cost as well as annual generation

for new hydro power plants.

The projected prices in the FSR have been derived from the Albanian market report prepared by Pöyry

Energy Consulting. Pöyry market forecast is based on a complex model using the fundamentals of the

electricity market for all European countries and is widely used and well-known among potential

investors and authorities in the SEE region.

The sensitivity analysis shows that in each sensitivity case examined it is very unlikely the change of the

parameters to surpass the benchmark. Therefore, the project activity is unlikely to become financially

attractive without the incentive from CDM.

According to the Guidance on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM74

,

CDM DHP project falls under the hypothesis of section II. Proposed project activities with a start date

from 2 August 2008. Following the definition for a starting date of a CDM project activity as defined in

the Glossary of CDM terms75

, the starting date of DHP will be in the future since no real action as

financial closure, ordering of major equipment, construction permit or start of construction has yet

begun. Nevertheless, on 29/09/2009 the project owner has sent a notification letter76

to the Albanian

DNA and UNFCCC secretariat informing about the intention to implement Devoll Hydropower project

in Albania under CDM/Prior consideration of CDM. With the notification letter the project owner

intended securing the CDM status of DHP project by demonstrating that the incentive from CDM was

considered at the earliest stage of the project implementation.

For the purpose of demonstrating the serious consideration of the incentive from CDM in the decision to

implement CDM DHP, implementation timeline of the project activity is presented below, based on

official, legal and other relevant documentation77

available prior the start of the project activity.

Date when the investment decision was made

The project participants made the investment decision to build CDM DHP on 22/12/2010 with the

approval of the FSR by DHP Administration Council at its 4th Meeting. The incentive from CDM was

seriously considered and indicated in the FSR78

.

Date when construction works started

74

Version 04, EB 62 75

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/glos_CDM.pdf 76

The Notification letter to the to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat/Prior consideration of CDM is

presented in Annex 8 77

All official reliable evidences demonstrating that the incentive from CDM was seriously considered in the decision

to implement CDM DHP project and indicating that continuing and real actions were taken to secure the CDM status

of the project in parallel with its implementation have been compiled and presented to the DOE as supplementary

documentation to the PDD 78

FSR, Chapter 25 Financial Analysis, page 9, 25.6.1. CDM income

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Guidclarif/glos_CDM.pdf



page 30

Construction of the project activity has not yet started. The planned construction works commencement

date is in Q3 of 2012

Date of start-up (e.g. date when commercial production started)

Three HPP units will be put into operation in a phased manner, as following: HPP Banja on 01/07/2015,

HPP Moglice on 01/12/2017 and HPP Kokel on 01/10/2018.

All three power plants will be in operation most likely in middle of 2019. Taking into consideration that

it needs time to fill the storage the commercial operation of all three hydro power plants is envisaged for

the middle of 2020.

Table 10: Timeline of events and actions supported by reliable evidences indicating that the incentive

from CDM was seriously considered in the Devoll Hydropower project as well as that continuing and

real actions have been undertaken by the project participants to achieve CDM registration.

№ Date Evidences

1. 29/05/2007 Contract between EVN AG and ALLPLAN GmbH for development of PIN for

the potential CDM project HPP Devoll river, Albania

2. 06/09/2007 Minutes of Meeting of EVN AG representatives regarding the implementation of

Devoll Hydropower in Albania reporting the consideration of the incentive from

CDM.

3. 18/12/2007 PIN HPP Devoll elaborated for EVN AG by ALLPLAN GmbH

4. 14/04/2008 Minutes of Meeting of EVN AG representatives reporting on a discussion

regarding possibility for obtaining additional financing for Devoll Hydropower

project from CDM.

5. 26/05/2008 Minutes of Meeting of EVN AG representatives reporting that the Letter of No

Objection for the PIN of CDM Devoll Hydropower project is still pending to be

issued by the Albanian DNA.

6. 08/09/2008 Letter of No Objection for PIN Devoll Hydropower issued by the Albanian DNA

7. 19/12/2008 Concession Agreement relating to the design, financing, construction,

ownership, operation, maintenance and transfer of the Devoll river hydropower

project in the Republic of Albania between the Ministry of Economy, Trade and

Energy as Contracting Authority and EVN AG, Statkraft AS and Devoll

Hydropower S.h.a. as Co-concessionairs

8. 23/12/2008 Framework Agreement 46004121, dated 23/12/2008/12776 between EVN AG

and ALLPLAN GmbH for development of CDM PDD for HPP Devoll project.

9. No date

indicated in

the

document

Assignment and Assumption Agreement to the Framework Agreement 46004121

Position 50/dated 23/12/2008 and to the Vertraulichkeitsvereinbarung79

, dated

01/04/2008 – the CDM Project Agreement between EVN AG, ALLPLAN

GmbH and Devoll Hydropower Sh.A (DHP)

10. 29/09/2009 Notification letter to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat for realization

of CDM Hydro Power Plant Devoll project in Albania under Clean Development

79 English translation: “Confidentiality agreement”



page 31

Mechanism according to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC –

CDM Prior Consideration

11. 20/10/2009 Minutes of CDM Kick-Off Meeting for Devoll Hydropower project

12. 01/02/2010 E-mail from DHP informing the project participants about a personal meeting

with the Albanian DNA and the willingness of the DNA to support the

realisation of DHP project under CDM in Albania.

13. 11/2010 FSR of Devoll Hydropower, developed by Norconsult

14. 22/12/2010 Minutes of Meeting of the 4th Meeting Administration Council (AC), Devoll

Hydropower Sh.A. on which the FSR of DHP were approved – Investment

decision to proceed with DHP project.

15. July 2011 Contract with the DNV for validation of CDM DHP project

Step 3: Barrier analysis

This step is not applied

Step 4. Common Practice Analysis

Sub-step 4a. Analyse other activities similar to the proposed project

The Albanian grid is dominated by just few large hydro power plants located at the Drin river in the

North of Albania. However, the last built big hydro power plant - 600 MW HPP Koman dates back to

1986 when the former political system was still in place. HPP Koman was built and is still owned by the

state – the Albanian Power Corporation (KESH) and thus cannot be compared to the implementation of a

“new” HPP of similar size to be built by an international private consortium after having won a tendering

process and facing market uncertainties. Furthermore, the Devoll Hydropower plant is located on the

Devoll River in the South of Tirana.

Table 11: HPPs serving the Albanian grid80

№

Power Plant

Installed Capacity

(MW)

Year of Commissioning

1. HPP Bistrica 1 22.5 1948

2. HPP Lanabregas 5 1951

3. HPP Bistrica 2 5 1952

4. HPP Ulez 25 1954

5. HPP Shkopet 24 1963

6. HPP Vau Dejes 250 1975

7. HPP Fierza 500 1978

8. HPP Koman 600 1986

9. HPP Smokhtine 9.2 2004

80 Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and Transmission System

Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/


http://www.ost.al/



page 32

10. HPP Gjanc 3.7 2005

11. HPP Bogove 2.5 2006

Currently another international investor plans to build a 52.9 MW HPP at the Drin river, which is also

developed as a CDM project activity.

Due to new support from the Albanian Government and the entry into force of the law no. 9663 of date

18.12.2006 “on concessions”, during 2007 and concessionary licenses have been granted for the

construction of a considerable number of hydropower plants with small or medium size capacities.

This new law is considered to be the main reason that some small HPPs were built or rehabilitated

recently, like Gjanc (3.7 MW; 2005); Bogove (2.5 MW; 2006) Smokthine (9.2 MW; 2004); Tervol (12

MW; 2009)81

etc.

As it can be seen from the table above, all recently built HPPs are small or medium sized with a

maximum capacity of 12 MW and thus not comparable with the 272 MW HPP Devoll Hydropower

project.

Sub-step 4b Discuss any similar options that are occurring

Since no similar project activities could be observed in Albania under Sub-step 4a this Sub-step is not

applicable and it can be concluded from this analysis that the proposed project is not a common practice.

It is therefore concluded that the proposed project activity is additional.

B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices:

The emission reductions are calculated in accordance with the approved consolidated baseline

methodology ACM0002, Version 12.1.0.

The necessary data for calculating baseline, project and leakage emissions was provided by the following

official sources of Albania (see also Annex 3 of the PDD):

Korporata Elektroenergjetike Shiqiptare (KESH) and

The Transmission System Operator (OST)

Baseline emissions

Baseline emissions include only CO2 emissions from electricity generation in fossil fuel fired power

plants that are displaced due to the project activity. The methodology assumes that all project electricity

generation above baseline levels would have been generated by existing grid-connected power plants and

the addition of new grid-connected power plants. The baseline emissions are to be calculated as follows:

81 www.akbn.gov.al

../../../../../../../fam/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/PXLVHDYT/www.akbn.gov.al



page 33

BEy = EGPJ,y x EFgrid,CM,y (6)

Where:

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr)

EGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of

the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr)

EFgrid,CM,y = Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y

calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an

electricity system” (tCO2/MWh)

Calculation of EGPJ,y

The calculation of EGPJ,y is different for (a) greenfield plants, (b) retrofits and replacements, and

(c) capacity additions. These cases are described next:

(a) Greenfield renewable energy power plants

If the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit at a site

where no renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation of the project activity, then:

EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y (7)

Where:

EGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of

the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr)

EGfacility,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year

y (MWh/yr)

Since the Devoll HPP is a Greenfield renewable energy project the equation under (a) of above is

applied.

Project Emissions (PEy):

For most renewable power generation project activities, PEy = 0. However, some project activities may

involve project emissions that can be significant. These emissions shall be accounted for as project

emissions by using the following equation:

(1)

Where:

PEy = Project emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr)

PEFF,y = Project emissions from fossil fuel consumption in year y (tCO2e/yr)

PEGP,y = Project emissions from the operation of geothermal power plants due to the release of

non-condensable gases in year y (tCO2e/yr)

PEHP,y = Project emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power plants in year y (tCO2e/yr)



page 34

The procedure to calculate the project emissions from each of these sources is presented next.

Under the underlying project activity the project emissions PEFF,y and PEGP,y are not applicable and thus

0. The only source of project emissions might be from water reservoirs of hydro power plants (PEHP,y).

The equations for this kind of project emissions are described as follows:

Emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power plants (PHHP,y)

For hydro power project activities that result in new reservoirs and hydro power project activities that

result in the increase of existing reservoirs, project proponents shall account for CH4 and CO2 emissions

from the reservoir, estimated as follows:

(a) If the power density of the project activity (PD) is greater than 4 W/m2 and less than or equal to 10

W/m2:

(3)

Where:

PEHP,y = Project emissions from water reservoirs (tCO2e/yr)

EFRes = Default emission factor for emissions from reservoirs of hydro power plants in year y

(kgCO2e/MWh)

TEGy = Total electricity produced by the project activity, including the electricity supplied to the

grid and the electricity supplied to internal loads, in year y (MWh)

(b) If the power density of the project activity (PD) is greater than 10 W/m2:

PEHP,y = 0 (4)

The power density of the project activity (PD) is calculated as follows:

(5)

Where:

PD = Power density of the project activity (W/m2)

CapPJ = Installed capacity of the hydro power plant after the implementation of the project

activity (W)

CapBL = Installed capacity of the hydro power plant before the implementation of the project

activity (W). For new hydro power plants, this value is zero.

APJ = Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, after the implementation of

the project activity, when the reservoir is full (m2)



page 35

ABL = Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, before the implementation of

the project activity, when the reservoir is full (m2). For new reservoirs, this value is zero.

The ex-ante calculations of the power densities (PD) (see section B.2.) of the different power plants of

the underlying project activity are summarized in the following table:

Table 12: Calculation of the power densities

Banja Kokel Moglice

HRWL surface area [km²] see Design Basis

Report 14 0.71 7.21

1,000,000

1,000,000 1,000,000

Installed capacity (see FSR)

[MW]

64.6

36.2

171.2

HRWL surface area [m²] 14,110,000

710,000 7,210,000

W installed

[W] 64,600,000

36,200,000 171,200,000

Power density calculated

[W/m²] 4.578 50.986 23.745

According to the applied methodology only project emissions for the HPP Banja have to be taken into

account. These project emissions are to be calculated with the formula described under (a) of above.

In the underlying PDD these project emissions for the HPP Banja are considered in the ex-ante

calculation of the estimated emission reductions.

For the HPPs Kokel and Moglice power densities of 50.986 and 23.745 W/m² were calculated. If the

power density is higher than 10 W/m² no project emissions have to be considered (see point (b) of

above). For the ex-ante calculation of the emission reductions it is assumed that from these HPPs no

project emissions will occur under this project activity.

All the parameters (capacities and surface areas) to recalculate the power densities annually throughout

the operational phase are monitored.

Leakage (Ly)

According to the methodology, no leakage emissions are considered. The main emissions potentially

giving rise to leakage in the context of electric sector projects are emissions arising due to activities such

as power plant construction and upstream emissions from fossil fuel use (e.g. extraction, processing,

transport). These emissions sources are neglected.

Emission reductions (ERy)

Emission reductions are calculated as follows:



page 36

ERy = BEy – PEy (11)

Where:

ERy = Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e/yr)

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)

PEy = Project emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)

A Combined Margin (CM) (see also the explanation under Baseline Emissions) consists of the

combination of Operating Margin (OM) and Build Margin (BM) according to the procedures

prescribed in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0)”, which

in the following is named the “Tool”.

The developers are aware of the fact that the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity

system (Version 02.1.0) was amended in the EB meeting 61 but we refer to the point 24. of the Sixty-first

meeting report which stipulates:

24. For all revised methodologies and tools that were approved by the Board at this meeting, the DOEs

may upload not later than 3 February 2012 (24:00 GMT) for registration the project design documents

(PDDs) of project activities in which the previous version of an approved methodology or an approved

tool has been applied, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the “Procedure for the submission and

consideration of requests for revision of approved baseline and monitoring methodologies and tools for

large scale CDM project activities”.

Since we intend to get registered to project activity immediately after validation and are seeking to get

the Letter for Approval (LoA) in parallel from the DNA of Albania till the end of the year 2011 we apply

point 24 regarding the transition period for using previous versions of the “Tools” and “Methodologies”.

Sections taken from the “Tool” for explanation reasons are illustrated in italic letters.

The operating margin is the emission factor that refers to the group of existing power plants whose

current electricity generation would be affected by the proposed CDM project activity. The build margin

is the emission factor that refers to the group of prospective power plants whose construction and future

operation would be affected by the proposed CDM project activity.

This tool may be applied to estimate the OM, BM and/or CM when calculating baseline emissions for a

project activity that substitutes grid electricity, i.e. where a project activity supplies electricity to a grid

or a project activity that results in savings of electricity that would have been provided by the grid (e.g.

demand-side energy efficiency projects).

Under this tool, the emission factor for the project electricity system can be calculated either for grid

power plants only or, as an option, can include off-grid power plants. In the latter case, the conditions

specified in ”Annex 2 - Procedures related to off-grid power generation” should be met. Namely, the

total capacity of off-grid power plants (in MW) should be at least 10% of the total capacity of grid power

plants in the electricity system; or the total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) should

be at least 10% of the total power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system; and that



page 37

factors which negatively affect the reliability and stability of the grid is primarily due to constraints in

generation and not to other aspects such as transmission capacity.

In the underlying calculation of the GEF for the national grid of Albania off- grid power plants are

included. Under Step 4 of the Annex 2 of the “Tool” (see also Step 2 of the “Tool” and Annex 3

respectively) it is required that the total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) amounts to

more than 10% of the total power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system for the year

the off- grid study was done. The off-grid study was done for the year 2007.

Note that this tool is also referred to in the Tool to calculate project emissions from electricity

consumption for the purpose of calculating project and leakage emissions in case where a project

activity consumes electricity from the grid or results in increase of consumption of electricity from the

grid outside the project boundary.

If during operation of the hydropower project a situation will occur, where electricity is taken from the

Albanian grid Scenario A; Option A1 of the “Tool to calculate baseline, project and/or leakage

emissions from electricity consumption (Version 01)” will be applied. However, this is currently

considered unlikely.

Project participants shall apply the following seven steps:

STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system.

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

(optional)

STEP 3. Select an operating margin (OM) method.

STEP 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method.

STEP 5. Identify the cohort of power units to be included in the build margin (BM).

STEP 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor.

STEP 7. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor.

STEP 1. Identify the relevant electric power system.

For determining the electricity emission factors, a project electricity system is defined by the spatial

extent of the power plants that are physically connected through transmission and distribution lines to

the project activity (e.g. the renewable power plant location or the consumers where electricity is being

saved) and that can be dispatched without significant transmission constraints. If the project electricity

system is located partially or totally in Annex-I countries, then the tool is not applicable.

The project electricity system is the national grid of Albania. The geographical boundary for the

determination of the baseline emissions is therefore defined as the national grid of Albania and direct

emissions from all generation sources serving the grid with inclusion of off-grid plants.

Similarly, a connected electricity system, e.g. national or international, is defined as an electricity

system that is connected by transmission lines to the project electricity system. Power plants within the

connected electricity system can be dispatched without significant transmission constraints but

transmission to the project electricity system has significant transmission constraint. If a connected



page 38

electricity system is located partially or totally in Annex-I countries, then the emission factor of that

connected electricity system should be considered zero.

Electricity transfers from connected electricity systems to the project electricity system are defined as

electricity imports and electricity transfers to connected electricity systems are defined as electricity

exports.

Electricity is imported to the project electricity system (national grid of Albania) from connected

electricity systems (national grid of Greece, Kosovo/Serbia and Montenegro)82

. According to the source

ENTSOE.EU83

(see also attached baseline data in Annex 3 of the PDD) there are also exports from the

national grid to the above mentioned connected electricity systems.

For the purpose of determining the build margin (BM) emission factor, the spatial extent is limited to the

project electricity system, except where recent or likely future additions to transmission capacity enable

significant increases in imported electricity. In such cases, the transmission capacity may be considered

a build margin source.

