A PROJECT DESIGN DOCOMENT ON

Energy Efficiency Improvements in Municipal Water Utilities in Jaipur, Rajasthan

Prepared by: Mukesh Sharma ShivRaj Dhaka Vikas Sharma

Guided by: Dr Jyotirmay Mathur Reader Department of Mechanical eng MNIT, Jaipur

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) JAIPUR-302017 (RAJASTHAN) INDIA OCTOMBER 2008
1

Table of Contents
A. General Description of Project Activity2 B. Baseline Methodology8 C. Duration of Project Activity/Crediting Period....................12 D. Monitoring Methodology and Plan12 E. Calculation of GHG Emissions by Sources.51 F. Environmental Impacts22 G. Stakeholders Comments22
Annexes
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity.22 Annex 2: Information regarding public funding..22 Annex 3: New baseline methodology..22 Annex 4: New monitoring methodology 40 Annex 5: Other Information50 Annex 6: Other References50 Annex 7: Detailed Energy Audit.50

A. General Description of Project

A.1 Title of Project: Improving Municipal Energy Efficiency in Jaipur, Rajasthan. A.2 Description of Project Activity The purpose of this project is to reduce the energy required for water service delivery in two sub divisions of Jaipur Municipal. The project consists of the following sub-components: 1. Water Pumping Efficiency Improvements: The energy costs of pumping and treating water impose a significant cost on municipal water utilities of Jaipur city. Energy and water savings through efficiency measures to reduce this burden is available to municipality, but these improvements have not been implemented because of market barriers and other factors. 2. Power Factor Improvements: Any electrical equipment requiring the creation of a magnetic field to operate will draw a reactive current which contributes to the total power consumed but does not add to the useful power. Power factor (PF), or the ratio of useful power (kW) to total power (kVA), is low in most of the developing countries and there are significant energy and demand savings to be had from improving PF. In this project, PF will be improved at water pumps and other equipment related to municipal water pumping. This project will lead to reduced Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, because it will reduce the fossil fuels required for electricity generation in Rajasthan. The electricity in Rajasthan is generated largely from coal. Water Pumping Efficiency Improvements The pressure on water and energy resources in urban India is increasing rapidly due to increase in population and unplanned growth of the cities. Jaipur city has two divisions (north and south) with 5 sub divisions in each that are all facing a huge water and energy crisis. Electricity makes up 45-60% of water supply costs. 30 to 40% of water is lost through leakage and unaccounted use during distribution. Pump systems are improperly sized, poorly maintained, operated at less than their optimal load, and because the systems were built a long time ago, usually for the lowest possible cost . they are inefficient to begin with. Pumping schemes may be poorly engineered with redundant pumps, pipes, valves and high friction losses. These and other inefficiencies increase the amount of energy needed to deliver water to end-users, leading to unnecessary CO2 emissions. Any increase in water delivered is simply meeting unmet demand in the baseline. This means that the baseline will treat any post-project increases in water delivery as if they would have needed to happen anyway to provide this basic service. The baseline efficiency for the municipal water system will be measured in the ratio of kWh per water delivered based on current (pre project) and historical measurements multiplied by the total amount of water delivered post project. This yields the total baseline. KWh consumption of the water utility, which is then multiplied by the carbon content (e.g. kg CO2/kWh) of the electricity to calculate associated GHG emissions. 3

This ratio (kWh/liter delivered) clearly defines the energy efficiency with which the desired amount of water would have been delivered if the project had not been implemented. It is commonly used by the water utility and industrial sector as the gauge for system improvements. Energy efficiency savings can therefore be realized even with increased flows through the system as long as the energy needed to move a particular unit of water between its source and its purpose is reduced. Thus total energy consumption may increase, but service will also increase and improve, reducing the amount of carbon emitted per liter of water supplied. The types of energy efficiency opportunities identified in this project are common to the vast majority of water utilities in India. The project element Water Pumping Efficiency Improvements. consists of the following: Installation of new, more efficient pumps and pump components Properly-sizing of pumps and components for their applications Reduction in leaks and other unaccounted for water Power Factor Improvements The purpose of this element of the project is to improve the Power Factor (PF), or the ratio of "useful power" to "total power" (kW/kVA) consumed by electrical equipment. Any electrical equipment requiring the creation of a magnetic field to operate need some power to create that magnetic field, thus reducing the amount of electricity available for productive use. This creates a reactive current which contributes to the total power consumed but does not add to the useful. power, and will lead to a lagging PF. PF is thus a general measure of efficiency for electrical circuits or systems with similar types of applications. The PF ratio is commonly expressed as a percentage, so a PF of .90, means that only 10% of the power drawn is reactive and thus not useful. Although it is quite common, a PF below .9 is considered low and indicates the potential for savings. When PF is below .85, losses are significant and often include a penalty from the power utility. Corrective equipment to bring the PF to a higher level would increase the ratio of useful power to total power and would yield substantial improvements in overall electrical efficiency. In other words, if electricity consumers had a higher PF, then the utility would require less generation to meet its demands. In the short run, it is a conservative estimate to assume that capacity savings will only reduce the marginal generation load. Therefore converting kVA savings to kW (kilowatts) (1kVA is approximately .8kW) and then multiplying by the average hours of plant operation times the appropriate CEF for the grid power generation yields CO2 savings attributable to the PF improvement. The project element Power Factor Improvement in Jaipur consists of the following: Installation of high-efficiency capacitors to improve power factor: o Larger capacitor banks installed on the main control panel or on major feeder lines for the facilities o soft start. technology on motors or at motor control centers o Diode rectifiers Surrendering of installed demand capacity: Releasing installed kVA capacity back to the grid reduces the energy required by the generator to supply the 4

same power to the consumer and improves efficiency of the distribution network. Main Project Benefits The main benefits of this project will be the following: Water Pumping Efficiency Improvement Enhanced water service. Reduced strain on over taxed water resources. Improved cost recovery for water utility by reducing the marginal cost of water delivery Power Factor Improvement Reduced reactive energy losses on the local and state electricity grid and transformers: Less total current in the plant wiring, motors and other equipment means reduced power losses; Additional grid capacity will be released Enhanced productivity of the project facilities and reduced energy and demand charges. Motors run cooler and system voltages will be higher, resulting in improved motor efficiency, capacity and starting torque. Reduced maximum demand, reduced energy consumption, and surrender of contract demand will directly reduce energy bills The main social and economic benefits of this project activity are: 1. Reduction in coal and other fuel use needed to generate electricity and all of the associated emissions: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, SO2, NOx, mercury and particulates. 2. The project provides for continuing training and education of the municipal water utility employees, which creates awareness on the efficient use of electricity and the positive effect on the environment of proper energy management. 3. proper supply of clean water to all end consumers so that water generated diseases can be reduced from city. 4. this project will encourage greater investment in municipal water utilities and provide more resources to reduce water losses through leaks, faulty pumps and other causes. 5. The municipality empowered by this project can serve as model for other utilities in similar circumstances stimulating the market for high-efficiency pumps and motors and other efficiency services. 6. The dramatic PF improvement from this project will allow the power utility, to delay or avoid marginal investment costs to expand service on the local electricity grid. A.3 Project Participants Project maker from NIT, Jaipur. A4 Technical Description of the Project Activity A.4.1 Location of Project Activity: INDIA A.4.1.2-.3 the project is located in Jaipur is divided in two major division. One is south and other one is north, having five sub-division each.

A.4.1.4 Details on the physical location: The jaipur municipality divided in the five different revenue sub-divisions in each division. Location of project installations within the municipality and municipal water utility systems Jaipur is a municipality of approximately 27.25 lack served by one water delivery schemes RAMGARH JAL PARIYOJAN, intermediate pump house, water treatment plant. One is upcoming project from bisalpur jal pariyojana. North division has: Five sub-division

South division has: Five sub-division

Project activities will involve 1. JHOTWARA pumping station, including raw water pump house. 2. PRATAP Nagar, pumping station. 3. VIDHYA DHAR NAGAR, SASTRINAGAR Booster Pump Station. 4. Sitapura industrial area, high-lift pumping station. 5. Ajmer road (Near DCM), shyam nagar and Nirman nagar share a common pumping station. 6. Mahesh nagar pumping station. A.4.2 Category of Project Activity: Energy Efficiency for all divisions. A.4.3 The following is the technology to be installed by the project. (It is only the suggestion by team to others) Water Pumping Efficiency Component Motor controls and soft start technology as appropriate A demand management program, including on-going training and education of the water utility personnel. New, more efficient pumps and pump components and properly-sized pumps for their applications, including impellers. Power Factor Component High efficiency capacitors, various capacities kVA meters, watt meters, PF meters 6

A.4.4 Brief explanation of how anthropogenic emissions of GHG by source are to be reduced, including why the emission reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project activity, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances. Water Pumping Efficiency Component This project will reduce GHG emissions by improving pumping efficiency in the Jaipur municipal water utilities. The municipality are all served by grid power and the project will result in reduced energy consumption for the provision of basic municipal services. The energy savings are both direct, from installation of more energy efficient technologies, and indirect from reducing water leaks and losses and optimizing existing systems. The energy savings (kWh) that accrue at the municipal (site) level can be converted directly to carbon emission reductions using an appropriate Carbon Emissions Factor (CEF) from R.R.V.U.N.L. and R.R.V.P.N.L. generation and Transmission Company. Currently Jaipur , like the rest of India and much of the developing world, suffers from suppressed demand for piped and treated water, as well as for grid electricity. Thus, the baseline demand for these resources will continue to grow. In the absence of this activity, more coal or other fuel input would be required to deliver any incremental increase in service. Without this project, the emissions of GHGs would at best remain at the same levels. More likely, emissions would increase as the existing systems begin to degrade (however the baseline will be conservative and assume no degradation). Typical O&M practices will maintain systems and equipment as they are, and replace them with similar equipment when required. This will leave the efficiency, for water pumping measured in kWh/m3, the same or worse unless specific energy efficiency interventions are supported. The ratio of kWh/m3 is similar in other cities of about the same size indicating that the situation in these cities is the baseline scenario. The primary national/sector circumstance affecting this project is the fact that municipal governments in India are extremely strapped for cash and therefore do not have the resources to implement significant infrastructure improvements, not the creditworthiness to borrow money.

Power Factor Correction Power factor correction reduces the electricity needed to generate a magnetic field at powerconsuming points, such as water pumps. The result is that fewer kWh are required from the power plant to do the same amount of work. The chief technology to improve power factor. Capacitors are not an integral part of most electrical systems; consequently, the tendency is for PF to remain the same or be reduced over time in the absence of installation of capacitors or synchronous machines. The municipalities, all of which have low PF in all or some parts of their facilities, have simply been paying the PF penalties levied by the power company and have made little progress in improving them. Even in cases where capacitive elements are installed, they may not be functioning or adequate to the task. Water pumping maintenance and engineering staff 7

typically have limited input into purchasing decisions for equipment and will therefore be forced into a reactive mode of operation, preventing the facilities from realizing significant savings opportunities in the pumping scheme. Thus, in the absence of this CDM activity, it is reasonable to assume that emissions would remain the same or gradually increase over time. The power factor averaging .87at each pump. Despite the fact that power companies normally charge a penalty when the PF is below .90. No corrective action are there for Water pumps, transformer loads, and other measures have not been implemented . The results of this sample group of municipality have been consistent with reports and information put out by the Indian Bureau of Energy Efficiency, various state level agencies responsible for municipal operations and local NGOs working on these issues. For the Project Components: The other key barrier is lack of finance. Municipality in India, like local governments around the world, is strapped for cash. Most have little or no credit rating and have huge demands for social services and infrastructure development needs. These energy efficiency projects do lower operational costs. It is possible in more developed countries to obtain capital from private investors that finance the projects and are paid back through the energy savings (energy service companies or ESCOs). However, the ESCO market is not yet mature enough in India, particularly with regards to the municipal sector due to a number of market barriers, including lack of finance, lack of experience in ESCO/performance contracting, and weak contract law. To date, there have been no large-scale municipal ESCO projects implemented in India. In addition, ESCOs still need capital themselves, and bank financing is relatively expensive in India, ranging from 11.5% to 14.5% for small scale infrastructure projects. In the past, most bankers have shown little interest in projects that do not explicitly raise revenues through new production (energy efficiency projects lower costs). And companies that do provide financing for energy efficiency projects will not provide them for municipal governments, given the city lack of creditworthiness. The fact is, even attractive ROI and IRR figures for efficiency projects are not enough incentives for management, particularly in the public sector, to make the decision to go ahead with implementation. Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions from Project Implementation, Jaipur municipal Components Year 2007 2008 2009 CO2 Reductions (Tons) 15712 15712 15712

A.4.5 Public Funding: No public money

B. Baseline Methodology
B.1 Title and reference of methodology applied to project activity 8

According to the UNFCCC decision CP.7 Article 12, Paragraph 48, the project sponsor can use one of three baseline approaches. (a)Existing actual or historical emissions; (b) Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action taking into account barriers to investment, or (c) The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous year in similar economic, environmental and technological circumstances, and Whose performance is among the top 20% of their category. The baseline approach for this project will be 48(a). We are proposing two new baselines for the GHG emission reduction activities of this project: Water pumping efficiency and power factor The proposed methodologies: Water Pumping Efficiency Improvement and Power Factor Improvements are described in the Annexes. B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity For Both Components. -Water Pumping Efficiency and Power Factor Improvement This project activity will significantly improve energy efficiency through retrofits and upgrades which are not strictly necessary to pump water. If it were simply a situation involving the choice of one technology over another, approach 48(b) might be appropriate. However, market barriers have tended to maintain the status quo level of efficiency, despite incentives to improve pumping efficiency, including cost-recovery and water scarcity. Therefore, 48 (a) is the most appropriate baseline approach for this project. It is applicable because we can measure the historical total energy consumption and kWh/liter before the project to determine the business as usual baseline GHG emissions for water pumping. Electricity use for pumping water and total liters served from the raw water collection point to the end-user is measured through metering. Power Factor is routinely recorded and billed by the power utility and those records will establish the current and historical baseline prior to project implementation. Both measurements have historical data to measure the pre-project condition. We can use several methods to determine the energy savings that result from the project. The energy savings can then be converted into GHG emission reductions using a CEF provided by the power utility that is based on measured efficiencies and fuel inputs to electricity generation. This methodology is based on the actual measurements of energy consumption and production in this case water supplied. The baseline is determined by historical and current measurements of water delivered (liters per day, per annum, per capita, etc.) and power consumed (kVA, kW, kWH, kVAR). These are used to calculate the main measurements for each component 1) (the kWh/liter) for water pumping efficiency and 2) power factor ratio for power factor correction. Actual measurements after the 9

implementation of the project will take the same measurements and compare them to the baseline. The difference represents the savings due to the project. B.3. Description of how the methodology is applied in the context of the project activity Water Efficiency Component: Pumping efficiency in all major pumping stations in jaipur will be measured (in kWh per liter of water delivered) and project partners will collect electricity meter readings and liters of water that moved through the stations for at least one year. In cases where the data collected is not typical (perhaps in very wet or very dry years) meter data for two to three years will be collected. Power Factor Component: The PF before and after the project will be measured, and is usually recorded by the power utility for billing purposes The power factor and pumping data will enable the project partners to develop a kilowatthour savings estimate per year. This can be translated into GHG emissions reductions by calculating how much fossil fuel it would have taken to generate those kWh, and how much carbon would be emitted by burning that fuel. The most straight forward calculation will involve the carbon emissions factor supplied by the power utility. If such a factor is not available, it may be obtained data on the fuel mix of the electricity generated by the supplier utility, in this case of R.R.U.N.L.. As a default, IPCC data will be used, particularly if data collection is cost-prohibitive relative to the project benefits. B.4. Description of how anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of CDM project activity (explanation of how and why this project is additional and therefore not the baseline scenario).

The UNFCCC CDM Executive Board 10th Meeting Report (EB 10) provides clarification on demonstrating additionality. Paragraph 2(c) and (d) of Annex 1 to the EB 10 report describe tools appropriate to this project: 2(c) A qualitative or quantitative assessment of one or more barriers facing the proposed project activity (such as those laid out for small-scale CDM projects); and/or 2(d) An indication that the project type is not common practice (e.g. occurs in less than [<x %] of similar cases) in the proposed area of implementation, and not required by a Parties legislation/regulations. Water Pumping Efficiency Component: This project will reduce GHG emissions by improving pumping efficiency in jaipur municipal water utilities. The efficiency improvements will lower the kWh requirements needed to provide a given level of service. The post-project energy consumption is compared to the baseline energy consumption for the same level of service (e.g. liters of water). The difference is the energy savings due to efficiency. Using the appropriate CEF, or the alternative methods described in the full methodology, the energy savings are converted into CO2 savings. 10

Power Factor Correction Component: This project will reduce GHG emissions by improving the power factor in the jaipur municipal water utilities. The post-project energy consumption is compared to the baseline energy consumption for the same level of service (e.g. PF ratio). The difference is the energy savings due to efficiency. Using the appropriate CEF, or the alternative methods described in the full methodology, the energy savings are converted into CO2 savings. By using the data bank of other municipalities related to PF is approximately about .7 to . 85.This means that reactive power loads could be reduced and the total usable power could be increased, reducing the total number of kWh that would be needed to do the same level of work. In case of jaipur the PF is not good like other cities it is approximately and that this CDM activity is additional. For Both Components: Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Municipal Investment in India Worldwide, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry, energy consumption in most water systems worldwide could be reduced by at least 25 percent through cost effective efficiency actions. Even in technologically advanced countries, like the US, the vast majority of such opportunities are simply not taken advantage of these investments, while cost-effective, face significant barriers, as described below, that indicate that this proposed project activity would not happen in the absence of carbon financing. Most studies of Indias municipal finance system show that most local governments have a weak tax administration system, which leads to low-income generation from taxes. This is particularly true in the case of property tax, which is the most important source of revenue income for most municipal corporations. As a result, very few Indian cities can take on debt or issue municipal bonds without obtaining hard-to-get sovereign guarantees from the national governments. Given this fact, most Indian cities especially smaller ones have difficulty obtaining the capital needed to make infrastructure improvements, even modest-sized and cost-effective ones. This is particularly true given the huge demand for pressing social services. The other important fact to consider is that most services, particularly water and electricity, have historically been subsidized, meaning that the tariffs have not covered the costs of production. With city water utilities having to pay the difference between expenses and revenues that come in, these services are losing money, making any financing for improvement of these services all the more difficult. Energy efficiency barriers include: (a) Inadequate information. Cities lack information about energy-saving investments, especially on financial aspects and the implementation experiences of others. Municipal water managers are concerned only with water service delivery and have little knowledge or incentive to pursue greater energy management. (b) Technology transfer barriers. While some state-of-the-art energy efficient technologies have been introduced in India, they have not been widely distributed and the average technological level of much equipment is still quite low. 11

(c) Real and perceived insignificance of many energy efficiency investments. (d) High transaction costs. Much of the potential for energy savings is through implementation of large numbers of individually small projects. However, energy efficiency projects often carry high costs (particularly high opportunity costs of key skilled enterprise personnel) for obtaining and checking information, planning and design, arranging financing, implementation scheduling, monitoring initial performance and implementing necessary adjustments. Especially where the benefits are relatively small, enterprises are reluctant to incur these costs. (e) Difficulties in arranging financing. Most banks and other lending institutions in India are hesitant to lend for projects to reduce operating costs alone. Financial institutions in India (and elsewhere) are generally not familiar or adept at analyzing the financial aspects of these investments, and hence even less willing to extend credit for energy conservation projects. B.5. Description of how the definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology is applied to the project activity All of the emissions reductions will take place at the power generation plants that supply electricity for the water utilities. All project installations and improvements will take place within the jaipur municipal water utilities detailed in section A.4.1.4. Thus the baseline methodology accounts for site/source conversions of energy savings and fuel mix and carbon emission factors from R.R.V.U.N.L or another official source. If data is not available, a conservative alternative would be IPCC default values for CEF in India. The actual improvements for both the water efficiency and power factor components will take place at various water schemes in the five sub divisions (see A.4.1.4). These include the points at which raw water is collected, treated and distributed to the end user along with the intermediate pumping stations, which moves the water from point to point. This project does not include the wastewater side of municipal supply. B.6 Details of Baseline Development B.6.1 Date of completing the final draft of the baseline section: B.6.2. Name of person/entity determining the baseline MukeshSharma, shivraj Dhaka and Vikas Sharma with the help of PHED, jaipur division.

C. Duration of the Project Activity/Crediting Period

C.1. Duration of the Project Activity 15 Days C.1.1 Starting Date of Project Activity: 1 oct 2008 C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 3 years C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information 12

C.2.2. Fixed Crediting Period (3 years) C.2.2.1 Starting Date: Oct. 2008 C.2.1.2. Length: 3 years

D. Monitoring Methodology and Plan

D.1. Name and reference of approved methodology applied to the project activity: There is one methodology choice available at the UNFCCC website Approved baseline methodology AM0020
more detail on http://cdm.unccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html

Consist 1) efficiency improvements and 2) power factor improvements See in appendix 4 D.2. Justification of the choice of methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity The methodologies described in Annex 4, when applied correctly, are generally applicable to CDM project activities involving water pumping, and power factor in industrial and commercial (public) facilities under similar circumstances provided that no national or spectral policies directly mandate efficiency improvements for the affected systems. D.3. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity and how this data will be archived?
ID number
(Please use numbers to ease crossreferen cing to table 5)

ID number
(Please use numbers to ease crossreferen cing to table 5)

Data variable

Data unit

Measur ed (m), calculat ed (c) or estimat ed (e)

Recordi ng frequen cy

Proporti on of data to be monitor ed

How will the data be archived ? (electron ic/ paper)

For how long is archiv ed data kept?