For the purpose of determining the operating margin (OM) emission factor, one of the following options

should be used to determine the CO2 emission factor(s) for net electricity imports (EFgrid,import,y) from a

connected electricity system within the same host country(ies):

(a) 0 tCO2/MWh, or

(b) The weighted average operating margin (OM) emission rate of the exporting grid, determined as

described in step 3 (d) below; or

(c) The simple operating margin emission rate of the exporting grid, determined as described in step

3 (a), if the conditions for this method, as described in step 2 below, apply to the exporting grid;

or

(d) The simple adjusted operating margin emission rate of the exporting grid, determined as

described in step 3 (b) below.

For imports from connected electricity systems located in Annex-I country(ies), the emission factor is 0

tons CO2 per MWh.

For both, electricity imports from the Annex I country Greece and non Annex I countries Kosovo/Serbia

and Montenegro the emission factors are considered 0 tCO2/MWh (see Option (a) from above).

Electricity exports should not be subtracted from electricity generation data used for calculating and

monitoring the electricity emission factors.

Exports were not subtracted from the electricity generation for calculation of the Combined Margin (CM)

Grid Emission Factor.

Step 2: Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional)

82 https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/

83 https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/

https://www.entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/




page 39

Project participants may choose between the following two options to calculate the operating margin

and build margin emission factor:

Option I: Only grid power plants are included in the calculation.

Option II: Both grid power plants and off-grid power plants are included in the calculation.

Option I corresponds to the procedure contained in earlier versions of this tool. Option II allows the

inclusion of off-grid power generation in the grid emission factor. Option II aims to reflect that in some

countries off-grid power generation is significant and can partially be displaced by CDM project

activities, e.g. if off-grid power plants are operated due to an unreliable and unstable electricity grid.

Option II requires collecting data on off-grid power generation as per Annex 2 and can only be used if

the conditions outlined therein are met. Option II may be chosen only for the operating margin emission

factor or for both the build margin and the operating margin emission factor but not only for the build

margin emission factor.

Option II is chosen and the off- grid electricity generation is taken into account for both the calculation of

the build margin (BM) and the operating margin (OM) emission factor.

If Option II is chosen, off-grid power plants should be classified as per the guidance in Annex 2 in

different classes of off-grid power plants. Each off-grid power plant class should be considered as one

power plant j, k, m or n in the following steps, as applicable.

The classification as per the guidance in Annex 2 is applied accordingly. Each off-grid power plant class

is considered as one power plant. In total 23 UNFCCC classes were identified during the off-grid survey

(see guidance in Step 1.2 of the Annex 2 of the “Tool” in Annex 3 of the PDD). In the following table the

determined (during the off-grid survey) UNFCCC classes are summarized.

Table 13: Identified UNFCCC off -grid classes

Diesel CAP < 10 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000

Age (0-5)

Age (6-10)

Age (11-20)

Gasoline

Age (0-5)

Age (6-10)

Age (11-20)

Nominal capacity of off grid power plants in [kW]

The only generation technology applied by the surveyed off-grid plants is the reciprocant engine system

fuelled either by diesel or by gasoline (see also Annex 1 of the “Tool”). The diesel fuelled off- grid

plants covered all the seven capacity classes. The gasoline fuelled off-grid plants just covered the first

capacity class smaller than 10 kW.

According to Step 4 of Annex 2 of the “Tool” the following prerequisites for the inclusion of the off-

grid power plants have to be fulfilled:



page 40

Step 4 of Annex 2: Assess the extent of off-grid power The effects of feeding additional electricity to the grid or saving electricity demand on off-grid

power plants connected to the system are associated with significant uncertainty. For this

reason, a significant amount of off-grid power should exist to include these plants in the grid

emission factor.

The inclusion of off-grid power plants in the grid emission factor is only allowed if one of the

following two conditions are met:

The total capacity of off-grid power plants (in MW) is at least 10% of the total capacity of

grid power plants in the electricity system; or

The total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) is at least 10% of the total

power generation by grid power plants in the electricity system.

If one of these conditions is not met, then off-grid power plants cannot be included in the

calculation of the grid emission factor of the electricity system. Otherwise, proceed to next step.

There is an inconsistence in the underlined sections above, which has not been solved so far in the

revised “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0) and (Version

02.2.0.).

The off- grid study for Albania was done for the year 2007. According to Step 3 of the “Tool” a single

calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission of the CDM-PDD

for validation has to be used. By choosing the year 2007 this requirement is fulfilled.

The extrapolated off grid generation for the year 2007 (lower level of the 95% confidence interval)

amounted to 472,708 MWh. This is equal to 16.3% of the total power generation by grid power plants of

the Albanian grid in the year 2007. The total power generation for the year 2007 amounted to

2,892,974 MWh (including hydro power (2,829,512 MWh) and thermal power (63,462 MWh); without

imports) (see also Annex 3 of the PDD).

Since the installed capacity of all (sampled) off-grid power plants in operation amounts to 239 MW,

which is equal to 15.7 % of the total installed capacity of 1,523 MW both above mentioned requirements

are met.

Step 3. Select an operating margin (OM) method

The calculation of the operating margin emission factor (EFgrid,OM,y) is based on one of the following

methods:

(a) Simple OM, or

(b) Simple adjusted OM, or

(c) Dispatch data analysis OM, or

(d) Average OM.

Each method is described under Step 4.



page 41

The simple OM method (option a) can only be used if low-cost/must-run resources84

constitute less than

50% of total grid generation in: 1) average of the five most recent years, or 2) based on long-term

averages for hydroelectricity production.

The dispatch data analysis (Option d) cannot be used if off-grid power plants are included in the project

electricity system as per Step 2 above.

Since hourly electricity generation data are not available neither option (b) nor option (c) are applicable.

Since low-cost/must run resources constitute more than 50% of total grid generation in average of the

five most recent years (see following table below) the Average Operating Margin (OM) method (option

(d)) is used.

The following table gives an overview about the electricity generation over the last 5 years were data

were available.

Table 14: Electricity generation of Albania for the most recent 5 years, where data were available

Sum of electricity generation in [MWh] 6,398,476 6,684,154 6,245,682 6,921,539 7,451,723

Electricity Generation in MWh 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Sum Hydros / low cost-must run 5,072,489 5,363,873 2,829,512 3,832,831 5,201,015

Percentage 0.79 0.80 0.45 0.55 0.70

Sum Import 1,249,000 1,240,000 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000

Percentage 0.20 0.19 0.46 0.38 0.24

Sum Thermal 76,987 80,281 536,170 472,708 472,708

Percentage 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.06

Percentage Low cost - must run 0.99 0.99 0.91 0.93 0.94

For the years 2007 to 2009 the electricity generation from the off- grid plants is taken into consideration.

The table shows that the low cost must run resources constitute by far more than 50% for all the 5 years.

In Albania there was just on thermal power plant (TPP FIER) based on the fossil fuel Residual Fuel Oil

in operation until 2007. All the off-grid power plants are either based on the fossil fuel diesel or gasoline.

For the Net Caloric Values (NCV) and the Emission Factors default values from IPCC 2006 V2 were

used. In order to stay conservative the lower values within the 95% confidence interval were taken into

account.

For the simple OM, the simple adjusted OM and the average OM, the emissions factor can be calculated

using either of the two following data vintages:

Ex ante option: If the ex ante option is chosen, the emission factor is determined once at the

validation stage, thus no monitoring and recalculation of the emissions factor during the

crediting period is required. For grid power plants, use a 3-year generation-weighted average,

based on the most recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE

for validation. For off-grid power plants, use a single calendar year within the 5 most recent

calendar years prior to the time of submission of the CDM-PDD for validation.

84 Low-cost/must-run resources are defined as power plants with low marginal generation costs or power plants that

are dispatched independently of the daily or seasonal load of the grid. They typically include hydro, geothermal,

wind, low-cost biomass, nuclear and solar generation. If coal is obviously used as must-run, it should also be

included in this list, i.e. excluded from the set of plants.



page 42

Ex post option: The year in which the project activity displaces grid electricity, requiring the

emissions factor to be updated annually during monitoring. If the data required to calculate the

emission factor for year y is usually only available later than six months after the end of year y,

alternatively the emission factor of the previous year (y-1) may be used. If the data is usually

only available 18 months after the end of year y, the emission factor of the year proceeding the

previous year (y-2) may be used. The same data vintage (y, y-1 or y-2) should be used

throughout all crediting periods.

For the calculation of the Average operating margin (OM) the ex ante option is chosen. The most recent

data, which were available from KESH and OST respectively, are from 2007 to 2009 (see also data

included in Annex 3 of the PDD). These data fit appropriately with the 2007 data of the off- grid study.

Step 4: Calculate the Operating Margin emission factor (EFOM,y) according to the selected method

In the following section at first the procedure for the calculation of the (a) Simple OM is described, since

the applied calculation of the (d) Average OM follows the same procedure. The only difference is the

inclusion of low cost/must run power plants under (d) Average OM.

(a) Simple OM

The simple OM emission factor is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per unit

net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not including

low-cost / must-run power plants/units.

The simple OM may be calculated:

Option A: Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit;85

or

Option B: Based on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the

fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system.

Option B can only be used if:

(a) The necessary data for Option A is not available; and

(b) Only nuclear and renewable power generation are considered as low-cost/must-run power sources

and the quantity of electricity supplied to the grid by these sources is known; and

(c) Off-grid power plants are not included in the calculation (i.e., if Option I has been chosen in Step 2).

Option A - Calculation based on average efficiency and electricity generation of each plant

Under this option, the simple OM emission factor is calculated based on the net electricity generation of

each power unit and an emission factor for each power unit, as follows:

85

Power units should be considered if some of the power units at the site of the power plant are low-cost/must-run

units and some are not. Power plants can be considered if all power units at the site of the power plant belong to the

group of low-cost/must-run units or if all power units at the site of the power plant do not belong to the group of

low-cost/must-run units.



page 43

(1)

Where:

EF grid,OMsimple,y = Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

EG m,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in

year y (MWh)

EF EL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)

m = All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost / must-run power units

y = The relevant year as per the data vintage chosen in Step 3

Determination of EFEL,m,y

Since for the power units m NO accurate data of fuel consumption and electricity generation was

available, the emission factor (EFEL,m,y) was determined according to Option A2 of the “Tool”.

Option A2. If for a power unit m only data on electricity generation and the fuel types used is

available, the emission factor should be determined based on the CO2 emission factor of the fuel

type used and the efficiency of the power unit, as follows:

(3)

Where:

EFEL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)

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

ηm,y = Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m in year y (ratio)

m = All power units serving the grid in year y except low-cost/must-run power units


Where several fuel types are used in the power unit, use the fuel type with the lowest CO2 emission factor

for EFCO2,m,i,y..

Each off-grid power plant is operated just by one fossil fuel source (diesel or gasoline).

Determination of EGm,y

For grid power plants, EGm,y should be determined as per the provisions in the monitoring tables.

For off-grid power plants, EGm,y can be determined using one of the following options:86

86

Note that different options can be applied to different classes of off-grid power plants; however, the same option

should be applied to all (sampled) off-grid power plants within one class.



page 44

Option 1. EGm,y is determined based on (sampled) data on the electricity generation of off-grid

power plants, as per the guidance in Annex 2.

Option 2. EGm,y is determined based on (sampled) data on the quantity of fossil fuels combusted

in the class of off-grid power plants m, as per the guidance in Annex 2, and the default

efficiencies provided in Annex 1, as follows:

(4)

Where:

EGm,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh)

FCi,m,y = Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plants included in off-grid power plant

class m in year y (mass or volume unit)

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

unit)

η m,y = Default net energy conversion efficiency of off-grid power plant class m in year y (ratio),

as per the default values provided in Annex 1

m = Off-grid power plant class considered as one power unit (as per the provisions in Annex

2 to this tool)


i = Fossil fuel types used

The project participants provide the following clarification to the formula of above:

If all input parameters are applied according the formula above (taken from the valid “Tool”) with their

relevant units the following is obtained:

[MWh] = [tons] x [GJ/tons] x [ ]

[MWh] = [GJ]

Thus, in our point of view the right side of the formula has to be divided by 3.6 in order the transform

[GJ] into [MWh].

To clarify this issue ALLPLAN/denkstatt sent a letter to the CDM Executive Board on 30th November

2010.

ALLPLAN/denkstatt received a notification from the CDM Executive Board that the submitted Letter

regarding the minor technical errors in the Methodological “Tool” will be considered at EB 59.

At the EB 60 meeting the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” was revised.

The revised “Tool” (Version 02.1.0) was amended to allow the use of an operating margin emission

factor different form zero in case of connected electricity systems located in countries other than the

project host country. However, the technical errors and the inconsistency in Step 4 of Annex 2 of the

“Tool” notified by ALLPLAN/denkstatt have not been considered.

Since no off- grid power plants could be identified, where electricity generated is measured directly with

electricity meters, Option 1 could not be applied for the off-grid study.



page 45

All sampled companies operating off-grid power plants provided the required data for calculation of

EGm,y according to the “corrected” Option 2 above. Thus this option was applied for the calculation of

the generated electricity by each off- grid power plant.

(d) Average OM

The average OM emission factor (EFgrid,OM-ave,y) is calculated as the average emission rate of all power

plants serving the grid, using the methodological guidance as described under (a) above for the simple

OM, but including in all equations also low-cost/must-run power plants.

For the project activity the Average OM calculation is applied. The following table below summarizes

the results of the calculation of the Average operating margin (OM) for the years 2007 to 2009 including

off-grid plants.

Table 15: Calculation of the (OM) Operating Margin emission factor for the years 2007 to 2009

Baseline (including imports) LCMR [MWh] Imports [MWh]

2007 5,709,512 2,880,000

2008 6,448,831 2,616,000

2009 6,979,015 1,778,000

19,137,358 7,274,000

EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh]

0.0529

0.0503 6,921,539

0.0467 7,451,723

Total (2007-2009) = 20,618,944

Prepared by denkstatt GmbH

Emission factors for the National Grid of Albania

EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] Load [MWh]

0.0631 6,245,682

The generation-weighted average OM for the years 2007 to 2009 amounts to 0.0529 tonsCO2/MWh.

Step 5. Identify the group of power units to be included in the build margin

The sample group of power units m used to calculate the build margin consists of either87

:

(a) The set of five power units that have been built most recently, or

(b) The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system

generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently88

.

87

If this approach does not reasonably reflect the power plants that would likely be built in the absence of the project

activity, project participants are encouraged to submit alternative proposals for consideration by the CDM Executive

Board. 88

If 20% falls on part capacity of a unit, that unit is fully included in the calculation.



page 46

Project participants should use the set of power units that comprises the larger annual generation.

As a general guidance, a power unit is considered to have been built at the date when it started to supply

electricity to the grid.

Power plant registered as CDM project activities should be excluded from the sample group m.

However, If the group of power units, not registered as CDM project activity, identified for estimating

the build margin emission factor includes power unit(s) that is(are) built more than 10 years ago then:

(i) Exclude power unit(s) that is (are) built more than 10 years ago from the group; and

(ii) Include grid connected power projects registered as CDM project activities, which are

dispatched by dispatching authority to the electricity system.89

Capacity additions from retrofits of power plants should not be included in the calculation of the build

margin emission factor.

The three small Hydro Power Plants (HPPs) Bogove 2.5 MW (2006); Gjanc 3.7 MW (2005) and

Smokthine 9.2 MW (2004) were the only power plants built within the last ten years, where individual

net electricity generation data was available and thus taken into account for the Build Margin (BM)

calculation.

In “Small HPPs” (39,062 MWh) see table 16 below) a huge amount of very small HPPs are subsumed,

where no individual net electricity generation data was available. Some of those small HPPs have been

rehabilitated recently and others are older ones. In order to stay conservative in the calculation of the BM

emission factor all the small HPPs subsumed under “Small HPPs” are treated as newly built ones and

thus taken into account in the calculation of the BM.

Thus, applying Step 5 (a) of above the set of five power units that have been built most recently amount

to 39,062 MWh at maximum.

Applying Step 5 (b) of above, the set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise

20% of the system generation (in MWh) and that have been built most recently amount to 2,603,000

MWh which is 46% of the system generation (including “Small HPP”; all the off- grid units and HPP

KOMAN). This set of power plants also includes power plants that are older than 10 years like some off -

grid power units and the HPP KOMAN (start of operation 1986).

According to the “Tool” the following procedure applies:

Power plants registered as CDM project activities should be excluded from the sample group m. If the

group of power units, not registered as CDM project activity, identified for estimating the build margin

emission factor includes power unit(s) that is (are) built more than 10 years ago then:

(i) Exclude power unit(s) that is (are) built more than 10 years ago from the group; and

(ii) Include grid connected power projects registered as CDM project activities, which are

dispatched by dispatching authority to the electricity system.

Following (ii) of above:

89 This information shall be provided by the host country.



page 47

Since Albania so far does not have any existing grid connected power plant registered as CDM project

activity, not such a power plant could be included for the calculation of the BM emission factor.

Following (i) of above thermal and hydro power plants built before 1999 were excluded. The excluded

power plants are all off grid units (data vintages 2 and 3) (see also clarification below) and the HPP

Koman.

According to Step 1.2. of Annex 2 of the “Tool” the off-grid power plants were sub-divided into three

data vintages: plants with 0 to 5 years of operation, plants with 6 to 10 years of operation and plants with

11 to 20 years of operation (the oldest off grid power plant surveyed started operation in 1987).

Thus the second data vintage of the off-grid classes refers to a start of operation between 1998 and 2002,

which means that the off- grid power plants of these classes are partly younger and partly older than 10

years since the reference year for the Build Margin (BM) calculation is 2009.

Following the guidelines of the “Tool” only the off- grid plants only for the first data vintage were taken

into account for the calculation of the Build Margin (BM) emission factor.