Comme nt

Water Pumping Efficiency Compone nt

3-1

Amount

Total water delivered

M3

Constan t

100%

Electron ic

3-2

Amount

Total

kWh

Constan

100%

Electron

2 year until after CERs are issued 2 year

13

energy required to water Power factor correction componen t 3-3

ic

until after CERs are issued

Ratio

Power factor measurem ent for facility Demand measurem ent

kW/k VA

m or c

monthl y

100%

Electron ic

2 year until after CERs are issued 2 year until after CERs are issued 2 year until after CERs are issued

3-4

Amount

kW

Monthl y

100%

Electron ic

This may be measur ed for the entire facility Same as above

3-5

Amount

Total current

Amps

M or c

Constan t

100%

Electron ic

D.4. Potential sources of emissions which are significant and reasonable attributable to the project activity, but which are not included in the project boundary, and identification if and how data will be collected and archived on these emissions sources. For both components to this project, there are no significant emissions due to the project activity will take place outside the project boundary. For both components to this project, there are no significant emissions due to the project activity will take place outside the project boundary. D.5. Relevant data necessary for determining the baseline of anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHG within the project boundary and identification if and how such data will be collected and archived (for both components): ID# Data type Data variable Data unit Measured or calculated ? Recording frequency Will data How data be will be collected achieved on this item For how long will data will be used 14

5.1

Carbon emission factor (CEF)

Carbon emission factor (CEF)

Tones of co2 /kwh

M or C

Annually

Provided by IPCC

Electronic 2 year until after CER are issued

D.6 Quality control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for data monitored.
Data

Uncertainty level of data--high, med., low

Are QA/QC procedures planned for these data

Explanation of why procedures are or are not being planned

QA/QC

Water 3-1

Pumping
Low

Efficiency
Yes

Component
Meters on water lines will be properly calibrated and checked periodically for accuracy. Electricity bills will be validated based on data collection done as part of the project on major energy using devices (pumps) component Power Factor meters will be properly calibrated and located on main feeder lines to measure overall PF as part of regular O&M practices Demand meters will be calibrated periodically Amp meters will be calibrated periodically and measurements will be taken and recorded as part of periodic O&M practices Estimates will be adequate given the minimal impact this factor has on calculated savings Same as above 15

3-2

Low

Yes

Power Factor 3-3 Low

Correction Yes

3-4 3-5

Low Low

Yes Yes

3-6

Low

No

3-7

Low

No

3-8

Low

No

A simple count can be verified during periodic plant walk-throughs Estimates will be adequate given the minimal impact this factor has on calculated savings This data should be recorded as part of normal plant activities and can be verified using logs and billing data Billing data from RRVPNL will be compared to audit figures both post and pre project installation. Periodic calibration of the demand meters will be carried out in accordance with RRVPNL policy and regulations Same as above This information should be available from RRVPNL. If no reliable data is available, IPCC defaults will be used.

3-9

Low

no

3-10

Med

Yes

3-11

Med

Yes

3-12 5-1

Med Med

Yes Yes

E. Calculation of GHG Emissions by Sources

E.1. Description of formulae used to estimate anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the project activity within the project boundary. For both components to this project (water pumping efficiency and power factor correction), there will be no additional emissions of GHG as a result of project activity. E.2 Description of formulae used to estimate leakage, defined as: the net change of anthropogenic emissions by source of GHG which occurs outside the project boundary, and that is measurable and attributable to the project activity. For both components to this project (water pumping efficiency and power factor correction), there are no potential sources of leakages. E.3. Sum of E.1 and E.2 representing the project activity emissions ZERO E.4 Description of formulae used to estimated the anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases of the baseline.

16

The following formulae are used to estimate the GHG emissions of the baseline and to estimate the potential savings from project implementation. Improved Water Pumping Efficiency 1) Pre-project efficiency ratio = kWh b/M3b Where: KWh b=total kilowatt hours required to move water to desired location in baseline period M3b= total cubic meters of water to desired location in baseline period Note: Baseline period will typically be a year, but in situations where there are wide Variations from year to year, (due to weather, etc.) a longer baseline period that would provide a better pre-project efficiency average will be used. A typical baseline will be represented as the ratio of a unit of water delivered in a given time frame per kWh required to move it over the same time period times the post project amount of water delivered (m3/kWh) * the total post project water delivered 2) Baseline emissions from water pumping yearx = M3x * kWh b/M3b * CEF x where: M3x = Post project water volume of given year kWh b/M3b = pre project efficiency ratio CEF x = CO2/kWh x = 1.052 CO2 kg/kWh = carbon factor for grid electricity of given year, supplied by the utility or other official source. Note: The CEF is provided by the IPCC 3) Emission reductions from project implementation = (M3 x * kWh / M3b * CEF x)-(TkWh x* CEF x) where: M3x= total water delivered in given post project year TkWh x =total kWh required to deliver water in given post project year kWh / M3b =The pre project efficiency ratio CEF x = CO2x/kWh = 1.052 kg CO2 /kWh = carbon factor for grid electricity of given year, supplied by the utility or other official source. The formula above takes the difference in energy consumption between the baseline and after project implementation, adjusted to compare similar volumes of water delivered and then multiplies that difference by the appropriate Carbon Emissions Factor. For this project, that calculation would be carried out for each municipality and the results are summed to yield the total GHG emissions reductions from improved water pumping. Scheme/ Location Baseline Water Delivery Baseline Energy Consumption Pre Project Efficiency Ratio Estimated Water Delivery Estimated Energy Consumption Estimated Efficiency Ratio

17

m3/year Jaipur 39.56Lac

kWh/year

kWh/m3

m3/year

kWh/year

kWh/m3

Equation 1, the pre project efficiency ratio, has already been calculated in the table above. For illustration: Pre project efficiency ratio = kWh b /M3b = kWh/ m3 = kWh/ m3 Equation 2, the baseline emissions requires the use of the estimated volume of water delivery after project implementation from the fifth column of the table above with the results of Equation 1 and the appropriate CEF from the local utility: Baseline emissions = M3x * kWh b/M3b * CEF x = m3 * kWh/m3* kg CO2/kWh = kg CO2 Dividing the results of Equation 2 by 1000 yields the baseline (.business-as-usual.) tonnes of CO2: Baseline Tonnes of CO2 = ( kg CO2)/1000 = tonnes CO2(see in table ) The project includes the implementation and installation of a variety of energy efficiency and water conservation measures aimed at reducing the energy cost per unit of water delivered.This project will result in nearly million m3 of additional clean water delivered to consumers with a net reduction in energy consumed. Equation 3 calculates the emissions reduction that would result: Calculated Emissions Reductions = (M3x * kWh / M3b * CEF x)- (TkWh x* CEF x) = kg CO2 . ( kWh * 1.052 kg CO2/kWh) = kg CO2 = tonnes CO2 (See in table) Note: The calculated emissions reductions are much greater than would be expected if the difference between measured energy consumption pre- and post-project was used for the calculation. But this would ignore the improvements in pumping efficiency and discount the additional water delivered after project implementation. Using the Preproject efficiency ratio captures the savings in a consistent and conservative manner. Power Factor Improvement and Power Optimization The carbon emissions baseline due to low power factor and poor power optimization may be estimated through calculation of two components: 1. Excess Demand (due to high reactive power consumption and sub-optimal power supply) 2. Energy Loss in cables (due to excess current) 1) Baseline Excess Demand = kVAED = [kVAb (1- b/ Where: 18
u )]

+ kVApo

1kVA = .8kW kVAb = Baseline kVA demand for the facility or for a particular unit in the project boundary (e.g. a particular pump) b = Baseline PF, measured or from power utility billing records u = Unitary PF = 1 kVApo = Excess capacity due to sub-optimal power system or equipment 2) Baseline direct Energy Losses = kWhEL = 3 x Ib2R x LLF x L x Hb kWh/ Where: Ib = Line current in amps LLF =.Loss load factor = 0.3 (Load Factor) + (0.7) (Load Factor)2 [Load Factor] = Average Load(kW)/Peak Load(kW) L = Length of Cable in meters N = No. of Cable runs R = Cable resistance in ohms/meter 2) Baseline CO2 Emissions from low PF and poor power optimization = [kWhEL+ (kVAED * .8 *Hb)] * CEFb Where: CEFb = 1.052 kg CO2/kWh (for grid power in Rajasthan , India where generation is largely from coal) Hb = Baseline Operating Hours of the facility 4) Potential (or actual) Demand Savings = kVAs = [( kVApa
x / b)

(N x 1000)

* kVAmx * (1-

b/

x)] +

Where: x = PF in post project period x, projected, measured or from power utility billing records kVApa = Actual or achievable kVA savings from power optimization not resulting from PF improvement but due to project implementation kVAmx = metered demand for the facility or unit within the project boundary in period x x /b = Scaling factor to account for changes in production or production efficiency-yields-a -business-as-usual. demand for calculation 5) Potential (or actual) Energy Loss reductions = kWhES = kWhEL - [(3 x Is 2R x LLF x L x Hx kWh )/(N x 1000)] Where: Is = System amps after PF improvement = [Ib * ( b/ x)] All other factors as in Equation 2 above 6) Total CO2 Emissions Reductions from PF improvement and power optimization = [kWhES + (kVAs * .8 *Hx)] * CEFx Where: 19

CEFx = 1.052 kg CO2/kWh (for grid power in Rajasthan, India where generation is largely from coal) Hx = Projected or actual Operating Hours of the facility .Business-as-usual. demand for calculation of savings is different from the current or Pre-project baseline demand in that it is adjusted to account for any changes in overall plant efficiency or utilization. The formula above takes into account differences in plant operation between the baseline and after project implementation and then multiplies that difference by the appropriate Carbon Emissions Factor. For this project, that calculation would be carried out for each municipality and the results are summed to yield the total GHG emissions reductions from improved PF and power optimization. The table below summarizes the data collected from one of the municipality to illustrate the use of this methodology. Direct energy losses from poor power factor are small relative to the demand savings, so Equation 2 is often not used in calculations of savings. For convenience, and for lack of data, the direct energy savings are assumed to be zero here. For an example of the calculation, refer to Annex 3 or 4: kWhEL = 0 Equation 3 estimates the baseline emissions of carbon due to low PF and poor power optimization, although this figure represents only the absolute baseline emissions, not the .business-as-usual. figure used in calculating emission reductions: [kWhEL + (kVAED * .8 *Hb)] * CEFb = [0 + (432.5 kVA * .8 kW/kVA * 8760] * [1.052 kg CO2/kWh] = 3,188,570 kg CO2 Dividing the result of Equation 3 by 1000 yields the baseline tonnes of CO2 emissions: 3,188.6 tonnes of CO2 per year Note: This figure is not the total CO2 emissions for the municipality. It represents the emissions due to excess demand and energy loss resulting from low PF and poor power optimization. Potential or actual demand savings from project implementation are given by Equation 4: kVAs = [( x / b) * kVAmx * (1- .82/.95)] + kVA = kVA
b/

x)] + kVApa = [(.95/.82) * (kVA) * (1-

Note: The result of Equation 4 is less than the total potential calculated in Equation 2 because this methodology treats the savings from power optimization in a conservative manner by assuming that they would take place even in the absence of any PF improvement. This has the effect of consistently underestimating the demand savings due to PF improvement where power supply optimization is an option. This effect would be minimized but still present if each sub-location was calculated separately but, for simplicity of illustration, calculations here are from summary data. Assuming that direct energy savings are insignificant, Equation 5 is reduced to zero (see Annex 3 or 4 for an example of the calculation: kWhES = 0 20

The calculation of GHG emission reductions in Equation 6 takes into account any changes in overall plant efficiency and water delivery: kWhES + (kVAs * .8 *Hx)] * CEFx = [(0) + ( kVA * .8 * 8760)] * [1.052 CO2/kWh] = kg CO2 = tonnes CO2 Note: Adjusting the savings to account for changes in plant efficiency or utilization important because many factors outside of the scope or control of this project could demand. Measures that save energy, making production more efficient would have net effect of reducing demand, but the reduced demand would not be due to implementation of this project. On the other hand, drought or population increase increased industrial activity would all increase demand for piped water, with a commensurate increase in kVA demand. In the absence of this project (business-asusual), that kVA demand increase would be even higher, and credit should accrue to the project. E.5 Difference between E.4 and E.3 representing the emissions reductions of the project activity The total net reductions in CO2 emissions, according to the formulae above for Jaipur municipality within the project, will lead to a total of approximately 365,710 tonnes over the course of the crediting period (see E.. E.6 Table providing values obtained when applying formulae above . for both components to the project Summary Table of Annual Project Savings
Municipality Improved Water Pumping Efficiency Power Factor Improvement/ Capacity Release Estimated reductions (tonnes CO2)* CO2

Total

. For ease of comparison, kVA Capacity Release is totaled as an equivalent grid energy savings. Year 2007 2008 2009 Co2 reduction (tons ) 15712.6

F. Environmental Impacts
F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts 21

There will be no negative environmental impacts. Water resources and air pollution from electricity generation will be minimized with no negative impacts. F.2. If impacts are considered significant by the project participants of the host party. In the recent Energy Bill passed by the Indian Government, energy efficiency was highlighted as a win-win investment. This led to the creation of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE), which does not identify any negative environmental impacts from energy efficiency.