The following table 16 summarizes the electricity generation of the finally considered set of power plants

for the calculation of the Build Margin (BM) emission factor 2009 according to the procedure from Step

5 of the “Tool” (see also Annex 3 of the PDD).



page 48

Table 16: List of power plants taken into consideration for the BM calculation

Electricity generation in [MWh] 2009 Time of Comissioning

Small HPP 39,062 2009

Gjanc, Bogove, Smoktine 50,248 2004,2005,2006

Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 1) 32,527 2003-2007

Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 1) 13,131 2003-2007















Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 3) 0 1988-1997

Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 3) 493 1988-1997






Koman (HPP) 2,040,982 1986

Fierza (HPP) 1,556,248 1978

Vau dejes (HPP) 1,084,358 1975

Shkopet (HPP) 100,787 1963

Ulez (HPP) 124,631 1954

Bistrice 2 (HPP) 35,100 1952

Lanabregas (HPP) 34,235 1951

Bistrice 1 (HPP) 135,364 1948

*IMPORTS 1,778,000

Vlora (TPP) 0

Fier (TPP) 0

Sum of electricity generation in [GWh] 5,673,723 *without Imports

Sum of electricity generation of the

sample group for the BM [GWh] 458,867

Percentage of the electricity generation of

most recently

built 5 Power Plants 8%

In terms of vintage of data, project participants can choose between one of the following two options:



page 49

Option 1. For the first crediting period, calculate the build margin emission factor ex-ante based on the

most recent information available on units already built for sample group m at the time of CDM-PDD

submission to the DOE for validation. For the second crediting period, the build margin emission factor

should be updated based on the most recent information available on units already built at the time of

submission of the request for renewal of the crediting period to the DOE. For the third crediting period,

the build margin emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used. This option

does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period.

Option 2. For the first crediting period, the build margin emission factor shall be updated annually, ex-

post, including those units built up to the year of registration of the project activity or, if information up

to the year of registration is not yet available, including those units built up to the latest year for which

information is available. For the second crediting period, the build margin emissions factor shall be

calculated ex-ante, as described in option 1 above. For the third crediting period, the build margin

emission factor calculated for the second crediting period should be used.

The Build Margin (BM) Emission factor was calculated ex-ante by choosing Option 1 from above.

Step 6. Calculate the build margin emission factor

The build margin emissions factor is the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all

power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated as

follows:

(13)

Where:

EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

EGm,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh)

EFEL,m,y = CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh)

m = Power units included in the build margin

y = Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available

The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) should be determined as per the guidance in

Step 4 (a) for the simple OM, using options A1, A2 or A3, using for y the most recent historical year for

which power generation data is available, and using for m the power units included in the build margin.

For off-grid power plants, EGm,y should be determined as per the guidance in Step 4.The calculation of

the CO2 -emission factor of the thermal power and the off-grid power plants required for the calculation

of the build margin (BM) was conducted by using option A2 of the step 4 (a) of the applied “Tool”

according to the formula as follows:

(3)



page 50

The following table summarizes in detail the calculation of CO2 emissions taken into account for the

calculation of the Build Margin (BM) emission factor. The only fossil fuelled power plants in operation

in the year 2009 are off- grid power plants identified during the off- grid survey.

Table 17: Calculation of CO2- emissions of fossil power plants (including off- grid plants) taken into

account for the BM emission factor calculation

Relevant year

2009 A B C D E F G

i EGm FCi,m NCVi EFCO2,i ηm EFEL,m

Net Electricity Generation Fuel

Consumption

Net Calorific

Value

(Lower Value)

CO2 Emission

Factor

(Lower Value)

Average Net

Energy

Conversion

Efficiency

CO2 -

Emission

Factor

CO2

Emissions

(MWh) (t) (GJ/t) (tCO2/GJ) (%) (tCO2/MWh) (t-CO2)

Default

values from

Annex 1 of

the

"Electricity

Tool" F=Dx3.6/E G=AxF

1 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 1) Diesel 32,527 41.4 0.0726 0.28 0.933 30,362

2 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 1) Gasoline 13,131 42.5 0.0675 0.28 0.868 11,396







275,273

CO2 emissions from Power Plants

m

No. Name of Power Plant

Fuel Type

The column A of the table above shows the extrapolated electricity generation from the off-grid classes

(vintage 1). Column C shows the lower value of the Net Caloric Values (NCV) according to IPCC 2006.

Column D contains the lower value of the CO2 Emission Factors of different fossil fuels according to

IPCC 2006.

The CO2 Emission Factor of each power plant (EFEL,m) is calculated in column F by application of the

formula described under Step 6 of the “Tool” above. The CO2 Emissions (tonsCO2) are calculated in

column G by multiplication of F and A.

The summarized value of 275,273 tonsCO2 has to be divided by the electricity generation (MWh) of the

group of power plants determined under Step 5 of the “Tool” of above. The electricity generation of

these power plants amounts to 458,867 MWh.

Thus the calculated Build Margin (BM) emission factor amounts to 0.600 tonsCO2/MWh.

Step 7. Calculate the combined margin emissions factor

The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as follows:

(14)

Where:

EFgrid,BM,y = Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)



page 51

EFgrid,OM,y = Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh)

wOM = Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%)

wBM = Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%)

The following default values should be used for wOM and wBM:

Wind and solar power generation project activities: wOM

= 0.75 and wBM

= 0.25 (owing to

their intermittent and non-dispatchable nature) for the first crediting period and for

subsequent crediting periods.

All other projects: wOM

= 0.5 and wBM

= 0.5 for the first crediting period and wOM

= 0.25

and wBM

= 0.75 for the second and third crediting period,90

unless otherwise specified in the

approved methodology which refers to this tool.

Alternative weights can be proposed, as long as wOM + wBM = 1, for consideration by the Executive

Board, taking into account the guidance as described below. The values for wOM + wBM applied by

project participants should be fixed for a crediting period and may be revised at the renewal of the

crediting period.

The Tool also gives “Guidance on selecting alternative weights”:

The following guidance provides a number of project-specific and context-specific factors for developing

alternative operating and build margin weights to the above defaults. It does not, however, provide

specific algorithms to translate these factors into quantified weights, nor does it address all factors that

might conceivably affect these weights. In this case, project participants are suggested to propose

specific quantification methods with justifications that are consistent with the guidance provided below.

Given that it is unlikely that a project will impact either the OM or BM exclusively during the first

crediting period, it is suggested that neither weight exceed 75% during the first crediting period.

Factor Summary – Impact

on weights

Further Explanation

Project size (absolute or

relative to the grid size of the

system or the size of other

system capacity additions)

No change in weight

on basis of absolute

or relative size alone

Alternative weights on the basis of absolute

or relative project size alone do not appear

to be justified.

90 Project participants can submit alternative proposal, for revision of tool or the methodology or deviation from its

use, if weightage does not reflect their situation with an explanation for the alternative weights.



page 52

Timing of project output Can increase OM

weight for highly off-

peak projects;

increase BM for

highly on-peak

projects.

Projects with output is mainly off-peak can

have a greater OM weight (e.g. solar PV

projects in evening peak regions, seasonal

biomass generation during off-peak

seasons), whereas projects with

disproportionately high output during on-

peak periods (e.g. air conditioning efficiency

projects in some grids) can have greater BM

weight.

Predictability of project output Can increase OM for

intermittent

resources in some

contexts.

Projects with output of an intermittent nature

(e.g. wind or solar projects) may have

limited capacity value, depending on the

nature of the (wind/solar) resource and the

grid in question, and to the extent that a

project’s capacity value is lower than that of

a typical grid resource its BM weight can be

reduced. Potential adjustments to the

OM/BM margin should take into account

available methods (in technical literature)

for estimating capacity value.10

Suppressed demand Can increase BM

weight for the 1st

crediting period.

Under conditions of suppressed demand that

are expected to persist through over half of

the first crediting period across a significant

number of hours per year, available power

plants are likely to be operated fully

regardless of the CDM project, and thus the

OM weight can be reduced.

For system management (nature of local electricity markets, planning, and actors) and other

considerations no guidance is available at present.

EFgrid,CM,y is calculated according to formula explained above taking weights wOM and wBM as 0.25 and

0.75 respectively due to the suppressed demand situation in Albania. The proof of suppressed demand

can be substantiated by the following documents (see

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/ALBANIAEXTN/0,,contentM

DK:22037104~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:301412,00.html or Annual report Situation of

Energy Sector and activity of ERE for 2008, Table 1.5 page 28).

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/ALBANIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22037104~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:301412,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/ALBANIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22037104~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:301412,00.html



page 53

The following table summarizes the calculation of the combined margin (CM) emission factor for the

electricity grid of Albania including off-grid power plants. Additional baseline information can be found

in Annex 3 of the PDD.

Table 188 Calculation of the Combined Margin (CM) emission factor for the years 2007 to 2009


2007 5,709,512 2,880,000

2008 6,448,831 2,616,000

2009 6,979,015 1,778,000

19,137,358 7,274,000

w OM = 0.25

w BM = 0.75


0.0529 0.5999

0.4631

Alternative (CM) EF y [tCO2/MWh]

Alternative weights



0.0467

20,618,944

EF BM,2009

Load [MWh]

7,451,723

0.0631 6,245,682

0.0503 6,921,539

Total (2007-2009) =


The ex-ante calculated combined margin (CM) emission factor amounts to 0.4631 tonsCO2/MWh.



page 54

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

Data / Parameter: CapBL

Data unit: W

Description: Installed capacity of the hydro power plant before the implementation of the

project activity. For new hydro power plants, this value is zero.

Source of data used: Project site

Value applied: 0

Justification of the

choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied

The project is newly built hydropower station. Therefore, based on the

methodology, for new hydro power plants, this value is zero.

Any comment: Since the project activity is a new hydro power plant this value is 0.

Data / Parameter: ABL

Data unit: m²

Description: Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, before the

implementation of the project activity, when the reservoir is full (m2). For new

reservoirs, this value is zero.

Source of data used: Section 1.3 (Project components Water-flow: structures and changes) of the

WCD document

Value applied: 0 m² (Banja)

0 m² (Kokel)

0 m² (Moglice)


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Measured from topographical surveys, maps, satellite pictures, etc.

Any comment: Since the all reservoirs are new ones, the applied values are 0.

Data / Parameter: EFRes

Data unit: kgCO2e/MWh

Description: Default emission factor for emissions from reservoirs

Source of data used: Decision by EB23

Value applied: 90 kgCO2e/MWh


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods



page 55

and procedures

actually applied:

Any comment: -

Data / parameter: FCi,m,y

, (FCi,y

, FCi,j,y

, FCi,k,y

, FCi,n,y

and FCi,n,h

)

Data unit: Mass or volume unit (tons)

Description: Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plant / unit m, j, k or n (or in

the project electricity system in case of FCi,y

) in year y or hour h

Source of data used: Figures provided by companies with off-grid plants during off- grid survey

Value applied: See collected questionnaires during off- grid survey


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

All the eligible questionnaires of the off-grid survey contain the amount of

fossil fuel consumed by off-grid power plant in tons or the survey year 2007.

Any comment: To calculate ex ante the OM and BM emission factor.

Data / Parameter: NCVi,y

Data unit: GJ per mass or volume unit (e.g. GJ/m³, GJ/ton)

Description: Net calorific value (energy content) of fossil fuel type i in year y

Source of data used: The following data sources may be used if the relevant conditions apply:

Data source Conditions for using the data

source

Values provided by the fuel

supplier of the power plants in

invoices

If data is collected from power plant

operators (e.g. utilities)

Regional or national average

default values

If values are reliable and documented

in regional or national energy

statistics / energy balances

IPCC default values at the lower

limit of the uncertainty at a 95%

confidence interval as provided in

Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2

(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC

Guidelines on National GHG

Inventories

Off grid power plants are either operated with diesel or gasoline.

Value applied: Provided in Annex 3


choice of data or

description of

Application of IPCC default values.



page 56

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:


Data / Parameter: EFCO2,i,y

and (EFCO2,m,i,y

)

Data unit: tCO2/GJ

Description: CO2 emission factor of fossil fuel type i used in power unit m in year y

Source of data used: The following data sources may be used if the relevant conditions apply:

Data source Conditions for using the data

source

Values provided by the fuel

supplier of the power plants in

invoices

If data is collected from power plant

operators (e.g. utilities)

Regional or national average

default values

If values are reliable and documented

in regional or national energy

statistics / energy balances

IPCC default values at the lower

limit of the uncertainty at a 95%

confidence interval as provided in

Table 1.2 of Chapter 1 of Vol. 2

(Energy) of the 2006 IPCC

Guidelines on National GHG

Inventories

For the current project activity IPCC default values at the lower limit of the

uncertainty at a 95% confidence interval were used.



choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Application of IPCC default values.


Data / Parameter: EGm,y

, (EGy, EG

j,y, EG

k,y and EG

n,h )

Data unit: MWh

Description: Net electricity generated by power plant/unit m, k or n in year y

Source of data used: KESH; OST



choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

Official data of OST and KESH



page 57

actually applied:


Data / Parameter: GENimported

Data unit: MWh

Description: Electricity imported from connected electricity systems

Source of data used: ENTSOE



choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Official data of ENTSOE!


Any comment: To calculate ex ante the OM emission factor.

Data / Parameter: ηm,y and ηk,y

Data unit: -

Description: Average net energy conversion efficiency of power unit m or k in year y

Source of data used: Use either:

Documented manufacturer‟s specifications (if the efficiency of the plant is

not significantly increased through retrofits or rehabilitations); or

For grid power plants: data from the utility, the dispatch centre or official

records if it can be deemed reliable; or

The default values provided in the table below in Annex 1 (if available for

the type of power plant)

Since for the different off-grid power plants and other fossil fuelled thermal

power plants no accurate figures could be obtained, the default values from

Annex 1 of the underlying “Electricity Tool” are used.



choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

Default values determined in Annex 1 of the “Tool to calculate the emission

factor for an electricity system”

Any comment: Since no other data for efficiencies are available, IPCC default values were

applied.




page 58

Data / Parameter: CAPm

Data unit: MW

Description: Total capacity of off-grid power plants included in off-grid power plant class

m

Source of data used: Survey on off-grid power plants, as per Annex 2

Value applied: See collected questionnaires during off- grid survey


choice of data or

description of

measurement methods

and procedures

actually applied:

All the eligible questionnaires of the off-grid survey contain the capacities of

the surveyed off- grid plants.

Any comment: Only applicable if Option II is chosen in Step 2 of this tool, which is the case

in the underlying project activity

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

Ex-ante calculations of the envisaged Emission Reductions (ER) were made by using the DHP estimates

of electricity generations for the power plants Kokel, Banja and Moglice (see feasibility study report or

IRR calculation).

For the ex-ante calculation of emission reductions the following electricity generation data are taken into

account:

HPP Moglice 171.2 MW 445,000 MWh

HPP Kokel 36.2 MW 92,000 MWh

HPP Banja 64.6 MW 252,000 MWh

Sum 272 MW 789,000 MWh

In the DHP financial model, the annual generation of 789 GWh is reduced by 1% for losses (auxiliary

services). The CDM model as well as the ex-ante calculation has been updated accordingly.

DHP expects to deliver this net electricity generation to the national grid of Albania as soon as all three

power plants are in full operation. This is planned for July of 2020.

The start of commercial operation is envisaged with:

01/07/2015 for HPP Banja

01/12/2017 for HPP Moglice

01/10/2018 for HPP Kokel

Latest information of DHP to the start of operation are given as follows:



page 59

All three power plants will be in operation most likely in middle of 2019. Taking in consideration that it

needs time to fill the storage the commercial operation of all three hydro power plants is envisaged for

the middle of 2020.

Since no leakage has to be considered according to the applied approved methodology ACM0002

(Version 12.1.0). Thus the emission reductions are calculated as follows:

ERy = BEy – PEy

Where:

ERy = Emission reductions in year y (t CO2e/yr)

BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)

PEy = Project emissions in year y (t CO2e/yr)

The Combined Margin (CM) emission factor (including off grid plants according to the “Tool to

calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0))” for the national electricity grid

of Albania was calculated as described in the section B.6.1 of this document (see also Annex 3 of the

document).

As soon as all HPPs are in full operation the Baseline Emissions (BEy) are calculated as follows:

BEy = EGy x EFgrid,CM,y = 789,000 MWh x 0.99 x 0.4631 tonsCO2/MWh = 361,732 tonsCO2e/year

The only project emissions which have to be considered are those of Banja due to the “Emissions from

water reservoirs of hydro power plants (PEHP,y)” determined in the approved methodology ACM0002.

The calculation is done according to the following equation:

According to the formula above the project emissions (PEHP,y) for Banja amount to 252,000 x 90 / 1000 =

22,680 tCO2e/year.

Thus the ex-ante calculated emission reductions (ERy) amount to 361,732 – 22,680 = 339,052

tonsCO2e/year if the default emission factor for emissions from reservoirs of hydro power plants of

90 kgCO2e/MWh is applied.

For the sake of completeness it is mentioned here that DHP assigned SINTEF Energy Research in doing

a study with the title: “Overview of potential net greenhouse gas emissions from creating reservoirs in

the Devoll river, Albania”. This survey was finished on 05th of January 2010.

The net emissions from the reservoir of the hydro power plant of Banja in this study amount to 21.1

kgCO2e/MWh, which is by far lower as the default emission factor applied for the ex-ante calculation.

Thus DHP intends to revise this study by application of the latest figures for the reservoir of Banja in the

first year of crediting period at latest. If the revision of the study leads to a similar result and the

correctness is proved by a DOE during verification the final project emissions are calculated ex-post by

applying this value.



page 60

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

Table 19: Summary of ex-ante estimation of emission reductions

Year Estimation of

project activity

emissions

(tCO2eq)

Estimation of

baseline

emissions

(tCO2eq)

Estimation of

leakage

(tCO2eq)

Estimation of

overall emissions

reductions

(tCO2eq)

01/07/2020 11,340 180,866 0 169,526

2021 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2022 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2023 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2024 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2025 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2026 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2027 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2028 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

2029 22,680 361,732 0 339,052

30/06/2030 11,340 180,866 0 169,526

Total (tonnes of CO2eq)

(crediting period =

10 years)

226,800 3,617,320 0 3,390,520

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

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored:

Data / Parameter: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y

Data unit: MWh/yr

Description: Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the

grid in year y

Source of data to be

used:

Measured by electricity meters and verified against balance bills

Value of data applied

for the purpose of

calculating expected

emission reductions in

section B.5

The annual net electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity is

estimated for the ex-ante calculation with:

HPP Moglice 171.2 MW 440,550 MWh

HPP Kokel 36.2 MW 91,080MWh

HPP Banja 64.6 MW 249,480 MWh

Description of

measurement methods

and procedures to be

applied:

Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording



page 61

QA/QC procedures: The meters will be periodically checked according to the relevant national

electric standards and regulations; power supplied to the grid will be double

checked according to electricity sales invoices.

Any comment: Refer to B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan

Data / Parameter: TEGy

Data unit: MWh/yr

Description: Total electricity produced by the HPP Banja considered having a power

density between 4 and 10 W/m², including the electricity supplied to the grid

and the electricity supplied to internal loads, in year y.


used:



for the purpose of



section B.5

The annual net electricity delivered to the grid by the HPP Banja is estimated

for the ex-ante calculation with 252,000 MWh.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:





Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: EGimported

Data unit: MWh/yr

Description: Quantity of net electricity imported from the national grid in year y (in times

when the power plant is not generating any electricity)


used:



for the purpose of



section B.5

For the ex-ante calculation of the emission reductions the power supplied

from the grid to the project activity is estimated to be 0 MWh.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:








page 62

Data / Parameter: EFRes

Data unit: kgCO2e/MWh

Description: Emission factor for emissions from reservoirs


used:

SINTEF study to be updated at the first year of crediting period at latest


for the purpose of



section B.5

To be calculated in the SINTEF study.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

New calculation once at the first year of crediting period.

QA/QC procedures: Proved by a DOE before or during first verification of the Monitoring Report.

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: EFgrid,CM,y

Data unit: tCO2/MWh

Description: Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in

year y calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to calculate the emission

factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0)”


used:

Official data from KESH, OST and ENTSOE (imports)


for the purpose of



section B.5

The ex-ante calculated Combined Margin (CM) grid emission factor

(including off- grid power plants) amounts to 0.4631 tonsCO2/MWh.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

The Combined Margin (CM) grid emission factor (including off- grid power

plants) is calculated ex-ante for the first crediting period.

QA/QC procedures: -

Any comment: -

Data / Parameter: CapPJ

Data unit: W

Description: Installed capacity of the hydro power plant after the implementation of the

project activity.


used:

Project site


for the purpose of



HPP Moglice 171,200,000 W

HPP Kokel 36,200,000 W

HPP Banja 64,600,000 W



page 63

section B.5

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Check the generators‟ nameplates annually.

QA/QC procedures: -


Data / Parameter: APJ

Data unit: m²

Description: Area of the reservoir measured in the surface of the water, after the

implementation of the project activity, when the reservoir is full.


used:

Project activity site


for the purpose of



section B.5

Banja Kokel Moglice

HRWL surface area [m²]

14,110,000

710,000

7,210,000

Estimated for the ex-ante calculation of the power density.

Description of

measurement methods


applied:

Annual measured from topographical surveys, maps, satellite pictures, etc.

QA/QC procedures: -

Any comment: -

B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan:

According to the approved methodology ACM0002 monitoring shall consist of metering the electricity

[kWh] generated by the project activity generating renewable energy. Emission reductions are calculated

by multiplying the generated electricity with the ex ante fixed Combined Margin (CM) emission factor

for the national grid of Albania (with the inclusion of fossil fuelled off-grid power plants) as determined

in this Project Design Document (PDD).

Since the monitoring of emission reduction will be achieved through the measurement of net electricity

generation, no special operational and management structure is needed apart from normal electricity

generation operational and management structure.

For the ex-ante calculation no electricity import to the project sites from the Albanian grid was

envisaged. If electricity imports occur under the project activity they will be monitored by an additional

electricity meter and will be subtracted from the net electricity generation supplied to OST.

The project emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power projects (PEHP,y) are calculated annually

after monitoring the total electricity produced by the HPP Banja. The power density of Banja is

envisaged to be between 4 and 10 W/m². Thus Project Emissions have to eb considered according to the

approved methodology ACM0002 Version 12.1.0.



page 64

All measurements will be conducted with calibrated measurement equipment according to relevant

industry standards and the Albanian metering code. The quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA)

of the metering is done as required in the above mentioned standards and codes..

Calibration of the energy meters will be carried out according to the same agreements..

The recorded data will be kept for at least two years after the end of the last crediting period.

For further detail see also attached monitoring plan in Annex 4.

B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology

and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies):

Contact information of the person(s)/entity(ies)

responsible for the application of the baseline

and monitoring methodology

Indicate if the person/entity is also a project

participant listed in Annex 1

Nevena Alexandrova

Climate Change Expert

Project Manager of the CDM DHP project

Energy and Environment Department

ALLPLAN GmbH

Schwindgasse 10, 1040 Wien

Tel: +43 (1) 505 37 07 22

Mobile: +43 676 842 22 52 22

Fax: + 43 (1) 505 37 07 27

E-mail: [email protected]

www.allplan.at

No

Christian Praher

Senior Consultant

denkstatt GmbH

denkstatt 1130 Wien, Hietzinger Hauptstraße 28

Tel.: +43 (0) 1 786 89 00 55,

Mobile: +43 (0)664 164 62 05

Fax: +43 (0)1 786 89 00 15

E-mail: [email protected]

www.denkstatt.at

No

Christian Steinreiber

Senior Consultant

Pöyry Management Consulting

Laaer-Berg-Strasse 43, 1100 Vienna, Austria

Mobile: +43 (0) 664 828 57 32

Fax: + 43 (0) 1 53605 165

No

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.allplan.at/


http://www.denkstatt.at/



page 65

Email: [email protected]

www.poyry.com

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period

C.1. Duration of the project activity:

C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity:

The starting date of DHP will be in the future since no real action as financial closure, ordering of major

equipment, construction permit or start of construction has yet begun. Nevertheless, on 29/09/2009 the

project owner has sent a notification letter91

to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat informing

about the intention to implement Devoll Hydropower project in Albania under CDM/Prior consideration

of CDM. With the notification letter the project owner intended securing the CDM status of DHP project

by demonstrating that the incentive from CDM was considered at the earliest stage of the project

implementation.

C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity:

The expected operational lifetime of the project activity is considered as 35 years corresponding to the

minimum concession period as per the clauses in the Concession Agreement with the Albanian

Government. The Agreement states that the “Concession shall expire when the accumulated energy

production has reached 59 TWh or the achieved IRR has reached 10%, whichever comes first”92

.

C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information:

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period:

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period:

Not applicable

C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period:

Not applicable

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period:

C.2.2.1. Starting date:

The crediting period is expected to start on 01/07/2020

91

The notification letter to the to the Albanian DNA and UNFCCC secretariat/Prior consideration of CDM is

presented in Annex 8 92

FSR, Chapter 25, Financial analyses, page 3, Concession Agreement


http://www.poyry.com/



page 66

C.2.2.2. Length:

10 years

SECTION D. Environmental impacts

D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary

impacts:

For the development phase of this project activity an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

(ESIA) was done. The last version of the report, used for this chapter, is dated June 2011.

The Albanian Environmental legislation contains the requirements of Environmental Approval and the

preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for development projects, described in LAW No.

8990, dated 23/01/2003. Additionally to DHP meeting the required Albanian EIA requirements, the joint

venture partners of DHP have CSR policies which demand that international ESIA standards and

practices be applied.

In tune with present trends towards establishing sustainability in development interventions and as

required by DHP policy, the guideline principles developed by the International Hydropower Association

(IHA) from August 2009 have been used to support and improve the ESIA process.

The ESIA identifies and lists different categories of impacts:

Impacts Caused by Changes in River Hydrology and Morphology

Impacts Caused by Construction or Plant Location

Roads and Transmission Lines

Land and Geology

Climate and Air Pollution

Hydrology

Water Quality

Fish and Aquatic Ecosystems

Terrestrial Fauna

Terrestrial Vegetation

Nature Protection

The Environmental (and Social) Management Plan, ESMP, identifies the different responsibilities of the

parties involved: Devoll Hydropower Sh.A, the Central Government in particular represented by Ministry

of Environment, Forests and Water Administration, Regional and local governmental representatives,

Local (municipal and village) administration, Contractors and Sub-Contractors, and Independent experts

and NGO‟s.

D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host

Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental

impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party:



page 67

The Draft ESIA from June 2011 identifies physical and biological impacts. The most important impacts

of Devoll Hydropower Project are related to the changes in river flow in the different section of the river

and the secondary impacts of such changes (impacts on water use and aquatic biodiversity).

There are priority mitigation actions, which include:

Minimum flow release on dams (Moglicë Dam, Kokël Dam and Banja Dam)

Waste and water management in the project area and adjacent villages

Reforestation

Measures to reduce sediment flushing and erosion

Relocation of Lumaj and Nikollarë villages with full compensation

Replacement of roads and bridges

Loss of local access

Landscaping to repair scars to nature

Measures against dust, noise and air pollution during construction phase

Preventive excavation and removal of objects in cultural heritage sites, that will be flooded

(prehistoric burial sites)

Water related mitigation measures will focus on the protection of biodiversity and integrity of the

ecosystem in the impacted parts of the water system, and mitigate the potential damage to fisheries and

other water related use (irrigation, water supply, transport, etc.).

The most important mechanism for mitigation will be specific requirements for Minimum Flow Releases

(for MFR). The ESIA has given recommendations for MFR in the relevant river reaches.

The detailed ESMP to be developed when construction details and schedules are known will expand the

framework ESMP contained within this ESIA and address issues defined under IFC Performance

Standards relevant to environmental and social management planning including involuntary resettlement.

It will produce an ESMP manual with clear priorities and procedures for DHP to implement to ensure

compliance with international best practice.

The Environmental Management Plan will be divided into potential sub-programmes:

Reservoir Clearance and Filling Plan;

Water Quality Monitoring;

Fish Monitoring Plan;

Re-forestation Plan;

Construction Activities Environment Plan;

Operation Activities Environment Plan;

Transmission Line Environment Management Plan;

Roads Environment Management Plan.

Monitoring is one of the important elements of an ESMP and serves a number of functions including:

a) Providing a check on the implementation of proposed mitigation measures and ESMP

recommendations; and

b) Identifying corrective measures or the redesign of mitigation measures, if the originally planned

mitigation measures are not sufficiently effective.



page 68

The monitoring will take place at different stages of the project lifetime.

a) Monitoring of construction work and construction facilities

b) Resettlement and compensation monitoring, and

c) Long term or operational monitoring

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments

E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled:

Devoll Hydropower uses several different ways to invite Stakeholders comments:

1) Public Information Centre93

Since September 2010 DHP has operated a Public Information Centre (PIC) in Gramsh. Gramsh is the

main city in the project area and also the location of our site office from where site works are coordinated

(Land Access, ESIA, drilling works, field works).

The Public Information Centre serves as a centre where local direct and indirect project affected people

can inform themselves about all aspects related to hydropower in general, our project development as

well as on the current works and the project status. We explain relevant topics according to poster we

have composed for this purpose. We are also exhibiting a poster on CDM.

The PIC is open 4 days in a week, covering different daytimes and is staffed by male and female DHP

employee. Herewith we enable stakeholders to visit the PIC also in the evening hours and also ensure to

have a gender balanced opportunity to access the PIC.

Further the PIC serves as an accommodation for middle sized information meetings with local

government representatives.

2) Mobile Information Service94

Since December 2010 DHP have operated the so called Mobile Information Service (MIS). With the

same purpose as the PIC, the MIS is a mobile service where DHP serves the local communities that due

to distance, bad infrastructure or missing (public) transport is not able to visit the PIC in Gramsh. Until

February 2011 there have been approx. 10-15 sessions in distant villages in the project area. The MIS

will be conducted regularly and adapted to requirement for disclosure of new project information and

explanation purposes.

Same as the PIC, the MIS is staffed by male and female DHP employee.

3) DHP website95

93

Photos of DHP Public Information Centre are presented in Annex 6 94

Photos from meetings held in different communities by the DHP Mobile Information Service 95

Screenshot of DHP project website is presented in Annex 6



page 69

A project website (http://www.dhp.al/) has been established, which give actual relevant information

about the project to the public.

Information about the CDM-project was also published e.g. via the website:

http://www.dhp.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66%3Acdm-

project&catid=46%3Acdm-project&Itemid=65&lang=en

4) Meetings with local authorities

Continuously meetings with local and regional authorities are held, those were bilateral as well as

multilateral. The purpose of the meetings is the provision of information about the project and the project

progress, as well as provision of a platform for discussion of questions and concerns.

The main topic and focus of each of them is concerned with the establishment of project design area,

identification of the impacted land and commune or private property, local infrastructure and irrigation

channels.

5) Informative Round Table Meeting

DHP has introduced the “Informative Round Table Meeting” (IRTM) to have a platform for regular

formal meetings. To these meeting the heads of (sub)-prefectures, districts, municipality and communes

are invited.

The IRTM takes place every 2nd or 3rd month. So far DHP has conducted 2 sessions, the format of those

should be standardized.

Herewith DHP ensures to inform and engage the local government and decision makers closely enabling

them to fulfil their duties as elected representatives of the communities. Also we provide a platform

where issues and concerns can be raised and discussed in an early stage in order to handle them without

further complications.

6) Meeting central authorities

Continuously meetings with central authorities are held. The purpose of those meetings is the provision

of information about the project and the project progress, as well as provision of a platform for

discussion of questions and concerns. For different issues, different platforms/working groups have been

established. (PIU – formal representation of the Contracting Authority/METE; working group on

Replacement Infrastructure/representatives of a.o. MPW and METE.

7) Meetings (inter)national institutions, donor organisations and NGOs

DHP is continuously consulting the international community representatives by informing them on the

project and the conducted works.

http://www.dhp.al/

http://www.dhp.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66%3Acdm-project&catid=46%3Acdm-project&Itemid=65&lang=en

http://www.dhp.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66%3Acdm-project&catid=46%3Acdm-project&Itemid=65&lang=en



page 70

EU, UNDP, EBRD, Austrian Development Corporation, Swiss Development Corporation, SNV, GTZ,

KfW, OSCE, JICA, as well as approx. 20 others have been and will be regularly updated and cooperation

will be sought.

In September 2010 a local NGO called “Devolli 2010” was established and purpose of this establishment

is to replacement infrastructure between Banja dam and Gramsh was established. DHP sought immediate

dialogue with this NGO and have conducted several bilateral meetings. Further DHP has contributed to a

public hearing that was organised by this NGO.

8) Public Hearings

On 25th March 2010, DHP participated in the public hearing on the Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA) proposal for Energy Planning in the Devoll River. This event was organised in the Cultural House

in Gramsh by Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (METE) and it had numerous community

representatives as attendants. Photo of the public hearing is presented in Annex 5.

There will be a separate Public Hearing for the Draft Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

(ESIA) most likely in June 2011. For this the ESIA will be translated into Albanian language for the

interested public to prepare, comments will be collected and addressed properly.

Following this Public Hearing the raised comments will be addressed, which might lead to the need of

conducting some small additional studies and consultations. The results will be part of the final ESIA,

which expected to be finished in the 3rd

quarter of 2011. This will also include two important parts: the

Environmental and Social Management plan and the Resettlement Action plan.

E.2. Summary of the comments received:

During the numerous consultations with Stakeholders (local and central authorities, NGOs, residents) a

lot of comments were received. Mostly the project was warmly welcomed and seen as a very positive

opportunity for economic growth in the poor region.

The requests and comments received until March 2011 were considering:

Threat of losing accessibility (road from Banja dam to Gramsh, vehicle connection to Silare)

Employment possibilities

Expected pollution of the future lakeshore (since waste and wastewater in the area is thrown in

the river)

Fees for property inundation

Potential influence on irrigation and the water systems

Fear of traffic/noise/dust from the construction activities

Losing of key livelihoods (agriculture, fodder, medicinal plants, grazing, honey-bees, forests,

etc.).

These concerns will be included in the ESIA process, and treatment measures further elaborated in the

Social Management Plan, the Environment Management Plan, and the Resettlement Action Plan.



page 71

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

DHP takes into account each single comment. Most comments fall into those categories listed below:

Replacement of the Road from Banja to Gramsh. The project will flood the road from Banja

to Gramsh. Local residents, depending on the road have past negative experiences with

relocation of this road, so there is doubt in the villages, what might happen with this road.

The solution presented from DHP in cooperation with the Albanian government is following:

According to the concessions agreement and as stated in various meetings and information

letters, DHP will compensate the value of the existing road that will be inundated, but the

responsibility for the decision and construction of the replacement infrastructure is with the

Government of Albania. DHP endorses/favours to achieve an acceptable solution for the local

community.

Property inundation: the Albanian government defines the rates for property inundation. DHP

is complying with Albanian and EU legislation in compensating the persons concerned. Further

to that DHP is supporting various measures to improve regional development.

Additional to that the project design has been changed resulting in the need of resettling only

approx. 40-50 houses instead of approx. 100 houses according to the initial project design.

Employment: DHP is aware of its important role of a major employer during construction time

in the region. In order to qualify local untrained personnel for potential work at the construction

site and the power project, DHP runs training courses prior to the start of the construction phase:

English courses and first aid training is done for local people. Another program will skill workers

as Welders, Brick layer, Driver until start of the construction phase.