G. Stakeholder Comments
G.1 Brief Description of the process on how comments by stakeholders have been invited and compiled Because this project has no discernable negative environmental impacts, because the equipment installed is itself relatively small (not requiring major transportation or other energy inputs), and because there are no other contributions to noise, air or water pollution outside the facilities, we believe no public comments were necessary. G.2 Summary of comments received: In data collection PHED is a supporting participants G.3 Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: Only positive comments were received, requiring no action.

Annexes
Annex 1: Information on participants in the project activity 1. PHED 2. Project maker

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding

No public fund.

Annex 3: New baseline methodology

A Methodology 1
1. Title of the proposed methodology: Water Pumping Efficiency Improvements. 2. Description of the methodology: 2.1. General approach (Please check the appropriate option(s))

22

X Existing actual or historical emissions; Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment; The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous years, in similar social, economic, environmental and technological circumstances, and whose performance is among the top 20 per cent of their category. Overall description (other characteristics of the approach): The ultimate goal of any water supply system is to deliver enough water to end-users to meet their demand. Energy is required to pump the water through a system, usually in the form of electricity from the local or regional power grid. Electricity generation results in emissions, including CO2, and is a major source of GHGs resulting from human activities. By extension, each unit of water pumped through a given system results in a certain amount of CO2 (or the equivalent) emissions, depending on the efficiency of the system and the grid supply of electricity. This methodology seeks to reduce GHG emissions by explicitly reducing the amount of energy required to deliver a unit of water to end-users in municipal water utilities, measured in kilowatt-hours per cubic meter (kWh /M3). By linking the water and energy resource in this manner, the methodology allows for a range of project activities to increase overall water pumping efficiency, including reducing technical losses, leaks and theft as well as the energy efficiency of the pumping scheme, Because of the unique nature of water systems within the context of sustainable development and the carbon intensive nature of existing alternatives (private wells, booster pumps), this methodology baseline will assume that any increase in water delivered is simply meeting unmet or latent demand in the baseline. This means that the baseline will treat any increases in water delivery as if they would have needed to happen anyway to provide this basic service. The baseline will therefore capture the total carbon dioxide that would have been emitted if the project demand was being met given the efficiency of the system prior to the projects inception. Energy cost savings and carbon financing that is invested into additional or improved water service will not be marginalized through this approach. This is a conservative estimate given the carbon intensity of existing alternatives to improving service (e.g. booster pumps or private wells with diesel generator sets, etc.) The baseline efficiency for the municipal water system . or section of the system (the project developer will need to specify the boundary clearly) . will be measured in the ratio of water delivered per kWh based on current (pre project) and historical measurements multiplied by the total amount of water delivered post project times the carbon content of the electricity. This ratio clearly defines the carbon efficiency with which the desired amount of water would have been delivered if the project had not been implemented. It is commonly used by the water utility and industrial sector as the gauge for system improvements. Energy efficiency savings can therefore be realized even with increased flows through the system (for example- a municipal water utility being able to provide water service for poor urban inhabitants or expand the hours during which water is available) as long as the energy needed to move a particular unit of water between its source and its purpose is reduced. Thus total energy consumption may increase, but service will also increase and improve, reducing the amount of carbon emitted per unit of water. 23

Pre Project Efficiency Ratio kWh b=total kilowatt hours required to move water to desired location in baseline M3b= total cubic meters of water to desired location in baseline period kWh b/M3b = pre project efficiency ratio period

*The standard baseline period is one year, but in situations where there are wide variations from year to year, (due to weather, etc.) a longer baseline period that would provide a better pre project efficiency average should be used (e.g. a three year average). Also, the developer will need to specify the boundary . whether it is the entire municipal water system, or a specific zone within the system. If a subsection of the water system is used, there must be accurate metering that measures the electricity and water flows within only that zone and conclusively excludes measurements from other zones. This is important because some water systems do not have accurate bulk-level or zonal metering to measure the flows within that zone and thus leave out any flows from other zones. A typical carbon emissions baseline will be represented as the pre project efficiency ratio times the total post project water delivered times the carbon factor. Baseline CO2 Emissions M3x = Post project water volume of given year in cubic meters kWh b/M3b = pre project efficiency ratio CO2/kWhx=carbon factor for electricity of given year (From electric utility, IPCC data or LBNL Standardized Methodology outlined in Annex 6) Baseline for given yearx = M3x * kWh b/M3b * CO2/kWh x where kg CO2/kWh is given by an official source such as the local utility. The default value if no other estimate is available is the appropriate IPCC carbon emission factor (CEF) for the country where the project takes place. Annex 6 includes a methodology for determining the CEF in cases where the utility does not calculate their own CEF and the IPCC data is not enough to determine an accurate CEF. In this baseline, the project developers will undertake formal analyses to check that there are no performance related contracts already in place, quality-control or inspection and maintenance procedures that would mean that the energy efficiency equipment and procedures designed toimprove system would have happened without the intervention of the CDM project. The project developer will need to clearly define the boundary on the system in question. This could be the boundary of an entire municipal water system or a major pumping station. Defining the boundaries of the system in question allows the project implementers to develop an adequate metering and monitoring system to determine water entering the boundaries of the system, water being delivered out of the system and the energy used to move it from start to finish. It also allows the project developer to ensure that the project boundaries do not change significantly over the course of the project. A water pumping system survey is undertaken including 24

1. 2. 3. 4.

Inventory any currently planned efficiency upgrades to be excluded from the baseline Clearly define the boundaries of the system Measure the water entering and leaving the system over a given period of time Determine variables in water use or availability based on seasonal supplies, demand, or production changes. (water pumping in the dry season might be more energy intensive than in the wet season so the baseline will have to look at least a years worth of data to account for seasonal variability. In atypical weather years, the project developer will look at 3 years worth of data) 5. Measure the energy in kWh required to move the water prior to project implementation 6. Identify the carbon content correlating to the electricity used to power the water system. 7. Identify efficiency opportunities that can be implemented during the project. To confirm the effect of market barriers, the project developer will gather data on the proposed cost of implementation of the efficiency measures, the estimated energy and energy bill savings, and from that calculate simple payback periods and rate of return. If the payback period is greater than 10 years and the rate of return is less than 10%, it is extremely unlikely that the investments would take place in the absence of carbon financing. If the payback is less than 10 years and the rate of return greater than 10%, then analysis should show that the proposed improvements are not common practice (see above). If a similar study, offering the same data, has been undertaken in the previous two years by the World Bank, national government, or other respected NGO, the developer can use the reports findings as substitute. The following list is representative of the types of efficiency opportunities likely to be found within a water system that could positively impact water system efficiency. These are all therefore potential CDM project investments. Water Leak and Loss Reduction Reducing leaks and losses is a critical part of any water system operators efficiency strategy. Leak reduction can involve pipe inspection, equipment cleaning, and other maintenance efforts to improve the distribution system as it currently operates and prevent future leaks and ruptures from occurring. For example, a review of 54 developing country country water utility projects financed by the World Bank found the average water loss in water supply and treatment was 34 percent. I In many cases, significant losses are caused by poor system maintenance, especially where metering systems are weak or non-existent. Reducing these losses will enhance the overall efficiency of the system. Water systems with leakage problems are forced not only to pump more water than is actually needed, but also to increase system pressure to assure that the water reaches the desired location. Increasing pressure is usually less cost effective than fixing the leaks and maintaining a lower pressure. However, it is the most common response given that is such a .quick fix., requiring only that more energy (and money and water) be used to operate the system. Furthermore, higher system pressure actually exacerbates the leakage, wasting even more water and energy. Water systems are often made up of complex engineered infrastructure systems. The overall design of these systems is one of the most critical features in terms of efficiency. 25

Unfortunately, this is one feature that most operators or managers have little noticeable control over, unless in the midst of system upgrade. Redesigning the entire system, or just improving the design of specific areas can lead to major savings opportunities. In the area of pump-system design, for example, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) recommends a systems approach to determine potential efficiency opportunities. The CII estimates, based on its experience, that energy savings of up to 25% are possible by following the systematic methodology summarized in these six questions. 1. Is the pump really required? 2. Is the pump correctly designed? 3. Is the pump really efficient? 4. Are the heads matched? (pump heads with system heads) 5. Is a variable speed drive installed to match varying capacities? 6. Are controls efficient? I While these questions were designed specifically in reference to pumps, they raise interesting concerns that are valid for the entire water system. Is the System Really Required? Examining the question of whether a system is really needed or not can lead to potentially the largest saving opportunities. Does the system really require all of its present pumps, valves, bypass lines, etc, or can it be redesigned to better make use of gravity and reduce frictional losses? For instance, many water system operators have been able to remove pumps by taking greater advantage of gravity or by making better use of other exiting pumps. Is the System Correctly Designed? Once it is determined that a system is actually necessary, a project developer needs to determine if the system is designed correctly. For example, system designers often intentionally over-size equipment in order to ensure the equipment meets the maximum system requirements. In some cases, the excess margins are as high as 50 percent. Besides being inefficient, operational problems of over-design can include excess flow noise, pipe vibrations, and poor performance. Over-design can also result in unnecessarily large costs for materials, installation, and operation. Corrections to over-design of pumping systems include: installing a correctly-sized pump; installing an adjustable speed drive motor (ASD); reducing impellers; and adding a smaller pump to reduce intermittent operation.iii Is the Equipment Efficient? Upgrading to newer, higher efficiency equipment will likely improve system performance if correctly sized and integrated into the entire water system. Equipment likely to produce the most savings include: 26