Further to that DHP has received several requests for support from the communes, ranging from clearing

of roads up to reconstruction of drinking water facilities. Each request is being treated by DHP separately

depending on DHP´s own requirements, current local impact, awaiting and respecting activities and

official responsibilities by authorities for such matters.



page 72

Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

Organization: Devoll Hydropower Sh.A. (DHP)

Street/P.O.Box: Rruga Papa Gjon Pali II

Building: ABA Business Center, Office Nr. 1204

City: Tirana

State/Region:

Postcode/ZIP:

Country: Albania

Telephone: + 355 4 450 1 450

FAX: + 355 4 2400 734

E-Mail:

URL: http://www.dhp.al/

Represented by: Mr. Mario Niederwolfsgruber

Title: Chief Financial Officer

Salutation: Mr.

Last name: Niederwolfsgruber

Middle name:

First name: Mario

Department:

Mobile: + 355 69 408 2703

Direct FAX: + 355 4 2400 734

Direct tel: + 355 4 450 1 450

Personal e-mail: [email protected]

Organization: EVN AG

Street/P.O.Box: 2344 Maria Enzersdorf

Building: EVN Platz

City: Maria Enzersdorf

State/Region: Vienna

Postcode/ZIP:

Country: Austria

Telephone: +43 (0) 2236 200-121 79

FAX: +43 (0)2236 200-821 79

E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: www.evn.at

Represented by: Mr. Peter Layr

Title: Managing Director, Dr.

Salutation: Mr.

Last name: Layr

Middle name:

First name: Peter

Department: Managing Board

http://www.dhp.al/


http://www.evn.at/



page 73

Mobile:

Direct FAX: +43 (0) 2236 200 2030

Direct tel: +43 (0) 2236 200 12873


Organization: Statkraft AS

Street/P.O.Box: Lilleakerveien 6, P.O. Box 200 Lilleaker

Building:

City: Oslo

State/Region:

Postcode/ZIP: 0216

Country: Norway

Telephone: +47 24 06 78 91

FAX: +47 24 06 70 01

E-Mail: [email protected]

URL: www.statkraft.com

Represented by:

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Salutation: Mr.

Last name: Rynning-Tønnesen

Middle name:

First name: Christian

Department: Corporate Management

Mobile:

Direct FAX: +47 24 06 70 01

Direct tel: +47 24 06 79 00




http://www.statkraft.com/




page 74

Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

No public funding from parties included in Annex I of the UNFCCC has been involved in the proposed

project activity96

96 The project owner presented declarations to the DOE that no public funding from parties included in Annex I has

been involved in DHP



page 75

Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0)”

Annex 1: Default efficiency factors for power plants

Used Electricity generation data for the years 2007 to 2009

Imports/Exports



page 76

Import

GWh 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 98 173 275 278 274

2 106 136 312 258 43

3 77 94 289 285 197

4 47 24 213 175 6

5 20 8 174 157 42

6 62 50 179 193 134

7 88 113 188 140 141

8 79 103 233 204 223

9 91 88 220 213 224

10 145 130 265 202 251

11 170 111 258 257 142

12 266 210 274 254 101

Summe 1249 1240 2880 2616 1778

Export

GWh 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 78 58 16 21 40

2 112 43 1 12 81

3 102 97 0 0 36

4 63 104 2 14 162

5 89 115 7 19 79

6 64 59 0 2 17

7 44 10 2 16 6

8 25 29 0 9 4

9 55 28 0 8 9

10 48 32 2 16 23

11 31 43 8 33 39

12 15 21 12 35 37

Summe 726 639 50 185 533

Balance (pos=Import; neg=export)

GWh 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

1 20 115 259 257 234

2 -6 93 311 246 -38

3 -25 -3 289 285 161

4 -16 -80 211 161 -156

5 -69 -107 167 138 -37

6 -2 -9 179 191 117

7 44 103 186 124 135

8 54 74 233 195 219

9 36 60 220 205 215

10 97 98 263 186 228

11 139 68 250 224 103

12 251 189 262 219 64

Summe 523 601 2830 2431 1245


Electricity generation



page 77

Net electricity production 2006

Inst. Capacity

MW Gross MWh

Aux.Ser.

MWh

Losses

MWh Net MWh

Hydro Production 1447.9 5,452,852 6,710 82,269 5,363,873

Drin River Cascade 1350 5,011,712 5,097 78,045 4,928,569

Fierza 500 1,939,718 2,698 30,220 1,906,800

Koman 600 2,119,750 1,087 32,955 2,085,708

Vau Dejes 250 952,244 1,312 14,870 936,061

Mat River Cascade 50 196,134 1,210 3,270 191,654

Ulez 25 106,754 501 1,675 104,578

Shkopet 25 89,380 709 1,595 87,076

Bistrica River Cascade 27.5 154,883 362 792 153,729

Bistrica I 22.5 123,606 266 636 122,704

Bistrica II 5 31,277 96 156 31,025

Other HPP 20.4 71,693 41 162 71,491

Selita 5 32,304 41 162 32,102

Gjanc+Bogove+Smokthine 15.4 39,389 39,389

Small HPP 18,430 18,430

Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) 75 92,630 10,960 1,389 80,281

TPP Fieri 75 92,630 10,960 1,389 80,281

Total Domestic Production 1522.9 5,545,482 17,670 83,658 5,444,154


Inst. Capacity

MW Gross MWh

Aux.Ser.

MWh

Losses

MWh Net MWh


Drin River Cascade 1350 2,532,504 4,904 28,195 2,499,404

Fierza 500 694,463 1,417 7,058 685,987

Koman 600 1,204,720 2,122 13,854 1,188,744

Vau Dejes 250 633,321 1,365 7,283 624,673


Ulez 25 70,573 1,453 812 68,309

Shkopet 25 67,572 307 777 66,488

Bistrica River Cascade 27.5 127,881 417 1,471 125,993

Bistrica I 22.5 121,646 279 1,399 119,968

Bistrica II 5 6,235 138 72 6,025

Other HPP 20.4 67,110 43 473 66,594

Selita 5 33,951 43 473 33,435

Gjanc+Bogove+Smokthine 15.4 33,159 33,159

Small HPP 2,724 2,724

Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) 75 71,898 7,609 827 63,462

TPP Fieri 75 71,898 7,609 827 63,462




page 78


Installed

Capacity

(MW)

Gross

Production

(MWh)

Auxiliary

Services

(MWh)

Losses in

Production

(MWh)

Net Production

(MWh)


Drini River Cascade 1350 3,441,046 3,184 9,937 3,427,925

Fierze 500 1,071,634 1,015 0 1,070,619

Koman 600 1,551,980 1,101 9,937 1,540,941

Vau Dejes 250 817,432 1,068 0 816,364

Mat River Cascade 50 171,703 1,061 928 169,714

Ulez 25 92,334 732 476 91,126

Shkopet 25 79,369 329 451 78,588

Bistrica River Cascade 27.5 139,405 403 973 138,030

Bistrica I 22.5 118,706 262 869 117,575

Bistrica II 5 20,699 141 103 20,455

Other HPP 20.4 54,998 45 534 54,419

Selita 5 35,768 45 534 35,189

Gjanc, Bogove, Smokthine 15.4 19,230 0 0 19,230

Small HPP 42,744 0 0 42,744

Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) 75 0 0 0 0

TPP Fieri 75 0 0 0 0



Installed

Capacity

(MW)

Gross

Production

(MWh)

Auxiliary

Services

(MWh)

Losses in

Production

(MWh)

Net Production

(MWh)


Drini River Cascade 1350 4,704,738 3,120 20,031 4,681,587

Fierze 500 1,557,357 1,110 0 1,556,248

Koman 600 2,062,050 1,037 20,031 2,040,982

Vau Dejes 250 1,085,330 973 0 1,084,358


Ulez 25 126,116 389 1,096 124,631

Shkopet 25 102,522 822 913 100,787

Bistrica River Cascade 27.5 172,128 440 1,224 170,464

Bistrica I 22.5 136,742 256 1,123 135,364

Bistrica II 5 35,385 184 101 35,100

Other HPP 20.4 85,052 51 519 84,483

Selita 5 34,804 51 519 34,235

Gjanc, Bogove, Smokthine 15.4 50,248 0 0 50,248

Small HPP 39,062 0 0 39,062

Thermo Production (TPP Fieri) 172 0 0 0 0

TPP Fieri 75 0 0 0 0

TPP Vlora (New) 97 0 0 0 0


Source: Albanian Electro-Energetic Corporation (KESH j.s.c.) http://www.kesh.com.al/ and

Transmission System Operator (OST j.s.c) http://www.ost.al/


http://www.ost.al/



page 79

Selection of the method to determine the operating margin (OM):

Electricity generation of the grid of Albania for the years 2005 to 2009 (with inclusion of off- grid

generation in the years 2007 to 2009)




Percentage 0.79 0.80 0.45 0.55 0.70

Sum Import 1,249,000 1,240,000 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000

Percentage 0.20 0.19 0.46 0.38 0.24

Sum Thermal 76,987 80,281 536,170 472,708 472,708

Percentage 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.06


Due to the fact that low-cost/must run resources amount to more than 50% for the most recent 5 years

(2005 to 2009), where data was available the operating margin (OM) is calculated according to Option

(d) of Step 3 of the “Tool” the Average OM.

The calculation is provided for the years 2007 to 2009 as follows:

Electricity generation in [MWh] 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Date of comission

Gjanc,Bogovce, Smokthine 39,389 33,159 19,230 50,248 2004,2005,2006

off grid 1 32,527 32,527 32,527 2007-1987

off grid 2 13,131 13,131 13,131 2007-1987

off grid 3 171,478 171,478 171,478 2007-1987

off grid 4 3,419 3,419 3,419 2007-1987

off grid 5 25,247 25,247 25,247 2007-1987

off grid 6 29,349 29,349 29,349 2007-1987

off grid 7 67,940 67,940 67,940 2007-1987

off grid 8 26,466 26,466 26,466 2007-1987

off grid 9 6,629 6,629 6,629 2007-1987

off grid 10 1,066 1,066 1,066 2007-1987

off grid 11 32,329 32,329 32,329 2007-1987

off grid 12 1,820 1,820 1,820 2007-1987

off grid 13 10,126 10,126 10,126 2007-1987

off grid 14 8,849 8,849 8,849 2007-1987

off grid 15 14,227 14,227 14,227 2007-1987

off grid 16 22,944 22,944 22,944 2007-1987

off grid 17 0 0 0 2007-1987

off grid 18 493 493 493 2007-1987

off grid 19 700 700 700 2007-1987

off grid 20 242 242 242 2007-1987

off grid 21 247 247 247 2007-1987

off grid 22 1,668 1,668 1,668 2007-1987

off grid 23 1,811 1,811 1,811 2007-1987

Koman (HPP) 2,186,860 2,085,708 1,188,744 1,540,941 2,040,982 1986

Fierza (HPP) 1,870,021 1,906,800 685,987 1,070,619 1,556,248 1978

Vau dejes (HPP) 927,319 936,061 624,673 816,364 1,084,358 1975

Shkopet (HPP) 58,200 87,076 66,488 78,588 100,787 1963

Ulez (HPP) 104,578 68,309 91,126 124,631 1954

Bistrice 2 (HPP) 31,025 6,025 20,455 35,100 1952

Lanabregas (HPP) 30,089 32,102 33,435 35,189 34,235 1951

Bistrice 1 (HPP) 122,704 119,968 117,575 135,364 1948

Other HPPs 18,430 2,724 42,744 39,062

Fier (TPP) 76,987 80,281 63,462 0 0 1966/1983/2009

Vlora (TPP) 0 0 0 0

IMPORTS 1,249,000 1,240,000 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000 (Source: https://w w w .entsoe.eu/resources/data-portal/exchange/)




Percentage 0.79 0.80 0.45 0.55 0.70

Sum Import 1,249,000 1,240,000 2,880,000 2,616,000 1,778,000

Percentage 0.20 0.19 0.46 0.38 0.24

Sum Thermal 76,987 80,281 536,170 472,708 472,708

Percentage 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.06




page 80

Relevant year

2007 A B C D E F G

m i EGm FCi,m NCVi EFCO2,i ηm EFEL,m

Net Electricity

Generation

Fuel

Consumption

Net Calorific

Value

(Lower

Value)

CO2 Emission Factor

(Lower Value)

Average Net

Energy

Conversion

Efficiency

CO2

Emission

Factor

CO2 Emissions


Default

values from

Annex 1 of

the

"Electricity











10 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 2) Gasoline 1,066 42.5 0.0675 0.28 0.868 925







17 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel D; Age 3) Diesel 0 41.4 0.0726 0.28 0.933 0

18 Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 3) Gasoline 493 42.5 0.0675 0.28 0.868 428






Fier Residual Fuel Oil 63,462 39.8 0.0755 0.375 0.725 45,997

Vlora (CCGT) Natural Gas 46.5 0.0543 0.6 0.326 0

0.0631



Fuel Type

Relevant year

2008 A B C D E F G


Net Electricity

Generation

Fuel

Consumption

Net Calorific

Value

(Lower

Value)

CO2 Emission Factor

(Lower Value)

Average Net

Energy

Conversion

Efficiency

CO2

Emission

Factor

CO2 Emissions


Default

values from

Annex 1 of

the

"Electricity

























Fier Residual Fuel Oil 39.8 0.0755 0.375 0.725 0


0.0503



Fuel Type



page 81

Relevant year

2009 A B C D E F G


Net Electricity

Generation

Fuel

Consumption

Net Calorific

Value

(Lower

Value)

CO2 Emission Factor

(Lower Value)

Average Net

Energy

Conversion

Efficiency

CO2

Emission

Factor

CO2 Emissions


Default

values from

Annex 1 of

the

"Electricity

























Fier Residual Fuel Oil 39.8 0.0755 0.375 0.725 0


0.0467


Fuel Type



2007 5,709,512 2,880,000

2008 6,448,831 2,616,000

2009 6,979,015 1,778,000

19,137,358 7,274,000


0.0529

0.0503 6,921,539

0.0467 7,451,723

Total (2007-2009) = 20,618,944



EF AverageOM [tCO2/MWh] Load [MWh]

0.0631 6,245,682



page 82

Calculation of the Build Margin (BM) for the year 2009:

Electricity generation in [MWh] 2009 Time of Comissioning

Small HPP 39,062 2009

Gjanc, Bogove, Smoktine 50,248 2004,2005,2006


















Off Grid (Cap1, Fuel G; Age 3) 493 1988-1997






Koman (HPP) 2,040,982 1986

Fierza (HPP) 1,556,248 1978

Vau dejes (HPP) 1,084,358 1975

Shkopet (HPP) 100,787 1963

Ulez (HPP) 124,631 1954

Bistrice 2 (HPP) 35,100 1952

Lanabregas (HPP) 34,235 1951

Bistrice 1 (HPP) 135,364 1948

*IMPORTS 1,778,000

Vlora (TPP) 0

Fier (TPP) 0

Sum of electricity generation in [GWh] 5,673,723 *without Imports

Sum of electricity generation of the

sample group for the BM [GWh] 458,867

Percentage of the electricity generation of

most recently

built 5 Power Plants 8%



page 83

Relevant year

2009 A B C D E F G

i EGm FCi,m NCVi EFCO2,i ηm EFEL,m

Net Electricity Generation Fuel

Consumption

Net Calorific

Value

(Lower Value)

CO2 Emission

Factor

(Lower Value)

Average Net

Energy

Conversion

Efficiency

CO2 -

Emission

Factor

CO2

Emissions


Default

values from

Annex 1 of

the

"Electricity










275,273

0.5999 tonsCO2/MWh


m


Fuel Type

Calculation of the Combined Margin (CM):


2007 5,709,512 2,880,000

2008 6,448,831 2,616,000

2009 6,979,015 1,778,000

19,137,358 7,274,000

w OM = 0.25

w BM = 0.75


0.0529 0.5999

0.4631

Alternative (CM) EF y [tCO2/MWh]

Alternative weights



0.0467

20,618,944

EF BM,2009

Load [MWh]

7,451,723

0.0631 6,245,682

0.0503 6,921,539

Total (2007-2009) =




page 84

Procedures related to off-grid power generation (following Annex 2 of the

“Tool”)

Excerpt from the “Tool” is marked in Italic.

The procedures in this annex serve to (a) identify those off-grid power plants that are eligible for

inclusion in the grid emission factor and to (b) collect the necessary data to include them in the

calculations of the operating and build margin emission factors of this tool.

Step 1: Obtain data on off-grid power generation

Data on off-grid power generation is usually not readily available and has to be collected to include off-

grid power generation in the grid emission factor. The collection of data on off-grid power generation

has two purposes: data is required to determine whether an identified power plant qualifies as .off-grid

power plant., as defined in the definitions section; and data is required to calculate the emissions and

electricity generation from off-grid power plants.

For this purpose, project proponents can conduct an own survey, or use existing data (if such data

provides the necessary information as outlined further below and if the existing data has the vintage as

required per this tool).

The project developer Energji ASHTA the owner of another CDM HPP project activity in Albania

assigned the VeVe Group, which is the Energji Ashta‟s local partner in Albania to conduct this off-grid

survey. Additionally Energji ASHTA assigned DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co

KG (CEO: Univ.Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec) with the Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC).

Energji ASHTA and the project owners of Devoll share the costs for this off- grid study.

The collected data can be used in the following two ways:

(a) Direct use of data on a plant-by-plant basis: Include in the emission factor only those off-grid power

plants for which the necessary data is available or is collected. Ensure that the plants selected for

inclusion in the grid emission factor are reasonably representative for the overall off-grid power

generation in the electricity system97

;

(b) Statistical evaluation of the data based on sampling: Collect the necessary data for a representative

and appropriately stratified sample of off-grid power plants and infer the data to the entire electricity

system.

Document in the CDM-PDD which approach is followed.