energy efficient motors adjustable speed drives; impellers; lower friction pipes and coatings; valves; capacitors. Efficient Motors Choosing a pump-motor with a higher operating efficiency will add to the overall efficiency of the pumping system. In addition, in order to function efficiently, the motor needs to be selected to work correctly with the pump. The motor should be selected to match various requirements of the pump such as start-up time, numbers of stops and starts, pump speed, and required torque.iv Variable Frequency/Adjustable Speed Drives To match varying load requirements, one of the best available options to improve efficiency is by installing an adjustable speed drive (ASD) motor. As the name implies, ASDs make pump speed adjustments to meet the particular requirements of a given system at a given time. One popular type of ASD is the variable frequency drive (VFD), which uses electronic controls to regulate motor speed. By slowing an over-sized pump, a VFD reduces the energy losses in pump operation. Adjustable speed drives work best in systems with large frictional head. They may, in fact, prove less efficient than other options in systems with large static head.v Impellers Another alternative to improve water system efficiency is installing a smaller impeller or trimming the impeller in the existing pump. An impeller is the spinning component in a centrifugal-type pump that pushes water through the system. Similar to the VFD motor, a smaller or trimmed impeller decreases the speed of the water to reduce energy losses. Since trimming the impeller reduces flow, frictional losses from bypass lines and throttle valves are reduced.vi Lower Friction Pipe and CoatingsPipes made of smooth material such as polyvinyl chloride, versus traditional cast iron pipes, can reduce friction losses. Lower friction pipes can increase energy savings by 6-8 percent. Applying certain resin and polymer coatings to the insides of a pump can achieve another 1-3 percent improvement. Coatings can also reduce erosion and corrosion in pipes and pumps.vii Valves Valves play a critical role in any fluid system by controlling flow and pressure. There are numerous types of valves for different functions. In choosing the proper valve for a specific purpose, however, the impact of the value on system efficiency should be considered. Some valves add more friction to the system than others. For example, throttle valves are more efficient than bypass valves. This is the case because as a throttle valve is closed, it is still able to maintain an upstream pressure that can assist in moving water through parallel parts of the system. 27

The energy used to pump water that is bypassed in a system using a bypass valve is wasted. As the main option to control flow and pressure, project designers may find it more efficient to use adjustable speed drives instead of valves. viii Is the Equipment Matched to the Task? Even if equipment is deemed efficient, the system.s efficiency will suffer if it is not appropriately matched to the task. This means pumps need to correspond to the system.s requirements, impellers need to be sized to create desired flow rates, and variable speed drives must be installed in areas with high frictional head to be effective. Cost-effectively matching water pressure and flow rate requirements with pump and motor characteristics, for example, is one of the most critical efficiency steps in system design.ix Pumps will more often work at their best efficiency point if a project designer is able to accurately analyze water system requirements and match them with the appropriate pumps using pump performance curves. There are also software packages designed to help users assess the efficiency of a pumping system.s design. Is the Equipment Flexible to Changing System Demands? System demands are not static. Even though water systems are designed to meet the requirements of peak usage, they do not operate at their peak load for a majority of the time. A project designer can determine how to optimize efficiency across the entire load cycle. Using gravity storage, multiple pump arrangements, small pumps for off-peak use, and adjustable speed drives, systems can be designed to reduce or eliminate efficiency losses from changing system demands. Are Controls Efficient? Computerized control systems can help reduce energy use by monitoring pump efficiencies, managing pump operation, shifting loads to off-peak times, and controlling variable speed drives or pumps. For example, programmable logic controls (PLCs) applied to electricallycontrolled equipment such as VFDs for pumps can help minimize equipment operating time.
ID number
(Please use numbers to ease crossrefe rencing to table 5)

Data type

Data availa ble

Data unit

Measur ed (m), calculat ed (c) or estimat ed (e)

Recording frequency Proport ion of data to be monitor ed

How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)

Comment For how long is archived data kept?

3-1

Amou nt

Total water delive red

M3

Constant

100%

electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

28

3-2

Amou nt

Total Energy required to deliver water

kWh

Constant

Electronic 100%

2 years until after CERs are issued

5-1

Ratio

CEF

Kg/kWh

M or Annually C

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

This factor should be provided by the utility or IPCC defaults will be used

3. Definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology: (Please describe and justify the project boundary bearing in mind that it shall encompass all anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases under the control of the project participants that are significant and reasonably attributable to the project activity. Please describe and justify which gases and sources included in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol are included in the boundary and outside the boundary.) The project deals with existing water systems, so no new sources of anthropogenic emissions are being created and no new emissions will result from the project implementation either inside or outside the project boundary. The project boundary will extend from the point of water intake to the system, including all pumping stations and treatment plants to the delivery point for the consumer. Supplemental pumps, booster stations, and other sources of power consumption must be included in both the baseline and the project case. Pumps not metered or covered by the water utility, as in a bulk supplier, should only be included if they are both subject to the project implementation and exclusive to the water system defined by the project. Otherwise, they are considered outside of the project boundary. The project will save grid energy and will reduce Annex A gases according to the combustion efficiency and fuel source of the primary generators associated with supply to the project site. The smallest grid unit (i.e. local, state or national) should be used that will account for all generation of electricity used at the project site. There are no other associated sources of GHG emissions. 5. Assessment of uncertainties: (Please indicate uncertainty factors and how those uncertainties are to be addressed) Improved water service may lead to increased consumption of water resources. Water demand and supply may fluctuate for reasons that are outside of the scope and boundary of the project, but that is explicitly accounted for by use of the Baseline Energy Efficiency Factor, which calibrates current use regardless of total supply of water (which is expected to increase to satisfy unmet demand currently on the system.)
Data
(Indicate table and ID

Uncertainty level of data

Are QA/QC

Outline explanation why QA/QC procedures are or are not being planned.

29

number e.g. 3.-1; 3.-2.)

(High/Mediu m/Low)

procedure s planned for these data? Yes Yes Meters on water lines will be properly calibrated and checked periodically for accuracy. Electricity bills will be validated based on data collection done as part of the project on major energy using devices (pumps)

3-1 3-2

Low Low

6. Description of how the baseline methodology addresses the calculation of baseline emissions and the determination of project additionality: In the absence of the project, water utilities, particularly in the developing world, will tend to expand or maintain water service by increasing the flow of water through the system to account for inefficiencies, leaks, system deterioration and other losses. This will lead in the baseline case to increased pumping and treatment energy, leading in turn to increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Complex system analysis is not possible in a resource and capital constrained environment where the obligation of service provision can not be set aside or voluntarily reduced by the utility. Hence, water utilities will overlook holistic solutions like the ones embodied in this project and methodology in favor of quick fix. solutions, like pumping more water. Even if a business case can be made for certain energy efficiency improvements, market barriers and non-market prioritization (e.g. political factors) will most often prevent water utilities from making the necessary investments. Too often, system maintenance is carried out on an ad-hoc, responsive manner, rather than the more efficient holistic, proactive approach required for this project. Carbon financing makes it possible for the project implementer to address the system as a whole and seek energy savings through combined demand- and supplyside reductions. The baseline methodology looks at the current energy consumption and assumes that levels of water consumption will be met using the same energy efficiency index, as would be expected if current practices continue. The savings made possible by the project intervention would not have occurred in the absence of carbon financing and are thus .additional. under the Kyoto Protocol. The baseline methodology will confirm this by requiring the project developer to conduct surveys in several cities . not just the proposed CDM activity site . in order to ascertain that the current situation with regards to PF, pumps/motors and overall system efficiency is similar in all the cities. That would confirm that these projects are not being undertaken and those CDM activity is additional. Additionality Test: The project developer will contact at least five similar municipalities in the same general geographic region to determine if any of the measures described in Section 2.2 or others that could improve energy efficiency have been implemented by city governments. In cases were the municipalities contacted have no basic data collection system to allow a comparison, it can be assumed that the condition and the potential for energy efficiency upgrades 30

of that municipal water system are similar to the project site. This is because a failure to measure energy consumption leads directly to a failure to take advantage of savings opportunities. Where data is available, if power factor has been improved and pumps or motors have been repaired or replaced in a majority of the municipalities contacted, then the project developer must assume that the baseline energy efficiency at the project site includes those types of improvements or retrofits. The project developer should include these typical upgrades as part of the baseline scenario, even if they have not yet been implemented at the project site. This ensures that the baseline is conservative and reflects the prevailing .business-as-usual. scenario in the project region. If no significant improvements to water pumping efficiency are apparent in the plants surveyed, the project developer can assume that the measured water pumping energy efficiency is the proper baseline at the project site. In addition, the project developer will survey and measure at a statistically-significant number of sites within one city the two key ratios that help define the baseline: energy intensity of water pumping (kWh/liter) and power factor. If these ratios are similar in the survey cities . and if energy efficiency improvements are rarely or never implemented . than the CDM project activity can be considered additional. The following formulae are used to estimate the GHG emissions of the baseline and to estimate the potential savings from project implementation. Improved Water Pumping Efficiency 1) Pre-project efficiency ratio = kWh b/M3b where: kWh b=total kilowatt hours required to move water to desired location in baseline period M3b= total cubic meters of water to desired location in baseline period Note: Baseline period will typically be a year, but in situations where there are wide variations from year to year, (due to weather, etc.) a longer baseline period that would provide a better pre-project efficiency average will be used. A typical baseline will be represented as the ratio of a unit of water delivered in a given time frame per kWh required to move it over the same time period times the post project amount of water delivered (m3/kWh) * the total post project water delivered 2) Baseline emissions from water pumping yearx = M3x * kWh b/M3b * CEF x where: M3x = Post project water volume of given year kWh b/M3b = pre project efficiency ratio CEF x = CO2/kWh x= CO2 kg/kWh = carbon factor for grid electricity of given year, supplied by the utility or other official source. 3) Emission reductions from project implementation = (M3x * kWh / M3b (TkWhx* CEF x) where: M3x= total water delivered in given post project year TkWh x =total kWh required to deliver water in given post project year
*

CEF x)-

kWh / M3b =The pre project efficiency ratio CEF x = CO2x/kWh = 1.052 kg CO2 /kWh = carbon factor for grid electricity of given year, supplied by the utility or other official source. The formula above takes the difference in energy consumption between the baseline and after project implementation, adjusted to compare similar volumes of water delivered and then multiplies that difference by the appropriate Carbon Emissions Factor. 31

7. Description of how the baseline methodology addresses any potential leakage of the project activity: (Please note: Leakage is defined as the net change of anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases which occurs outside the project boundary and which is measurable and attributable to the CDM project activity.) There are no potential sources of leakages from the project activity. Failure to meet project emission reduction goals would be captured and recorded by the methodology and would account for any emissions attributable to the project. 8. Criteria used in developing the proposed baseline methodology, including an explanation of how the baseline methodology was developed in a transparent and conservative manner: The methodology used meets the following criteria: Replicable Universally applicable Uses water sector metrics Transparent and affordable verification using publicly available data No proprietary data or methodology is required The methodology was developed using best practices from water utilities worldwide. The methodology does not call for unique activities or measurements and takes into account possible fluctuations in service. 9. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the baseline methodology: The methodology is simple and can cover a wide variety of energy efficient measures that would be too small to warrant their own CDM project. It will not require the kind of data only advanced systems using SCADA technology could obtain and track. Since the emissions are not produced directly on site, the developer will have to rely on the quality of data from the electric utility. The baseline approach is conservative in that it uses actual historical data and compares the energy consumption of the baseline to similar facilities in the region. 10. Other considerations, such as a description of how national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances have been taken into account: The methodology asks the developer to ensure that there are not any national or sectoral policies in place that would move the proposed CDM project into the business as usual scenario. Given 4 the tremendous opportunities for savings in water systems in the industrialized economies, let alone the developing economies, it is unlikely that this would occur. B. Methodology 2 1. Title of the proposed methodology: Power Factor Improvements. Generic comments made above also apply to this baseline methodology 2. Description of the methodology: 2.1. General approach (Please check the appropriate option(s)) X Existing actual or historical emissions; 32

 Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course of action, taking into account barriers to investment; The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous five years, in similar social, economic, environmental and technological circumstances, and whose performance is among the top 20 per cent of their category. 2.2. Overall description (other characteristics of the approach): Electricity is used in nearly every industrial and commercial facility all over the world, including those that provide public services like water delivery or street lighting. The electricity is used for pumps, induction motors, lighting, heating, cooling and a variety of other applications. Power Factor is a measure of how well the electricity is being used to perform those tasks. By convention, it is expressed as the ratio of real power (kW) to apparent power (kVA): PF = kW/kVA It is not a measure of end-use efficiency per se. For example, an incandescent lamp, using electrical resistance to produce light and heat, has a unitary, or perfect PF of 1, meaning that all the current going into the lamp is used to activate the bulb. However, by the conventional measure of lighting efficiency, lumens per watt, the incandescent bulb performs poorly when compared to a T12, magnetically ballasted fluorescent tube with a PF of approximately .7 or less. To understand how PF measures efficiency, it is first necessary to understand the components of electric current. Power producing current, or real power, is converted by the equipment into useful work and is measured in kilowatts (kW). Magnetizing current, or reactive power, is required to produce the flux necessary for operation of induction equipment. Reactive power is measured in kilovars (kVAR), or kilovolt-amperes reactive. Most alternating current (AC) loads require both kW and kVAR to perform useful work. Without reactive power, energy could not flow through the core of a transformer or across the air gap of an induction motor. Total current, or apparent power, is the vector sum (at a right angle) of the real power and the reactive power. Apparent power is measured in kilo-volt amperes (kVA) and is the unit used by power utilities to measure and bill demand. The relationship between kVA, kW, and kVAR is expressed as: (kVA)2 = (kW)2 + (kVAR)2 Any electrical equipment requiring the creation of a magnetic field to operate will draw kVAR, producing a current which is said to lag behind the voltage, thus producing a "lagging" or low power factor. Capacitors, contained in most power factor improvement equipment, draw current that is said to lead the voltage, thus producing a "leading" power factor. If capacitors are connected to a circuit that operates at a nominally lagging power factor, the extent that the circuit lags is reduced proportionately to the amount the capacitors lead. Circuits having no resultant leading or lagging component are said to operate at a unity power factor where the total energy consumed (kVA) is equal to the useful energy (kW). When power factor is correction, this saves energy by reducing the number of kWh required to perform the same level of work. While most plant managers are aware of PF correction, there is a surprising majority worldwide who do not have PF correction equipment installed or operating properly. The installation is straight forward and inexpensive and the benefits are considerable - both in energy cost savings and power quality improvement, as well as the grid benefits listed above. It is not uncommon for industrial installations to be operating at PFs between 0.7 and 0.8 (that is, between 70% and 80% efficiency) with considerable opportunity for improvement. Consumers may face substantial penalties or charges for PFs below a preset amount such as 0.85, 0.95 or higher. Establishing the baseline PF for typical facility or unit requires taking the measurement 33

commonly recorded on the monthly energy bill from the power utility or taking a direct measurement using a power factor meter or similar instrument. Since capacitive elements that improve power factor are not an integral part of most electrical systems, the tendency is for PF to remain the same or be reduced over time in the absence of installation of capacitors or synchronous machines. If a particular facility or unit is not sub metered by the power utility, or disaggregated data is not available, commercially available power factor meters may be used to measure PF (kW/kVA). This methodology also includes provisions for assessment of kVA capacity that could be made available through power system optimization made possible by energy efficiency measures or system redesign. High contract demand, for example, may be necessary in plants with old, inefficient or mismatched equipment. Pumps or motors installed at different times may have redundant power supplies or levels of contract demand, consuming extra energy and keeping demand charges high. This excess demand would not necessarily be improved through PF improvement, but the kVA savings can be treated in the same way. Some excess demand is necessary to provide operating margins, but contract demand should not be so high that average measured kVA is below the minimum billing demand and maximum demand never even approaches contract levels. Carbon Emissions Baseline The carbon emissions baseline due to low power factor may be estimated through calculation of two components: 3. Excess Demand (due to high reactive power consumption and sub-optimal power supply) 4. Energy Loss in cables (due to excess current) However, assessing the carbon emissions associated purely with PF is a complex process. Energy Losses are the equivalent of energy consumption, so the carbon emissions footprint of any direct losses associated with low PF are converted to a carbon equivalent using the appropriate Carbon Emissions Factor (CEF)for the electricity supplied The reason for the Excess Demand effect of low PF is that the facility will consume more energy than may be necessary and the power utility will have to maintain additional capacity and produce and transmit more energy to cover reactive power losses by the consumer (facility). The cost of this capacity and generation is typically covered by the Demand Charge levied by the power utility calculated using the peak demand for the billing period as indicated in the specific tariff structure of that utility. However, power demand for an industrial or commercial facility, measured in kVA or kW, is not directly convertible into carbon emissions unless it is used to perform work, measured in kWh. Thus, the baseline carbon emissions for the Excess Demand component of a facility with low PF is the calculated excess demand (expressed in kW) times the operating hours of the plant multiplied by the appropriate CEF, as in the following formula: [Baseline CO2 Emissions]ED = kVAED * .8 *Hb * CEFb Where: 1kVA = .8kW kVAED = [kVAb (1- b/ u )] + kVApo = Excess Demand as a result of low PF and suboptimal power supply kVAb = Baseline kVA demand for the facility or for a particular unit in the projectboundary (e.g. a particular pump) b = Baseline PF, measured or from power utility billing records u = Unitary PF = 1 kVApo = Excess capacity due to sub-optimal power system or equipment 34

CEFb = Appropriate Carbon Emissions Factor for the baseline year (From electric utility, IPCC data or LBNL Standardized Methodology outlined in Annex 6) Hb = Baseline Operating Hours of the facility The carbon emissions due to Energy Loss are calculated according to the following formula: [Baseline CO2 Emissions]EL = kWhEL x CEFb With the same factors as above and where: I = Line current in amps LLF =.Loss load factor = 0.3 (Load Factor) + (0.7) (Load Factor)2 [Load Factor] = Average Load/Peak Load L = Length of Cable in meters N = No. of Cable runs R = Cable resistance in ohms/meter kWhEL = 3 x I2R x LLF x L x Hb kWh N x 1000 The total baseline carbon emissions attributable to low PF is given by the formula: [Baseline CO2 Emissions]b = [kWhEL + (kVAED * .8 *Hb)] * CEFb The following example illustrates the calculations for carbon emissions due to above two components (this example is not linked to any project). Example: The parameters required to calculate the annual energy baseline carbon emissions due to low power factor are as follows: Measured Total Current, A 88 Cable Size, Sq.mm 150 Cable Resistance, ohms/meter 0.000124 Number of Runs of Cable 1 Cable Length, m 20 Annual Operating Hours (H) 8760 Baseline Power Factor ( b) 0.75 Operating Load, kW 45 Average Load, kW 40 Peak Load 60 Measured kVA 64 CEF kg/kWh 1.052 (i) Load Factor = Average Load / Peak Load = 40/60 = 0.67 Loss Load Factor (LLF) = 0.3 (Load Factor) + (0.7) (Load Factor)2 = 0.3 x 0.67 + 0.7 x (0.67)2 = 0.51 (ii) Annual energy losses in the cables Energy loss = 3 x I2R x LLF x L x 8760 kWh N x 1000 Annual Energy loss with baseline PF = 3 x (88)2 x 0.000124 x 0.51 x 20 x 8760 / (1 x 1000) = 258 kWh Note: Normally, if the annual saving potential due to energy loss reduction in cables is very low (due to short length of cable), it can neglected in final calculations. (iii) kVAED = kVAb * (1- 1/ u ) = 64 [1 . 0.75] = 16 kVAED (iv) Conversion of kVAED to kWED = kVAED * (.8) =16 kVA * (.8) = 12.8 kW 35

(v) Calculation of equivalent energy consumption/generation in kWh =kWED x Hb =12.8 * 8760 = 112,128 kWhED (vi) Calculation of total baseline carbon emissions = CO2b =[kWhEL + (kVAED * .8 *Hb)] *CEFb =[258 kWh +112,128 kWh]* 1.052 kg CO2/kWh = 118,230 kg CO2 = 118 tonnes CO2 annually where CEF, expressed as kg CO2/kWh is given by an official source such as the local utility. The default value if no other estimate is available is the appropriate IPCC CEF for the country where the project takes place. Annex 6 includes a methodology for determining the CEF in cases where the utility does not calculate their own CEF and the IPCC data is not enough to determine an accurate CEF. 4. Definition of the project boundary related to the baseline methodology: (Please describe and justify the project boundary bearing in mind that it shall encompass all anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases under the control of the project participants that are significant and reasonably attributable to the project activity. Please describe and justify which gases and sources included in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol are included in the boundary and outside the boundary.) The project deals with existing facilities, so no new sources of anthropogenic emissions are being created and no new emissions will result from the project implementation either inside or outside the project boundary. The project boundary will extend from the point where the project site is responsible for PF charges, likely the step-down transformer from the main distribution lines. The project will not include the PF or energy consumption associated with end-use of the water resource once it has passed through a meter to the consumer. The project will save grid energy and will reduce Annex A gases according to the combustion efficiency and fuel source of the primary generators associated with supply to the project site. The smallest grid unit (i.e. local, state or national) should be used that will account for all generation of electricity used at the project site. There are no other associated sources of GHG emissions. 5. Assessment of uncertainties: (Please indicate uncertainty factors and how those uncertainties are to be addressed) Improved water service may lead to increased consumption of water resources. Water demand and supply may fluctuate for reasons that are outside of the scope and boundary of the project, but that is explicitly accounted for by use of the scaling factor, which calibrates current use regardless of total supply of water (which is expected to increase to satisfy unmet demand currently on the system ) or overall plant efficiency.
Data
(Indicate table and ID number e.g. 3.-1; 3.-2.)

Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low)

Are QA/QC procedures planned for these data?

Outline explanation why QA/QC procedures are or are not being planned.

3-3

Low

Yes

Power Factor meters will be properly calibrated and located on main feeder lines to measure overall PF as part of regular O&M practices

36

3-4 3-5

Low Low

Yes Yes

Demand meters will be calibrated periodically Amp meters will be calibrated periodically and recorded as part of periodic o & m practice

3-6

Low

No

Estimates will be adequate given the minimal impact this factor has on calculated savings

3-7 3-8

Low Low

No No

Same as above
A simple count can be verified during periodic plant walk-throughs Estimates will be adequate given the minimal impact this factor has on calculated savings This data should be recorded as part of normal plant activities and can be verified using logs and billing data Billing data L will be compared to audit figures both post and pre project installation. Periodic calibration of the demand meters will be carried out

3-9

Low

No

3-10

Med

Yes

3-11

Med

Yes

3-12 5-1

Med Med

Yes Yes

As same as above
This information should be available from the electrical utility. If no reliable data is available, IPCC defaults will be used.

6. Description of how the baseline methodology addresses the calculation of baseline emissions and the determination of project additionality: (Formulae and algorithms used in section 2.2) In the absence of a CDM project, commercial and industrial facilities (including public works) and particularly in the developing world, will tend to expand or maintain service levels by increasing the flow of electricity through the system to account for

37

inefficiencies, leaks, line losses, system deterioration and other losses. This will lead in the baseline case to increased reactive power losses, leading in turn to increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases associated with electricity production. Complex system analysis is not possible in a resource and capital constrained environment where the obligation of service provision can not be set aside or voluntarily reduced by the utility. Hence, power consumers will often overlook holistic solutions like the ones embodied in this project and methodology in favor of .quick fix. solutions, like over sizing pumps or drawing more power from the grid. Even if a business case can be made for certain energy efficiency improvements, market barriers and non-market prioritization (e.g. political factors) will most often prevent public and private institutions from making the necessary investments. Too often, system maintenance is carried out on an ad-hoc, responsive manner, rather than the more efficient holistic, proactive approach required for this project. Carbon financing makes it possible for the project implementer to address the system as a whole and seek energy savings through combined demand- and loss reductions. The baseline methodology looks at the current PF and assumes that current practices continue in the baseline. The savings made possible by the project intervention would not have occurred in the absence of carbon financing and are thus .additional. under the Kyoto Protocol. More on the survey is described in Section 6 of the water pumping efficiency baseline methodology above. The baseline methodology will confirm this by requiring the project developer to conduct surveys in city not just the proposed CDM activity site . In order to ascertain that the current situation with regards to PF, pumps/motors and overall system efficiency is similar in all the cities. That would confirm that these projects are not being undertaken and that the CDM activity is additional. 8. Description of how the baseline methodology addresses any potential leakage of the project activity: (Please note: Leakage is defined as the net change of anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases which occurs outside the project boundary and which is measurable and attributable to the CDM project activity.) There are no potential sources of leakages from the project activity. Failure to meet project emission reduction goals would be captured and recorded by the methodology and would account for any emissions attributable to the project. 9. Criteria used in developing the proposed baseline methodology, including an explanation of how the baseline methodology was developed in a transparent and conservative manner: The methodology used meets the following criteria: Replicable Universally applicable Uses power sector metrics Transparent and affordable verification using publicly available data No proprietary data or methodology is required 38

The methodology was developed using standard calculations of PF worldwide. The methodology does not call for unique activities or measurements and takes into account possible fluctuations in service. 10. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the baseline methodology: The methodology is simple and can cover a wide variety of PF improvement measures that would be too small to warrant their own CDM project. Since the emissions are not produced directly on site, the developer will have to rely on the quality of data from the electric utility. 10. Other considerations, such as a description of how national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances have been taken into account: The methodology asks the developer to ensure that there are not any national or sectoral policies in place that would move the proposed CDM project into the business as usual scenario. Given the tremendous opportunities for savings in PF in the developed world, it is unlikely that this would occur. ANNEX 4
NEW MONITORING METHODOLOGY

A. Proposed new monitoring methodology Improvements

for Water Pumping Efficiency

(Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including the identification of data and its quality with regard to accuracy, comparability, completeness and validity) 1. Brief description of new methodology (Please outline the main points and give a reference to a detailed description of the monitoring methodology). The water utility will be asked to continuously monitor their systems for the following data. Water exiting the system to the desired location (within the designated boundary of the project) Energy in the form of kWh required to move the water within the boundaries of the system Any structural changes to the system outside the CDM project that might affect results Carbon content of the electricity employed by the water system M3 x= total water delivered in given post project year TkWh x =total kWh required to deliver water in given post project year kWh / M3b =The baseline energy efficiency factor TCO2x/kWh =Electricity CO2 Emission factor (tonnes of CO2/kWh) (From electric utility, IPCC data or LBNL Standardized Methodology outlined in Annex 6) Carbon savings in year x= (M3x * kWh / M3b * TCO2x/kWh)- (TkWh x* TCO2x/kWh) At the completion of each year of monitoring the total water delivered will be measured as well as the total kWh required to move it. The total kWh figure will be multiplied by the carbon content per kWh figure for that year. The figure will represent the total carbon emissions for the given year. 39

This will be compared to the baseline carbon figure calculated as follows. The total water delivered in the given year will be multiplied by the baseline energy efficiency. This figure will be converted to carbon by multiplying it by the electricity emissions factor for the year in question. This will determine what the carbon emissions would have been if no efficiency improvements had been made and if real demand for the basic necessity of water was being met at the post project level. The annual CO2 reduction will be the difference between the total business as usual carbon emissions and the post project actual emissions. 2. Data to be collected or used in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived (Please add rows to the table below, as needed)
Data type ID number
(Please use numbers to ease crossreferenci ng to table 5)

Data variable

Data unit

Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e) m

Recording frequency

Proportio n of data to be monitore d

How will the data be archived? (electronic / paper) electronic

For how long is archi ved data kept?

2 years until after CERs are issued

Com ment

3-1

amount

Total water delivere d

M3

Constant

100%

3. Potential sources of emissions which are significant and reasonably attributable to the project activity, but which are not included in the project boundary, and identification if and how data will be collected and archived on these emission sources (Please add rows to the table below, as needed.)
ID number
(Please use numbers to ease crossreferencin g to table 5)

Data type

Data variable

Data unit

Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to be monitored

How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)

For how long is archi ved data kept?

Comment

40

5-1

ratio

Carbon Emissions Factor

Kg/kW h

M or C

Annuall y

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

This factor should be provided by the utility or IPCC defaults will be used

4. Assumptions used in elaborating the new methodology: (Please list information used in the calculation of emissions which is not measured or calculated, e.g. use of any default emission factors) Since the emissions savings from this project will occur at the electricity generation plant, data informing the carbon emission factor will need to be collected either from the utility or using IPCC defaults. Annex 6 includes a methodology for determining the CEF in cases where the utility does not calculate their own CEF and the IPCC data is not enough to determine an accurate CEF. 5. Please indicate whether quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for the items monitored. (see tables in sections 2 and 3 above)
Data
Indicate table and ID number e.g. 3.-1; 3.-2.)

Uncertainty level of data (High/Medium/Low)

Are QA/QC procedures planned for these data?

Outline explanation why QA/QC procedures are or are not being planned.
Meters on water lines will be properly calibrated and checked periodically for accuracy. Electricity bills will be validated based on data collection done as part of the project on major energy using devices (pumps) This information should be available from the electrical utility. If no reliable data is available, IPCC defaults will be used.

3-1

low

yes

3-2

low

yes

5-1

med

yes

6. What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of this methodology? (please outline how the accuracy and completeness of the new methodology compares to that of approved methodologies). 41

As with the baseline, the methodology is simple and can accurately capture a large array of efficiency measures. On a year to year basis the methodology does not compensate for drastic changes in weather or other factors altering supply and demand. These fluctuations are, however, likely to even out over the ten year period of the project. 7. Has the methodology been applied successfully elsewhere and, if so, in which circumstances? This is a new proposed CDM methodology, but is the industry standard in benchmarking efficiency. It has been used in places as diverse as Toronto, Canada; the State of Ceara Water utility CAGECE in Brazil (it has been adopted as standard best practice by the Brazil Water Efficiency Network BWEN); and Monterey, Mexico to track improvements in operating efficiency. B. Proposed new monitoring methodology for Power Factor Improvement (Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including the identification of data and its quality with regard to accuracy, comparability, completeness and validity) 1. Brief description of new methodology (Please outline the main points and give a reference to a detailed description of the monitoring methodology). This monitoring methodology is for assessing the carbon reductions from power factor (PF) improvement in commercial and industrial facilities (including publics works projects like water pumping or street lighting). PF is the ratio of .real power. (kW) to apparent or .total power. (kVA), expressed as a percentage (kW/kVA). Unitary PF is achieved when real power is equal to apparent power (PF = 1). The target PF for most facilities is between .85 and .95, although penalties may still be assessed for a PF lower than .9. The savings potential due to PF improvement has two components: 1. Reduction in Demand (due to improved power factor and power optimization) 2. Reduction in energy loss in cables (due to reduced current) Assessing the carbon emissions reductions from a PF improvement is a complex process. Reducing demand for an industrial or commercial facility may allow the release of contracted demand or capacity. Capacity, per se, does not translate into carbon emissions unless that capacity is used to perform work. If a PF improvement releases capacity into a grid with latent unmet demand, that capacity will simply be put to other uses, limited chiefly by distribution capacity. The savings from a PF improvement, measured in kVA or kW are therefore equivalent to the operation of a power plant with an equivalent capacity operating as a marginal plant on the grid. The complexity of determining the share of the capacity release to be allocated to Peak Power Generation and the share for Base Load Power Generation increases with the size and diversity of generation and the power grid. This methodology therefore will take a conservative and general approach to estimating the carbon savings from capacity release made possible by PF improvements. Savings from power optimization made possible through efficiency measures or system redesign also allow for the release of capacity back onto the grid. Such savings will be evaluated for their GHG impact in the same manner as savings from PF improvement. The project developer should not include any power optimization (e.g. release of kVA demand that is not due to PF improvement) in the baseline or savings case if that optimization or measure would have been implemented in the absence of project activities. Release of Contract Demand does not constitute a release of capacity onto the grid unless actual facility demand savings are achieved through the optimization measure. The general formula for calculating the capacity released through PF improvement is: 42

kVAs = [kVAb * (1- b / x)] + kVApo Where: kVAs = Capacity Savings released to the grid through PF improvement kVAb = Baseline kVA demand for the facility or for a particular unit in the project boundary (e.g. a particular pump) b = Baseline PF, measured or from power utility billing records x = PF in post project period x, measured or from power utility billing records kVApo = kVA savings from power optimization made possible by energy efficiency measures in conjunction with PF improvement To account for changes in production efficiency or volume, a scaling factor must be introduced: kVAb = ( x / b) * kVAmx With the same factors as above and where: kVAmx = metered demand for the facility or unit within the project boundary in period x Combining the two equations above yields the scaled formula for calculating capacity released through PF improvement: kVAs = [( x / b) * kVAmx * (1- b / x)] + kVApo The formula above is applicable in all cases, including situations where plant efficiency is improved at the same time as PF improvements are made. To calculate the carbon emissions savings from demand savings through PF improvement in post project period x, the capacity released is converted into kWh and multiplied by the appropriate CEF: [CO2 Emissions Reductions]x = kVAs * .8 * Hx * CEFx Where: 1 kVA = .8 kW Hx = operating hours for the plant or facility in post project period x CEFx = Appropriate carbon emissions factor for post project period x (From electric utility, IPCC data or LBNL Standardized Methodology outlined in Annex 6) The carbon emissions due to direct Energy Savings is calculated according to the following formula: [CO2 Emissions Reductions]ES = kWhES x CEFb With the same factors as above and where: Ix = Line current in amps for period x = [Ib * ( b / x)] LLF =.Loss load factor = 0.3 (Load Factor) + (0.7) (Load Factor)2 [Load Factor] = Average Load/Peak Load L = Length of Cable in meters N = No. of Cable runs R = Cable resistance in ohms/meter kWhES = kWhEL - [(3 x I2R x LLF x L x Hx kWh )/(N x 1000)] kWhEL = Baseline Energy Losses The total carbon emissions reductions attributable to PF improvement is given by the formula: [Total CO2 Emissions Reductions]s = [kWhES + (kVAs * .8 *Hx)] * CEFx The following example illustrates the calculations for energy savings due to above two components and for the required kVAr to improve the power factor. Example: The parameters required to calculate the annual energy savings due to power factor improvement are as follows (this example has no direct link to a particular project): 43