In the above mentioned off-grid survey approach (b) was chosen. The whole off-grid survey consists of a

stratified sampling of off-grid power plants and a statistical extrapolation to the overall population.

97

For example, information on off-grid power generation could only be available for some sectors of the economy.

In this case, only the plants from these sectors may be included in the grid emission factor. However, in including

selected plants, no systematic bias should be introduced (e.g. by including only coal fired plants).



page 85

The documentation of the whole off-grid study conducted by VeVe is available to the DOE on request.

As already mentioned above the whole statistical survey was accompanied for Quality Assurance (QA)

reasons by the Austrian statistic expert Univ. Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec (DATA TECHNOLOGY

Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG) in order to comply with international statistical standards and the

UNFCCC requirements determined in Annex 2 of the “Tool”. Marcus Hudec is member of the Council

of Statistics of Austria and head of the group responsible for statistical quality standards.

Step 1.1: Choose the data to be collected

Document which data is collected for each (sampled) off-grid power plant. Table 1 provides the

minimum data that must be collected for each (sampled) off-grid power plant p.

Table 1: Minimum data/information to be collected on each off-grid power plant p

In addition, other data may be collected, depending on how the requirements of this annex for inclusion

of an off-grid power plant p in the grid emission factor are assessed and on which options are used in

Step 3 of the tool to calculate the emission factor for a class of off-grid power plants m (Option A1, A2 or

A3) and the electricity generation by a class of off-grid power plants m (Option 1, 2 or 3). This may

include the following data:

All the input parameters summarized in Table 1 above are collected for each sampled off-grid power

plant during the field survey (see Questionnaire in English and Albanian language as Annexes to the

documentation of the whole off- grid study of VeVe, which is provided to the DOE on request).



page 86

The design of the questionnaire has been developed in iterations of drafts and included extensive

pretesting to assure a highest standard of data quality according to the data collection process. The

questionnaire was utilized in personal interviews by a specially trained group of interviewers.

Table 2: Additional data that may be collected on off-grid power generation

Note that the same data collection approach should be applied to all off-grid plants in one sector (e.g.

industrial, commercial and residential sector).

The following input parameters summarized in Table 2 above are collected for each sampled off- grid

power plant during the field survey see Questionnaire in English and Albanian language as Annexes to

the documentation of the whole off- grid study of VeVe, which is provided to the DOE on request)

DATEstart,p since the off-grid power plants are also included in the build margin (see Step 1.2 of the

Annex 2 of the “Tool” below)

The conducted field survey showed that it was impossible for the respondents to provide the following

data of the Table 2 of above. These data were asked for in the Questions 21d and 21b of the

Questionnaire:

Question Q21d “teN calorific value of used fuel” (NCVp,i,y). None of the respondents did know

the exact value of the NCV. Thus, conservative default values (Source: IPCC 2006) were taken

into account.

Question Q21b “Energy produced from the off grid power plant (EGp,y)”.

None of the respondents could provide this data since no electricity meter are installed in the off-

grid power plans.



page 87

Thus, the value for this data question has been calculated as product of Net calorific value (NCVp,i,y)

with the corresponding default efficiency factors for power plants m,y (see Annex 1 of above)) and

with the value of question Q21c „„Fuel quantity used (FCp,i,y)‟‟ divided by 3.6 in order to convert GJ

into MWh (corrected Option 2 of Step 4 of the “Tool”)

6.3

,,,,

,

ymyi

i

ymi

ym

NCVFC

EG

[MWh]

Where:

EGm,y = Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m

in year y (MWh)

FCi,m,y= Amount of fossil fuel type i consumed by power plants included in off-grid

power plant class m in year y (mass or volume unit (tons))

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

volume unit (GJ/ton))

ηm,y Default net energy conversion efficiency of off-grid power plant class m in year

y (ratio), as per the default values provided in Annex 1

m = Off-grid power plant class considered as one power unit (as per the provisions

in Annex 2 to this tool)


i = Fossil fuel types used

This approach was used as already mentioned above since no questionnaire provided the directly

measured net quantity of generated electricity (EGm,y) requested for application of Option 1 of Step 4 of

the “Tool”. All questionnaires provided the amounts of fossil fuel consumed (FCi,m,y) by each off-grid

power plant during the year 2007. Thus EGm,y was calculated for all the UNFCCC off- grid classes

according to the corrected Option 2 of Step 4 of the “Tool”.

OMCp,y: This data set was not provided in the Questionnaire since for the 3rd

point of Step 2 of

Annex 2 point (c) was applied.

TEL: This data set was not provided in the Questionnaire since for the 3rd

point of Step 2 of

Annex 2 point (c) was applied. During the survey every company provided the tariff

class for the electricity purchased from the national grid of Albania (see also approach

described under Step 2 of Annex 2 of the “Tool”).



page 88

Step 1.2: Define the classification of off-grid power plants

To facilitate data collection and calculations, off-grid power plants should be classified in different

classes of off-grid power plants. All off-grid power plants included in one class are considered as one

single power unit for the calculations in this tool.

Off-grid power plants should be classified according to their capacity (CAPp), fuel type (FUELp), and

type of technology (TECHp).

This classification was applied in the conducted off-grid survey (see documentation of the whole off-grid

study conducted by VeVe is available to the DOE on request).

Referring to the collected data from the questionnaires a theoretical maximum of 42 (7 x 1 x 2 x 3 = 42)

UNFCCC classes could be identified:

CAPp (question Q13 in the questionnaire), 7 different categories

TECHp (question Q8 in the questionnaire), 1 category

FUELp (question Q10 in the questionnaire), 2 categories

Age (question Q15 in the questionnaire), 3 categories

During the off grid survey just one technology was identified, namely the “Reciprocating engines”. The

off- grid power plants were either fuelled by diesel or by gasoline (FUELp). Gasoline was just used in

very small off- grid power plants (CAP < 10 kW).

Since the off- grid power plants are included also for the calculation of the build margin (BM) emission

factor the following age classes were defined based on the start date of operation (DATEstart,p) according

to Step 1.2 of Annex 2 of the “Tool”.

0 – 5 years of operation (reference year 2007)



The oldest off-grid power plant surveyed started operation in 1987.

If off-grid power plants are also included in the build margin, their vintage needs to be determined based

on the start date of operation (DATEstart,p). In this case, the classes have to be differentiated into three

data vintages: plants with up to five years of operation, plants with up to 10 years of operation and

plants with more than 10 years of operation.

Finally the following 23 UNFCCC classes separated into the data vintages required in the “Tool” were

identified:



page 89

Diesel CAP < 10 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000

Age (0-5)

Age (6-10)

Age (11-20)

Gasoline

Age (0-5)

Age (6-10)

Age (11-20)


If default efficiencies, as provided in Annex 1 of this tool, are used to determine the emission factor for a

power plant (see Option A2 in Step 4 of this tool), the power plant classification provided in Annex 1

should be used. If the Options A1 and/or A3 in Step 4 of this tool are applied to determine the emission

factors for off-grid power plant classes, project participants may also use their own classification.

Since default efficiencies, as provided in Annex 1 of the “Tool”, are used to determine the emission

factor for each power plant (The sum of all off- grid power plants included in one UNFCCC class are

considered as one single power unit.) (see Option A2 in Step 4 of the “Tool”), the same power plant

classification provided in Annex 1 is used.

Step 1.3: Define the sectors for which data is collected

Define for which sectors (e.g. households, commercial sector) or industries data on off-grid electricity

generation is collected or whether data is collected for the whole economy. The project participants may

deliberately choose the sectors for which data is collected; however, the sectors should be clearly and

unambiguously defined (e.g. which size of companies or households, the geographical area covered, etc)

and the selection should include any systematic bias (e.g. by including only a sub-sector which uses only

coal as fuel while less carbon intensive fuels are used in other sub-sectors).

The survey was conducted as a probability survey, where the Business register of INSTAT was used as a

sampling frame. To achieve a maximum quality of the results a stratified sampling approach has been

chosen. The stratification is based on the economic activity and the size of the company which was

considered to be most appropriate for the off- grid survey.

As potential users of off-grid power plants private and state owned economic enterprises, public

institutions and households were identified. So the target population in the conducted survey was

determined to include all off-grid power plants used by enterprises, households and public institutions.

According to NACE Rev 1.1, there are 12 sections of economic activities to be considered. The size of

companies is divided in 4 groups: over 50 employees, 10 - 49 employees, 5 - 9 employees and 1 - 4

employees. In this way in total 48 strata are formed. The table below Active enterprises by Economic

Activities and Size, 2007 (Section A, B and P not-included) summarizes for each stratum, the number of

enterprises according to the economic activity and the size of companies.

The specific conditions of Albania (high cost of producing electricity because of high fuel prices) lead to

marginal use of off-grid power plants in households for non business purposes. Thus the household



page 90

sector (NACE section P) was neglected and off-grid power plants used by families are not considered in

the off-grid survey.

Off-grid power plants used by the enterprises, operating in economic activities such as agriculture,

hunting and forestry (NACE section A) and fishing (NACE Section B) are excluded as well in the survey

since the type of activity refers to marginal off- grid power use as well. The excluded enterprises

represent less than 1% of the total number of enterprises.

The enterprises cover all sizes of economy and all geographical sector of Albania in order to avoid any

bias described in Step 1.3 of Annex 2 of the “Tool” above.

The following table summarizes the number of companies within different sectors. The companies are

located in all geographical areas of Albania. All the company data were provided by the official Statistic

Authority of Albania INSTAT to VeVe.

Active enterprises by Economic Activities and Size, 2007 (Section A, B and P not-included) Economic Activity (NACE Section)

Size of enterprises

50+

employees

10-49

employees

4-9

employees

1-4

employees

Total

C-Mining and quarrying 9 55 74 217 355

D-Manufacturing 233 557 629 6,631 8,050

E-Electricity, gas and water supply 32 31 19 30 112

F-Construction 107 829 735 2,749 4,420

G-Wholesale and retail trade 48 422 999 41,060 42,529

H-Hotels and restaurants 16 69 299 11,657 12,041

I-Transport, storage and communication 41 107 241 7,780 8,169

J-Financial intermediation 28 16 48 228 320

K-Real estate, renting and business

activities

55 186 241 3,815 4,297

M-Education 72 64 101 486 723

N-Health and social work 100 318 144 1,212 1,774

O-Other community, social and personal

service

52 139 184 3,586 3,961

Total 793 2,793 3,714 79,451 86,751

Source INSTAT

The selected enterprises in the table above were considered to represent best the overall population of

off- grid power plants in Albania, by application of the working assumption that each active enterprise at

least possesses on off-grid power plant.

Step 1.4: Establish the survey design and management scheme (applicable if a survey is used)

Document transparently the design and methodology of the survey, following best practices in survey

design and statistics. In doing so, the following guidance shall be applied:

The institution conducting the survey should have relevant experience with undertaking surveys;



page 91

The whole off-grid study was conducted by the local consultant VeVe Group and local statistic

experts from the University of Tirana. For Quality Assurance (QA) reasons the whole statistical

survey was accompanied by the Austrian statistic expert Univ. Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec (DATA

TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG) in order to comply with international

statistical standards and UNFCCC requirements.

Ensure a proper stratification within the geographical area of the electricity system and within

the different users of off-grid power generation (e.g. considering relevant differences between

sectors, household income, etc). To this end, it may be necessary to conduct a pre-survey to

collect information which sectors, companies or households typically use off-grid power plants;

See described stratification in Step 1.3 of above.

Sampling frame and Sampling units

Since the survey is a probability survey, for construction of the sample the existence of a

sampling frame was required. The sampling frame is the list/population (sampling units) from

which the samples will be drawn, it's (almost) never exactly equal to the target population.

In order to get a representative sampling the Business Register is used as sampling frame, which

is created and maintained by INSTAT (Institute of official statistics in Albania). The New

Business Register constitutes all non-agricultural active enterprises (public and private

enterprises and also public institutions) operating within the territory of Albania.

For the underlying survey conducted, the Business Register was considered the best registry for

economic enterprises in Albania.

The Business Register contains required information regarding:

Identification of enterprises as: identification code (NIPT), legal form, ownership,

name, address, contact details (phone, fax etc.)

Stratification variable as: main economic activity, size according number of

employees, geographic location

Demographic variable as: the date of foundation and the date of activity closure.

These variables are updated periodically by different INSTAT activities like: The activity status

(active or non-active), main economic activity, size according to employees, addresses, contact

details; phone, fax, mobile, e-mail). The economic activity of companies is based on the

Economic Activity Nomenclature, NACE Rev 1.1.

The sources for updating these variables are administrative registers or/and statistical survey.

Among administrative source there are: QKR (National Registering Center), DPT (General Tax

Office), file (card index) of VAT, annual account of enterprises, etc.

Among the statistical sources the following can be mentioned: Newly Created Enterprises

survey, Annual Structure Survey (ASN), quarterly survey (STS), Production Price survey (PPI),

and other surveys.



page 92

The use of the Business Register was considered to be the most appropriate source for off-grid

survey usage since it minimizes the coverage errors.

Additionally, see also description of the stratification in Step 1.3 of above.

The results of the survey should be used to derive global estimates adjusted for their uncertainty

at a 95% confidence level in a conservative manner (using the upper or lower uncertainty bound

whatever is conservative);

In order to stay conservative the lower levels (according to the uncertainty at a 95% confidence

level as required in Annex 2 of the “Tool” of the finally extrapolated amounts of the off-grid

electricity generation of the identified UNFCCC classes were considered in the calculation of the

Combined Margin (CM) emission factor.

The methods used to collect data should strive to avoid any bias and should ensure random

sampling in the various strata;

By application of the sampling frame described above under Steps 1.3 and 1.4 any bias in data

collection is avoided.

The actual drawing of the random sample according to the details of the sampling scheme has

been performed within INSTAT applying a systematic random sampling scheme within strata.

Provide objective and transparent methods for data collection;

The data collection was done according to the following procedure:

Survey instrument

A first draft questionnaire according to the requirements of Annex 2 of the “Tool” was prepared

in October 2010. The VeVe team in collaboration with the Austrian experts have reviewed the

drafts and provided comments on the selection of questions. So the final questionnaire was

improved several times in order to correspond to the requirements of the UNFCCC.

Questionnaire Content

The questionnaire is organized in different sections:

Identifying questions: This group is composed by Id Questionnaire, Response Indicator,

Address of the enterprises and Characteristics of enterprises

The characteristics of every off-grid power plants disposable at the enterprise

The data regarding the usage of off-grid power plants in the years 2007 and 2008

Additionally the maintenance manner of off-grid-power plants was surveyed as well.

Pilot survey

The first draft of the questionnaire was tested through a pilot survey in 10 enterprises, including a

government institution (Ministry of Finance). The pilot test survey has been conducted from the



page 93

well trained and experienced interviewers (enumerators) and it was monitored by the VeVe team.

The results of the pilot survey served for improvement of the questionnaires.

Interviewer recruiting and training

The field survey was conducted by 85 interviewers in total. 40 interviewers were employed in the

Tirana district and 45 interviewers for the field work in all the other Albanian districts. The

distribution was based on the number of the questionnaires per districts. (A training list of all the

interviewers can be provided by VeVe on request).

In total four supervisors for the supervising the field survey were hired. The interviewers and the

supervisors have been selected in close collaboration with INSTAT. The supervisors previously

have worked in other INSTAT surveys.

The interviewers and supervisor recruitment was done by INSTAT based on the criteria normally

applied for other enterprise surveys. As former INSTAT employees for the enterprises census all

the interviewers have previous experience in doing statistical surveys. Thus, the interviewers

know the enterprises (location; addresses...), which simplified the field survey and raised the

amount of filled out questionnaires.

In order to be familiar with the questionnaire and the manner it should be filled, the VeVe team

has organized training sessions before start of the field work. The training has been organized in

2 different sessions, one day each. The interviewers were divided in 2 groups. The first group

composed by the Tirana interviewers and the second session has included the rest of interviewers

from other districts. The training session was realized by the project team in collaboration with

INSTAT specialists.

The training laid a focus on the following 3 issues:

First issue: Gaining more knowledge regarding the survey and the questionnaire. During this

period the interviewers got information regarding the reasons for the survey and every question

in the questionnaire. Every interviewer got additional (explanatory) information to every single

question of the questionnaire.

Second issue: Role plays were done how to fill the questionnaire. After the interviewers were

familiar with the questions, the second period was an interactive communication (under the

supervision of VeVe staff), where the interviewers played the role of interviewers and the

respondents.

Third issue: The practice how to fill the questionnaires was discussed.

Field work

Collection of filled questionnaires has been done in every Albanian district. In average every

interviewer had to fill approx. 40 questionnaires during a period of 3 weeks, so they had to fill in

average 3 questionnaires per day.

The field survey has started by training interviewers on 26th January 2011 and lasted

approximately one month. Every Monday VeVe got in touch with the interviewers to get

feedback regarding the progress of the survey and the occurred problems during the survey.

The most frequent questions raised have been:

Missing the data label on the off-grid power plant



page 94

Net Caloric Values figures of the fuels were not known by all the respondents.

No info regarding the energy generated by the off grid power plants during a year could

be provided.

There have been some cases where the interviewers had problems to collect the requested data,

especially in the state institutions, because they have asked for an official letter from the

company conducting the survey (VeVe), but these problems could be solved subsequently.

Ensure that appropriate procedures for data verification are in place, including relevant quality

assurance and quality control methods.

All the survey data were collected first in paper format by filled questionnaires. Afterwards the

data entry process on PC had to be conducted in order to be further elaborated by the statistical

computer program SPSS.

Before recording, a qualitative check of all the questionnaires was done in order to be sure that

they were filled properly and also according to some other standard procedures to support the

data entry.

The data entry process was done in Excel because for some categorical data during the recording,

the Excel gives the possibility for data validation.

At a later stage the data have been transferred into SPSS (version 17) using the standard

procedures offered by SPSS.

Also in the SPSS software VeVe has done quality check, e.g. the data range control for

categorical data.

Both electronic data and the whole off- grid survey were provided to the Client

(VERBUND/EVN) and to the Austrian statistic expert Univ. Prof. Dr. Marcus Hudec (DATA

TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG) for Quality Assurance (QA) and further

Quality Control (QC) in the following way:

Transparent documentation of all procedures and methods applied during the whole process

from the planning phase to the calculation of final results

SPSS – Syntax Files, which provide the documentation of all data transformation and

calculation steps

SPSS – System Files, which contain all data necessary for the examination of the derived

results and allows the reproduction of the results by an IE

DATA TECHNOLOGY Betriebsberatungs GmbH & Co KG conducted parallel a calculation

(extrapolation) of the provided SPSS data in and received the same results as VeVe.

The DOE should carefully evaluate and confirm that the survey was conducted in accordance with these

principles and best practices for conducting and evaluating surveys.

Step 1.5: Collect the data or use existing data sources

Collect the data or use relevant existing data sources. Exclude all plants for the sample for which not all

necessary data (as identified in Step 1.1 of this annex) could be collected.



page 95

The following data were collected during the field survey:

Sample size

At the beginning of the survey a sample size of approx. 3,000 to 3,500 enterprises was considered

sufficient.

Sample allocation

With the chosen stratification, a proportional allocation was not practicable because of the very different

number of enterprises in the strata. Therefore for the sample allocation a disproportionate allocation was

chosen. Thus the number of enterprises in the strata is different.

The decision regarding the selection rate was:

All the companies having over 50 employees were selected.

14% of the companies having between 10 to 49 employees were selected.

9% of the companies having between 4 to 9 employees were selected.

2% of the small companies having between 1 to 4 employees were selected.

In practical terms not a strict proportion was applied but a minimum cell size in each stratum was

determined. A minimum sample size of 7 enterprises in each stratum was determined.

Assuming that the most important enterprises, so-called VIP enterprises, have been and still are

important users of off- grid power plants in periods of power cuts, the establishment of a specific stratum

for those enterprises was proposed. The stratum for the VIP enterprises includes enterprises that were

randomly selected under the first selection process and those that remained unselected at the beginning

and being selected after the first selection process subsequently.

Based on the Business Register of INSTAT it was possible to identify all the VIP enterprises at a later

stage of surveying. In total 274 VIP enterprises were sampled during the main sampling and 455 VIP

companies were sampled in a second step of the field survey. Thus in total 729 VIP companies were

surveyed (see also tables below).

Sample selection

The sample selection was conducted in two steps: (i) the selection of main sample (including the

randomly sampled VIP companies and (ii) the sampling of the missing identified VIP companies. The

process of sampling is shown graphically in Figure 1-1.



page 96

In a first step, a sample of 3,121 enterprises was selected in an independent manner for all strata,

through usage of a systematic selection (see following table 1-2). This sampling is considered the main

sampling structure. In each stratum the samples are sorted according to districts to avoid a possible bias

due to non representative sampling-proportions from different regions.

Table 1-2. The structure of Main sampling (including VIP-enterprises and non-VIP-enterprises)

Economic Activity (NACE Section)

Size of company

50+

employees

10-49

employees

4-9

employees

1-4

employees

Total


D-Manufacturing 233 77 56 132 498


F-Construction 107 116 66 54 343

G-Wholesale and retail trade 48 59 89 821 1,017

H-Hotels and restaurants 16 9 26 233 284

I-Transport, storage and

communication

41 14 21 155 231



activities

55 26 21 76 178

M-Education 72 9 9 9 99

N-Health and social work 100 44 12 24 180

O-Other community, social and

personal service

52 19 16 71 158

Total 793 395 337 1,596 3,121

At a second step, a new stratum (stratum 49) was created (inclusion of VIP companies from the main

sampling and VIP enterprises, which remained unselected in the first step (see table 1-4).



page 97

Table 1-3: The distribution of VIP-enterprises to the strata within the main sample


Size of enterprises

50+

employees

10-49

employees

4-9

employees

1-4

employees

Total





G-Wholesale and retail trade 39 19 0 1 59



communication 19 1 1 0 21



activities 4 1 3 0 8




personal service 14 0 0 0 14

Total 224 43 5 2 274

Table 1-4: The structure of Strata 49, composed only by VIP-enterprise, not selected in the main sample


Size of enterprises 50+

employees

10-49

employees

4-9

employees

1-4

employees

Total








communication

0 9 1 2 12



activities

0 15 5 10 30




personal service

0 4 0 0 4

Total 0 338 76 41 455



page 98

Note: Step 1 and 2 has been conducted by INSTAT according to technical specification of VeVe Group,

because INSTAT doesn‟t make available to third parties any sampling frame.

At a third step, VeVe has reallocated all VIP-enterprises in one unique stratum (Stratum 49). Thus,

regarding the VIP-enterprises a census was reached with a selection probability of 1, independently of

the structure of the stratum.

In the main sampling 3,121 enterprises (including 274 VIP enterprises) were surveyed with the structure

presented in the table 1-3.

By analysis of the information provided in Tables 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 a reallocation was done for non-VIP

enterprises in Table 1-5.

Table 1-5. The distribution of non-VIP-enterprises in Final sample (48 strata)


Size of enterprises

50+

employees

10-49

employees

4-9

employees

1-4

employees

Total











activities 51 25 18 76 170





Total 569 352 332 1,594 2,847

Table 1-6 shows the distribution of VIP enterprises according to size and activity (only for the stratum

49).

Table 1-6. The final distribution of VIP-enterprises by economic activity and size


Size of enterprises

50+

employees

10-49

employees

4-9

employees

1-4

employees

Total












page 99


activities 4 16 8 10 38





Total 224 381 81 43 729

In a further step of surveying additionally 60 off- grid power plants were surveyed within 50 enterprises

(already covered during the survey. These off-grid power plants were taken into account subsequently.

Thus in total 3,636 (2,847 + 729 + 60) questionnaires were collected and data were taken into account.

For the extrapolation (determination of the extrapolation weights) the numbers of VIP companies were

deducted from the numbers of companies of the different strata representing the overall population. By

doing this the overall population is divided in a VIP and a non VIP part.

Step 2: Exclude plants that do not qualify as off-grid power plants

The exclusion of the enterprises, which do not possess an off- grid power plant, was done in the

following manner.

Referring to the question Q5 (Do you use an off grid power plant?) 1247 enterprises sampled do not use

off- grid power plants (see following table below). These samples were considered in the extrapolation as

follows:

No reduction of the number of samples for the calculation of the weights

No reduction of the size of the overall population (strata sizes remain unchanged)

the corresponding electricity generation value of these off grid plants was determined with

0 MWh.

The other non applicable samples (answering was refused at 97 companies; 274 companies surveyed in

2011 have already quit their activity; 147 companies were not found on the addresses provided by

INSTAT (97 + 274 + 147 = 518)).

These samples were considered in the extrapolation as follows:

Reduction of the number of samples for the calculation of the weights

No reduction of the size of the overall population (strata sizes remain unchanged)

Distribution of enterprises using of off-grid power plants

Q5. Do you use an off grid power

plant?

Frequency Percent

No 1,247 34.3

Yes 1,811 (+ 60) = 1,871 51.5

NA (Refused 97; Closed Activity

274; Not found 147)

518 14.2

Total 3,636 100.0

Exclusion of plants, not used during the year 2007



page 100

Referring to the question Q15 (When you have started to use the off grid power plant?) 109 plants have

started the operation of the off- grid plant only in the year 2008. Thus these questionnaires were excluded

in the database for the year 2007.

After this exclusion 1,871- 109 = 1,762 questionnaires (= off- grid power plants) were eligible and

delivered values for electricity generated in the year 2007.

This step aims to exclude those power plants from the sample or other data source which cannot be

considered as off-grid power plants according to the definition provided above. To this end, exclude

those plants from the sample or other source of information for which one of the three following

conditions is not met:

GRIDp = true;

SWITCHp = true;

Whenever the grid is reliable and stable, the consumers purchase electricity only from the grid

and the off-grid power plant is not operating. This can be demonstrated in one of the following

ways:

(a) OMCp,y > TEL,p,y; or

(b) Log book data on the hours of operation of the off-grid power plant p and the quality and

availability of grid supply clearly shows that the plant only operated when the grid was not

reliable and stable; or

(c) Demonstrate that OMC > TEL once for all off-grid power plants included in a class of

offgrid power plants and a sector by showing that this condition generally applies to all

plants in the class and sector, e.g. using the fuel costs (e.g. official statistics or projections

on fuel prices), the efficiency of the plants in that class (e.g. using typical the default

efficiencies provided in Annex 1) and relevant information on electricity purchase costs in

the sector (e.g. statistics on electricity prices).

Exclusion of the plants, which are supplying the equipments not connected to the grid power

(GRIDp = true/false)

Through the question Q22 (Are all parts (electricity consumer equipment) of your company supplied by

the electricity grid?), it was possible to identify off- grid plants without a connection to the national grid

power system. There were 4 cases, which have to be excluded from the database because they are

supplying some equipment not connected to the grid power system.

Thus 1758 questionnaires are eligible under the off- grid survey and are considered for determination of

the extrapolation weights.

Exclusion of plants which are not able to switch from grid to off- grid and from off- grid to grid

(SWITCHp = true/false)

The plants which are not able to switch from grid to off- grid and from off- grid to the grid are easily

identified through the question Q23 (Can the company switch from grid to off-grid and from off-grid to

grid?). Based on this condition, all the remaining off- grid plants were eligible. Thus, no other off- grid

plant was excluded from the database.



page 101

Proof that whenever the grid power system will be stable and reliable the consumers switch to the

grid power system because of lower cost.

The proof was conducted according to approach (c) of Step 2 of Annex 2 of the “Tool” in the following

manner:

1. In every questionnaire the tariff class (TEL) is given (€/kWhel) from the grid (see table about

tariffs in Albania below) (1 € = 140 LEK; 11 LEK/ kWh = 7.9c€/kWh).

2. default of the off- grid power plant (see default values for efficiencies according to Annex 1 of the

“Tool”

3. 1/default (kWh(PEC)/kWhel generated)

4. Conversion from kWh Primary Energy Content (PEC) into liters of fuel (l) by use of NCV of the

different fuels

5. Costs of Fuel in (€/l)

6. Calculation of specific costs of off- grid electricity (OMC) by multiplication of 4. with 5.

(€/kWhel)

7. Comparison of OMC (6.) and TEL (1.): OMC has to be higher than TEL



page 102

CAP < 10 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000

default 0.28 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.45

1/default 3.57 3.03 2.86 2.70 2.56 2.38 2.22 kWh/kWhel

NCV Diesel

(lower value) 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 MJ/kg

Density 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 kg/l

34.362 34.362 34.362 34.362 34.362 34.362 34.362 MJ/l

9.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 kWh/l

needed Diesel

for 1 kWhel 0.37 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.23 [l]

Cost per l Diesel

*€/l+ (2007) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 *€/l+

Costs per kWhel

*€/kWhel] 0.34 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.21 *€/kWhel]




page 103

CAP < 10 10 < CAP < 50 50 < CAP < 100 100 < CAP < 200 200 < CAP < 400 400 < CAP < 1000 CAP > 1000

default 0.28 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.45

1/default 3.57 3.03 2.86 2.70 2.56 2.38 2.22 kWh/kWhel

NCV Gasoline 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 44.3 MJ/kg

Density 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 kg/l

31.896 31.896 31.896 31.896 31.896 31.896 31.896 MJ/l

8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 8.86 kWh/l

needed gasoline

for 1 kWhel 0.40 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 [l]

Cost per l gasoline

*€/l+ (2007) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 *€/l+

Costs per kWhel

*€/kWhel] 0.36 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.23 *€/kWhel]


The calculations summarized in the tables above show that OMCp,y > TEL,p,y for all the off-grid power

plants even if only the fuel costs are taken into consideration in order to be conservative. Thus no off-

grid power plant had to be excluded based on this condition.

At the end of the exclusion process the database composed of 1,762 – 4 = 1,758 eligible off- grid plants.

Step 3: Aggregate data according to classes of off-grid power plants

In the case of direct use of the data on a plant-by-plant basis (Option a in the introduction to Step 1),

allocate the collected data to the classes of off-grid power plants.

The electricity generation of the directly sampled off grid power plants in the year 2007 amounts to

174,000 MWh. The sum of the capacities of all the sampled off- grid power plants amounts to 239 MW.

These figures are just given for illustration. In the underlying off- grid study a statistical extrapolation for

the total population was performed (see following clause below).

In the case of a statistical evaluation of the data based on sampling (Option b in the introduction to Step

1), allocate the collected data to the applicable stratum. Use the results of the survey to derive global

estimates for the total population, for each class of off-grid power plants m, adjusting conservatively for

the uncertainty at a 95% confidence level.98

The extrapolation is done on strata level according to the procedure summarized in the following table:

Extrapolation weights for the 49 determined strata of the overall population

98 Note that this should not include power plants which did not qualify as off-grid following the procedures in Step 2.



page 104

Population Sample Initial Non- Do not True

Strata Size Size Weight Contact qualify Sample Weight1 Dega = C And Size = 1 1 5 5 1.0000 0 0 0 1 4 1.25002 Dega = D And Size = 1 2 183 183 1.0000 3 20 8 0 152 1.20393 Dega = E And Size = 1 3 27 27 1.0000 0 1 1 0 25 1.08004 Dega = F And Size = 1 4 52 52 1.0000 1 4 2 0 45 1.15565 Dega = G And Size = 1 5 9 9 1.0000 0 1 1 0 7 1.28576 Dega = H And Size = 1 6 10 10 1.0000 1 1 0 0 8 1.25007 Dega = I And Size = 1 7 22 22 1.0000 1 1 1 0 19 1.15798 Dega = J And Size = 1 8 3 3 1.0000 1 0 1 0 1 3.00009 Dega = K And Size = 1 9 51 51 1.0000 1 7 1 0 42 1.214310 Dega = M And Size = 1 10 71 71 1.0000 1 10 1 0 59 1.203411 Dega = N And Size = 1 11 98 98 1.0000 1 3 0 0 94 1.042612 Dega = O And Size = 1 12 38 38 1.0000 2 3 0 0 33 1.151513 Dega = C And Size = 2 13 49 7 7.0000 0 0 0 0 7 7.000014 Dega = D And Size = 2 14 505 72 7.0139 2 4 4 0 62 8.145215 Dega = E And Size = 2 15 31 7 4.4286 0 0 1 0 6 5.166716 Dega = F And Size = 2 16 731 101 7.2376 1 4 8 0 88 8.306817 Dega = G And Size = 2 17 235 40 5.8750 1 0 0 0 39 6.025618 Dega = H And Size = 2 18 67 9 7.4444 0 1 0 0 8 8.375019 Dega = I And Size = 2 19 97 13 7.4615 0 0 0 0 13 7.461520 Dega = J And Size = 2 20 13 6 2.1667 0 0 0 0 6 2.166721 Dega = K And Size = 2 21 170 25 6.8000 0 1 1 0 23 7.391322 Dega = M And Size = 2 22 61 9 6.7778 0 1 0 0 8 7.625023 Dega = N And Size = 2 23 318 44 7.2273 0 0 1 0 43 7.395324 Dega = O And Size = 2 24 135 19 7.1053 1 4 0 0 14 9.642925 Dega = C And Size =3 25 73 6 12.1667 0 1 0 0 5 14.600026 Dega = D And Size = 3 26 625 56 11.1607 0 4 0 0 52 12.019227 Dega = E And Size = 3 27 17 7 2.4286 0 2 0 0 5 3.400028 Dega = F And Size = 3 28 721 66 10.9242 1 2 7 0 56 12.875029 Dega = G And Size = 3 29 951 89 10.6854 2 7 3 0 77 12.350630 Dega = H And Size = 3 30 299 26 11.5000 1 4 0 0 21 14.238131 Dega = I And Size = 3 31 239 20 11.9500 0 0 2 0 18 13.277832 Dega = J And Size = 3 32 46 7 6.5714 1 0 1 0 5 9.200033 Dega = K And Size = 3 33 233 18 12.9444 1 0 3 0 14 16.642934 Dega = M And Size = 3 34 101 9 11.2222 0 1 0 0 8 12.625035 Dega = N And Size = 3 35 144 12 12.0000 0 0 0 0 12 12.000036 Dega = O And Size = 3 36 184 16 11.5000 0 1 1 0 14 13.142937 Dega = C And Size = 4 37 216 7 30.8571 0 1 0 0 6 36.000038 Dega = D And Size = 4 38 6,629 132 50.2197 0 14 6 0 112 59.187539 Dega = E And Size = 4 39 30 7 4.2857 0 2 0 0 5 6.000040 Dega = F And Size = 4 40 2,743 53 51.7547 0 7 3 0 43 63.790741 Dega = G And Size = 4 41 41,039 820 50.0476 6 77 35 0 702 58.460142 Dega = H And Size = 4 42 11,657 233 50.0300 4 16 7 0 206 56.587443 Dega = I And Size = 4 43 7,778 155 50.1806 3 10 4 0 138 56.362344 Dega = J And Size = 4 44 227 7 32.4286 0 1 0 0 6 37.833345 Dega = K And Size = 4 45 3,805 76 50.0658 3 6 5 0 62 61.371046 Dega = M And Size = 4 46 486 9 54.0000 0 0 0 0 9 54.000047 Dega = N And Size = 4 47 1,212 24 50.5000 1 5 1 0 17 71.294148 Dega = O And Size = 4 48 3,586 71 50.5070 2 10 5 0 54 66.407449 Strata VIP 49 729 729 1.0000 55 37 33 1 603 1.2090

Total 86,751 3,576 739.4687 97 274 147 2 3056 875.5711

Strata Refused Closed

Since the estimation of the variances was not satisfying a reasonable strategy to improve the estimation

of variances is the collapsing of strata with few observations only. The collapsing was applied to the 4

economic sectors with least number of companies according to the scheme determined in the following

table.



page 105

Number of eligible NON-VIP Companies in the Sample

50+

employees

10-49

employees

5 - 9

employees

1 - 4

employees

Mining and

quarrying

2 1 1 2 6

Manufacturing 141 49 38 70 298

Electricity, gas and

water supply

14 1 1 4 20

Construction 33 48 29 13 123

Wholesale and

retail trade

5 25 45 284 359

Hotels and

restaurants

6 5 14 131 156

Transport, storage

and communication

11 6 4 18 39

Financial

intermediation

0 6 2 1 9

Real estate, renting

and business

activities

23 11 9 26 69

Education 30 1 4 3 38

Health and social

work

65 8 5 11 89

Other community,

social and personal

service activities

14 10 10 34 68

344 171 162 597 1274Total

Size of company

total

Section of

Economic

Activity

Due to the collapsing of strata the weights had to be recalculated as for the collapsed strata extrapolation

is based on the total economic sector irrespective of the size of the company. The result of this

recalculation is summarized in the following table.



page 106

Population Sample Initial Non- Do not True

Strata Size Size Weight Contact qualify Sample Weight1 Dega = C And Size = 1 1 343 25 13.7200 0 2 0 1 22 15.59092 Dega = D And Size = 1 2 183 183 1.0000 3 20 8 0 152 1.20393 Dega = E And Size = 1 3 105 48 2.1875 0 5 2 0 41 2.56104 Dega = F And Size = 1 4 52 52 1.0000 1 4 2 0 45 1.15565 Dega = G And Size = 1 5 9 9 1.0000 0 1 1 0 7 1.28576 Dega = H And Size = 1 6 10 10 1.0000 1 1 0 0 8 1.25007 Dega = I And Size = 1 7 22 22 1.0000 1 1 1 0 19 1.15798 Dega = J And Size = 1 8 289 23 12.5652 2 1 2 0 18 16.05569 Dega = K And Size = 1 9 51 51 1.0000 1 7 1 0 42 1.214310 Dega = M And Size = 1 10 719 98 7.3367 1 12 1 0 84 8.559511 Dega = N And Size = 1 11 98 98 1.0000 1 3 0 0 94 1.042612 Dega = O And Size = 1 12 38 38 1.0000 2 3 0 0 33 1.151513 Dega = C And Size = 2

14 Dega = D And Size = 2 14 505 72 7.0139 2 4 4 0 62 8.145215 Dega = E And Size = 2

16 Dega = F And Size = 2 16 731 101 7.2376 1 4 8 0 88 8.306817 Dega = G And Size = 2 17 235 40 5.8750 1 0 0 0 39 6.025618 Dega = H And Size = 2 18 67 9 7.4444 0 1 0 0 8 8.375019 Dega = I And Size = 2 19 97 13 7.4615 0 0 0 0 13 7.461520 Dega = J And Size = 2

21 Dega = K And Size = 2 21 170 25 6.8000 0 1 1 0 23 7.391322 Dega = M And Size = 2

23 Dega = N And Size = 2 23 318 44 7.2273 0 0 1 0 43 7.395324 Dega = O And Size = 2 24 135 19 7.1053 1 4 0 0 14 9.642925 Dega = C And Size =3

26 Dega = D And Size = 3 26 625 56 11.1607 0 4 0 0 52 12.019227 Dega = E And Size = 3

28 Dega = F And Size = 3 28 721 66 10.9242 1 2 7 0 56 12.875029 Dega = G And Size = 3 29 951 89 10.6854 2 7 3 0 77 12.350630 Dega = H And Size = 3 30 299 26 11.5000 1 4 0 0 21 14.238131 Dega = I And Size = 3 31 239 20 11.9500 0 0 2 0 18 13.277832 Dega = J And Size = 3

33 Dega = K And Size = 3 33 233 18 12.9444 1 0 3 0 14 16.642934 Dega = M And Size = 3

35 Dega = N And Size = 3 35 144 12 12.0000 0 0 0 0 12 12.000036 Dega = O And Size = 3 36 184 16 11.5000 0 1 1 0 14 13.142937 Dega = C And Size = 4

38 Dega = D And Size = 4 38 6,629 132 50.2197 0 14 6 0 112 59.187539 Dega = E And Size = 4

40 Dega = F And Size = 4 40 2,743 53 51.7547 0 7 3 0 43 63.790741 Dega = G And Size = 4 41 41,039 820 50.0476 6 77 35 0 702 58.460142 Dega = H And Size = 4 42 11,657 233 50.0300 4 16 7 0 206 56.587443 Dega = I And Size = 4 43 7,778 155 50.1806 3 10 4 0 138 56.362344 Dega = J And Size = 4

45 Dega = K And Size = 4 45 3,805 76 50.0658 3 6 5 0 62 61.371046 Dega = M And Size = 4

47 Dega = N And Size = 4 47 1,212 24 50.5000 1 5 1 0 17 71.294148 Dega = O And Size = 4 48 3,586 71 50.5070 2 10 5 0 54 66.407449 Strata VIP 49 729 729 1.0000 55 37 33 1 603 1.2090

Total 86,751 3,576 596.9448 97 274 147 2 3056 716.1880

Strata Refused Closed

The 1,758 eligible off-grid plants were allocated to the different UNFCCC classes defined under Step 1.2

of Annex 2 of the “Tool”.



page 107

The general Hansen-Hurwitz estimation principle has been applied for the extrapolation of the sampled

data. For the calculation of the confidence intervals for UNFCC-Classes the estimation had to be applied

to each UNFCC-Class separately, leading to domain estimation which was applied. In fact this means

only observations belonging to the UNFCC-Class contribute in this case to estimation (see SPSS

documentation for details and formulas).

The results of the survey were used to derive global estimates for the total population, for each class of

off-grid power plants m, adjusting conservatively for the uncertainty at a 95% confidence level. The

results are summarized in the following table.

Energy produced from the off grid power plants within the determined 23 UNFCCC classes



page 108

Lower Level Upper Level

Class 1 : Cap=1, Tech=1,

Fuel=D, Age=138,313 2,950 32,527 44,099 282


Fuel=D, Age=29,963 1,700 6,629 13,298 79


Fuel=D, Age=31,113 657 0 2,402 7


Fuel=G, Age=119,636 3,316 13,131 26,141 197


Fuel=G, Age=22,478 720 1,066 3,891 34


Fuel=G, Age=31,539 534 493 2,586 14


Fuel=D, Age=1203,883 16,522 171,478 236,287 392


Fuel=D, Age=247,732 7,853 32,329 63,135 133


Fuel=D, Age=35,500 2,448 700 10,301 24


Fuel=D, Age=18,644 2,664 3,419 13,869 87


Fuel=D, Age=23,338 774 1,820 4,856 50


Fuel=D, Age=32,072 933 242 3,901 18


Fuel=D, Age=135,931 5,448 25,247 46,615 120


Fuel=D, Age=219,996 5,032 10,126 29,866 58


Fuel=D, Age=32,594 1,197 247 4,942 10


Fuel=D, Age=147,654 9,333 29,349 65,958 62


Fuel=D, Age=223,052 7,241 8,849 37,255 34


Fuel=D, Age=32,611 481 1,668 3,554 15


Fuel=D, Age=1106,646 19,735 67,940 145,352 61


Fuel=D, Age=234,497 10,335 14,227 54,766 32


Fuel=D, Age=315,640 7,051 1,811 29,469 9


Fuel=D, Age=196,181 35,544 26,466 165,896 19


Fuel=D, Age=250,580 14,091 22,944 78,217 21

779,594 156,557 472,708 1,086,656 1758.0

Energy produced from off- grid power plants for the year 2007 in (MWh)

EstimationStandard

deviation

95%-Confidence intervall Unweighted

amount of

samples



page 109

Step 4: Assess the extent of off-grid power

The effects of feeding additional electricity to the grid or saving electricity demand on off-grid power

plants connected to the system are associated with significant uncertainty. For this reason, a significant

amount of off-grid power should exist to include these plants in the grid emission factor.

The inclusion of off-grid power plants in the grid emission factor is only allowed if one of the following

two conditions are met:

The total capacity of off-grid power plants (in MW) is at least 10% of the total capacity of grid

power plants in the electricity system; or

The total power generation by off-grid power plants (in MWh) is at least 10% of the total power

generation by grid power plants in the electricity system.

If one of these conditions are not met, then off-grid power plants cannot be included in the calculation of

the grid emission factor of the electricity system. Otherwise, proceed to next step.

There is an inconsistence in the underlined sections from above, which was not solved in the revised

“Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (Version 02.1.0)”.

The off- grid study for Albania was done for the year 2007. According to Step 3 of the “Tool” data from

one single calendar year within the 5 most recent calendar years prior to the time of submission of the

CDM-PDD for validation has to be used. 2007 is within this timeframe, thus this requirement is fulfilled.

The extrapolated off grid generation for the year 2007 amounted to approx. 472,708 MWh (lower level

of the confidence interval). This is equal to 16.3% of the total power generation of power plants

connected to the Albanian grid in the year 2007. The total power generation for the year 2007 amounted

to 2,892,974 MWh (inclusive thermal power; without imports).

Since the installed capacity of all (sampled) off-grid power plants in operation amounts to 239 MW,

which is equal to 15.7 % of the total installed capacity of 1,523 MW both above mentioned requirements

are met.

Step 5: Assess the reliability and stability of the grid and that this is primarily due to constraints in

generation, and not to other aspects such as transmission capacity

It has to be demonstrated that the grid to which project participants have access is not reliable and not

stable and that this is primarily due to constraints in generation and not due to other issues, such as

limited transmission capacity. To this end, it needs to be demonstrated that

Shortages, blinks, black-outs, load shedding and/or large variations in frequency and voltage

ranges are common practice in the grid operation. Supporting evidence describing the number,

duration and extent of events related to instability and unreliability of the grid has to be

provided based on project participants or third parties statistics or surveys; and

This situation is primarily due to constraints in generation, and not to other aspects such as

transmission capacity.



page 110

The reliability and stability of the grid was discussed between VeVe and OST (KESH). It was

demonstrated that the instability of the grid is (was) primarily due to constraints in generation, and not to

other aspects such as transmission capacity (see attached Letter of OST) below.



page 111

Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION

DEVOLL HPP - MONITORING PLAN 2020 to 2030

Purpose

The monitoring plan is designed to monitor the parameters listed in B.7.1 of the PDD, which are required

for calculation of the actual Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) achieved by the underlying project

activity.

The Project activity requires the monitoring of the following items:

a) Net electricity generation by the project activity

b) The surface areas of the reservoirs of the power plants when full.

c) Installed Capacity of the power plants

d) Net electricity imports to the project activity, if any

Ad a) The monitoring of the net electricity generation by the project activity is described in detail

below.

Ad b) The surface areas of the reservoirs at the full water level will be measured and calculated yearly

by using the design schematics and area maps. Photographs of the reservoir at several key

locations will be taken when the project becomes operational to check whether the actual

reservoir does not deviate substantially from the design.

Ad d) No electricity imports is envisaged at the current stage of project development.

Monitoring framework

Objective

The objective of the present monitoring plan is to assure the complete, consistent, clear, and accurate

monitoring and calculation of the emissions reductions, within the DEVOLL hydropower boundaries,

during the crediting period.



page 112

Boundaries

The boundaries of the project activity will remain constant during the entire crediting period as defined

in Section B.3.

Equipment to be used

The electric energy meters record net energy generation fed to the national grid every hour and stores the

data accumulatively.

The electricity measurement devices are chosen according to the requirements determined in the electric

metering code of Albania.

Installation Point of the Electric energy metering equipment

The exact installation points of all the electricity meters are not fixed so far, but it should be done similar

to the procedure described as follows:

Net Electricity exports of each HPP will be recorded and aggregated monthly at the sub-station at

the end of the transmission line connecting the HPPs to the grid.

Monitoring of generation and consumption of electricity should be performed on-site by e.g. a

bidirectional electricity meter, together with monitoring of exports directly after transformation

up to 220kV, the voltage used by the grid for transmissions.

The project proponent will keep all relevant receipts for electricity sales. These receipts (or

photocopies) will be made available to the auditor at verification.

The on-site data can be used to back-up the generation data from the aforementioned sub-station.

Electricity Meter Calibration

Regular calibration will be necessary for the monitoring equipment. The necessary calibration will be

performed according to the manufacturer‟s guidelines, or according to the applicable regulations (e.g. the

Albanian electric metering code), by a suitably skilled technician at the required frequency (at least once

a year). A certificate of calibration will be provided for each piece of equipment after completion.

The output meters will be jointly sealed after calibration.

Operational and management structure for monitoring the project activity

The following figure below outlines the operational and management structure, which the project

developer will implement to monitor emission reductions and any leakage effects generated by the

project activity.

An operational team will be formed which will be responsible for monitoring of all the aforementioned

monitoring parameters. This team will compose of a DEVOLL Plant Manager and a group of DEVOLL

Plant Engineers, who will be in charge of the monitoring processes. The group of DEVOLL Plant

Engineers under the supervision of the DEVOLL Plant Manager will be assigned for monitoring of

different parameters on a timely basis and will perform the recording and archiving of data in an orderly

manner.



page 113

Internal monitoring reports will be forwarded to and reviewed by the DEVOLL Plant Manager on a

monthly basis in order to ensure the project activity follows the requirements of the monitoring plan.

Training of the monitoring personnel

Personnel, who carry out the monitoring functions, are trained continuously. New personnel have to

follow up a training program and are formed in the specific skills required to carry out the Monitoring

Plan. The training contains CDM knowledge, operational regulations, quality control (QC), data

monitoring requirements and data management regulations, etc.

The DEVOLL plant manager carries out regular refresher trainings. Minutes are made by the Plant

Manager after every training course.

Measuring procedure

1. Measuring and recording frequency

The Plant Engineers read the meter monthly, report it in a spreadsheet (see tables below) and store the

data separately from the electronically saved data.

The meter readings and data discharge of the monitoring month takes place at the last day of every

month.

The DEVOLL plant manager controls and verifies the monthly aggregated data of all three power plants.

Moglice Hydropower Plant

Year

Month Monthly Generation (MWh)

January

February

March

DEVOLL Plant

Manager

MOGLICE Plant Engineers

KOKEL Plant Engineers

BANJA Plant Engineers

Data Archiving Data Archiving Data Archiving



page 114

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total

Kokel Hydropower Plant

Year


January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Total

Banja Hydropower Plant

Year


January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November



page 115

December

Total

2. Verification and Quality Control (QC) of the measurement

The measurements are done according to national or international standards (like the ELECTRIC

METERING CODE of Albania). Currently DHP still negotiates the transmission network connection and

electric energy injection agreement with OST. This agreement will fulfil all requirements determined in

the metering code.

The person in charge of monitoring will verify the accuracy of the recorded energy data in the hydro

power plant. Data will need to be compared against the information of the commercial measurements

published by (OST).

The commercial measurement of exported energy to the grid, is combined with DEVOLL hydropower

plant, and is validated monthly by (OST or DHP). DEVOLL hydropower energy measurement should be

(nearly) equal to the commercial measurement. If the measurements are not exactly equal the smaller

figures are used to stay on the conservative side.

The net electricity generation from Moglice; Kokel and Banja HPP is obtained from the data reported by

the Plant Engineers. If the electricity measurements are disproportionate to the jointly commercial

measurement, the person in charge of monitoring process has to investigate a possible damage in the

meters and report the non conformance.

At each HPP site at least one back up electricity meter has to be kept in reserve.

3. Calculation of the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs)

The person in charge of monitoring calculates the Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) for each year

of the crediting period in a spreadsheet, where the Grid Emissions Factor (GEF) is determined ex ante

according to Section B.6.1. The spreadsheet used may looks as follows:

Calculation of the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) for DEVOLL HPP: fixed 10-years

crediting period

A B C D E

Year Annual validated

generation (MWh)

Emission factor

(ton CO2/MWh)

Baseline

emissions (ton

CO2)

Project

emissions

(ton CO2)

Emission

Reductions

(ton CO2)

A * B C - D

01/07/202

0

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025



page 116

2026

2027

2028

2029

30/06/203

0

Sum

Data management

All data collected as part of monitoring plan should be archived electronically and be kept for at least 2

years after the end of the last crediting period.

Monitoring report

Monitoring reports for verification by a Designated Operational Entity (DOE) will be prepared on a

yearly basis as follows:

The DEVOLL plant manager will issue an annual monitoring report in line with CDM regulations and

the requirements of this monitoring methodology.

The monitoring report will contain a summary of the whole monitoring plan and will describe the

implementation of the monitoring plan in that particular year, present the relevant results and data and

calculate emission reductions for this period.

The report will include:

• Quality assurance (QA) reports for the monitoring equipment;

• Calibration reports for the monitoring equipment (including relevant standards and

regulations);

• Any maintenance and repair of monitoring equipment;

• The qualifications of the persons responsible for the monitoring and calculations;

• The tests performed and data obtained;

• Emission reduction calculations;

• A summary of the monitoring plan in that particular year;

• Any other information relevant to the monitoring plan.

The performance of the project activity will be reviewed and analyzed by the consultants on a regular

basis.



page 117

Annex 5

INFORMATION REGARDING STAKEHOLDERS

Photos: DHP Public Information Centre, Gramsh



page 118

Photos: Impressions from MIS (information meetings held in different communities

(clockwise: Cingar i Poshtem, Drize, Moglice and in Gjergjovine 2)



page 119

Photo: Impression of the Public Hearing from March 25th

2010 in the Cultural House in Gramsh,

Albania



page 120

Screenshot of DHP website



page 121

Annex 6

NOTIFICATION LETTER TO THE ALBANIAN DNA AND UNFCCC SECRETARIAT/CDM

PRIOR CONSIDERATION



page 122

devoll hydro power (dhp), albania

Documents