Measured Total Current, A 88 Cable Size, Sq.mm 150 Cable Resistance, ohms/meter 0.000124 Number of Runs of Cable 1 Cable Length, m 20 Annual Operating Hours 8760 Baseline Power Factor 0.75 Post project Power Factor 0.95 Operating Load, kW 45 Average Load, kW 40 Peak Load 60 Baseline kVA 64 Measured kVA 51 CEF kg/kWh 1.052 (i) The kVAr requirement for improving the power factor is given by Required kVAr = kW [tan (cos-1 b) - tan (cos-1 x)] where b = Baseline PF x = post project PF in period x Required kVAr = 45 [tan (cos-1(0.75) - tan (cos-1(0.95)] = 25 kVAr (ii) Load Factor = Average Load / Peak Load = 40/60= 0.67 Loss Load Factor = 0.3 (Load Factor) + (0.7) (Load Factor)2= 0.3 x 0.67 + 0.7 x (0.67)2 = 0.51 (iii) Annual energy losses in the cables Annual Energy loss with baseline PF = 3 x (88)2 x 0.000124 x 0.51 x 20 x 8760 / (1 x 1000) = 258 kWh New Current after PF improvement= Baseline current x (present PF/Proposed PF) = 88 x (0.75 / 0.95) = 69 A Annual Energy loss with improved Power factor = 3 x (69)2 x 0.000124 x 0.51 x 20 x 8760 / (1 x 1000) = 158 kWh Annual Reduction in Energy loss in cables = kWhES = 259 . 158 = 100 kWh Note: Normally, if the annual saving potential due to energy loss reduction in cables is very low (due to short length of cable), it can neglected in final calculations. (iv) Reduction in kVA = kVAs = [( x / b) * kVAmx * (1- b / x)] + kVApo = (.95/.75) *51 kVA x [1 . (0.75/0.95)] + [0 kVA] = 13 kVA (v) Conversion of kVA savings to kW savings = kWs =kVAs * (.8) =13 kVAs * (.8) = 10.4 kWs (vi) Calculation of equivalent energy consumption/generation in kWh = kWh =kW x Hx =10.4 * 8760 = 91,104 kWh where Hx = annual operating hours is from the plant or facility where the excess capacity is required. (vii) Calculation of carbon emissions reduction = CO2s =[kWhES + (kVAs * .8 *Hx)] * CEFx =[100 kWh + 91,104 kWh]* 1.052 kg/kWh = 95,852 kg-CO2 = 96 tons CO2 annually where CEF, expressed as kg/kWh is given by an official source such as the local utility. The default value if no other estimate is available is the appropriate IPCC value for the CEF for the country where the project takes place. Annex 6 includes a methodology for determining the CEF in cases where the utility does not calculate their own CEF and the IPCC data is not enough to determine an accurate CEF. 2. Data to be collected or used in order to monitor emissions from the project activity, and how this data will be archived 44

(Please add rows to the table below, as needed)

ID number Data type Data variable Data unit Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e)
m or c kW/kV A

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to be monitored

How will the data be archived?

For how long is archived data kept?

Comment

3-3

ratio

Power factor measurements for facility

Monthly

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

This may be measured for the entire facility or for individual circuits within the project boundary Same as above (3-3)

3-4

Amount

Demand measurements

kW or kVA

Monthly

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued 2 years until after CERs are issued

3-5

amount

Total Current

Amps

M or C

Constant

100%

Electronic

3-6

Size

Cable Size,

Sq.mm

m Annually

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

Any changes to cables during the project year must be recorded and accounted for in the calculations

3-7

Ratio

Cable resistance

ohms/ meter

M or C

Annually

30%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

As same as above

3-8

number

Number of Runs of Cable

Annually M

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

Same above

as

45

3-9

Length

Cable Length,

Meter

M or C

Annually

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

Same above

as

3-10

Amount

Operating Hours

Hours

M or C

monthly

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

Provided by project facility backed up by records and logs

3-11

Amount

Average Load

kW

Annually

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issue

3-12

Amount

Peak Load

KW

annually

100%

Electronic

2 years until after CERs are issued

Same as above (3-11)

3. Potential sources of emissions which are significant and reasonably attributable to the project activity, but which are not included in the project boundary, and identification if and how data will be collected and archived on these emission sources (Please add rows to the table below, as needed.)
ID number
(Please use numbers to ease crossreferenci ng to table 5)

Data type

Data variable

Data unit

Measured (m), calculated (c) or estimated (e) M orC

Recording frequency

Proportion of data to be monitored

How will the data be archived? (electronic/ paper)

Electronic

For how long is archive d data kept?

2 years until after CERs are issued

C o m m e n t

5-1

Ratio

Carbon Emissions Factor

Kg/kW h

Annually

100%

4. Assumptions used in elaborating the new methodology: (Please list information used in the calculation of emissions which is not measured or calculated, e.g. use of any default emission factors) The carbon emissions factor will need to be based on data from the electric utility or use IPCC data as a default. 5. Please indicate whether quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures are being undertaken for the items monitored. (see tables in sections 2 and 3 above)
Data
(Indicate table and ID

Uncertainty level of data

Are procedures

QA/QC

Outline explanation why QA/QC procedures are or are not being

46

number e.g. 3.-1; 3.-2.)

(High/Medium/Low)

planned data?

for

these

planned.

3-3

Low

Yes

Power Factor meters will be properly calibrated and located on main feeder lines to measure overall PF as part of regular O&M practices Demand meters periodically will be calibrated

3-4 3-5

Low Low

Yes Yes

Amp meters will be calibrated periodically and measurements will be taken and recorded as part of periodic O&M practices Estimates will be adequate given the minimal impact this factor has on calculated savings Same as above A simple count can be verified during periodic plant walk-throughs Estimates will be adequate given the minimal impact this factor has on calculated savings This data should be recorded as part of normal plant activities and can be verified using logs and billing data Billing data from utility will be compared to audit figures both post and pre project installation. Periodic calibration of the demand meters will be carried out Same as above (3-11) This information should be available the utility. If no reliable data is available, IPCC defaults will be used.

3-6

Low

No

3-7 3-8 3-9

Low Low Low

No No No

3-10

Med

Yes

3-11

Med

Yes

3-12 5-1

Med Med

Yes Yes

5. What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of this methodology? (please outline how the accuracy and completeness of the new methodology compares to that of approved methodologies). All of the calculations of savings and information regarding GHG emissions conforms with industry standards and practices. There is a benefit to power grids, particularly in developing countries, to the release of capacity for other productive uses. This methodology seeks to capture that benefit in terms of the carbon emissions reductions, even in the presence of increasing demand. If the developing 15 world is to participate on an equal footing in a global GHG trading schemes, they must have the flexibility to take advantage of such opportunities. A potential weakness of this methodology is the complexity of the generation system and therefore the ability to predict the end result of any capacity savings on generation mix and GHG emissions. This is especially true in situations where the electric utility does not calculate their carbon emissions factor. 47

7. Has the methodology been applied successfully elsewhere and, if so, in which circumstances? Power Factor improvement has been practiced throughout the developing world as well as the developed world. In Ghana, the Energy Foundation of Ghana has worked successfully to release capacity through efficiency as a means of overcoming chronic power shortages and to provide the utility with the ability to expand service. The calculations for PF improvement are from standard industry formulae.

Annex 5 Table: Baseline Data

Data CEF2002 = CO2/kWh 1.052 kg source From UNFCCC

Total kWh used by water system

Data source: electrical utility confirmed by water utility bills

Data source: electrical Data source water utility of each city utility confirmed by water utility bills

Annex 6: Other References UNFCCC and IPCC web site (http://www.bee-india.com/iipec/introduction.html), (http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html)
www.qualitytonnes.com(Energy Efficiency Improvements in Municipal Water Utilities in Karnataka, India) Mr. K.N.Sharma (Secretariat) Mr. Vinod Krishnia,(Aen, JDA, J.L.N, Marg, Jaipur) PHED, Bajaj Nagar Jaipur Mr. Anil Kr Sharma(Exen) Mr. D.P. bansal(Aen) Mr. B.L Gupta(TA,Aen) Mr. Arun Kumar Shreewastav (Aen) Smt Anju (Aen,TA) Mr. Sandeep Kr Sharma (Jen Surat Garh Power Plant) Mr.T.C. Malakar(TA) PHED (Paratap Nagar) Mr. Rajendra Gupta (Aen JDA Depu.) Staff, Mahesh Nagar Pumping Station.

Annex 7
Technology Specific Savings Estimate based on Energy Efficiency Audits 48

Technology Specific Savings Estimate based on Energy Efficiency Audits In order to estimate the energy efficiency potential in the water utilities, an energy audit was undertaken of some specific energy intensive processes. The energy savings estimates outlined below, form the basis of the expected improvement in the energy efficiency ratio and PF improvements outlined in the PDD. Terms: ML: Million liters MLD: Million liters per day MGD: Million gallons per day kVA: kilovolt-amperes

MAHESH NAGAR Water Pumping Stations Table#1 Parameters

Total Population ( in units of 100,000) Present processing rate Intermediate - Present processing rate before WTP Water per person (excluding bore well) Baseline energy consumption,lakh kWh (Total tube well- 19*12HP Power consumed by tube well pumpHigh power pump -2*60 Low power pump - 2*45)Total Cost of electricity Cost of energy per ML supplied Rs Estimated P.F. Achievable P.F.

Mahesh Nagar .43,243Lac 6.4 MLD 6.4 MLD 148 L

9.9LKWh + 9.14LKWh 19.04KWh 119.01LRs./Annum

5103.4Rs .87 .95

49

The Pumping Station has four pumps of which two pumps are operated to lift the water to the Intermediate Pumping Station. The water pumping scheme is installed to process 10 LLD. The present water pumping from the tube Well is 6.4 MLD., The pumps consume only 87 % energy as useful energy of rated capacity. The output of the pumps can be enhanced by changing the control valve to the required size along with modifying the header system at a later after seeing the improvement in the performance.

Installation of capacitors to improve P.F and reduce demand:

The present average power factor is 0.87. The installation has paid penalty for low power factor for three times in the last year. The low power factor of the installation resulted in increased demand which is above the minimum billing demand. P.F can be achieved .95. Power factor can be augmented by installation new capacitor of rated capacity. Table#2 Total power( 438HP) 326.61 KW Operating Hours Power consumed Useable Energy Achievable Energy Saved energy 16 5225.86KWh/Day 4546.50KWh/Day 4964.50KWh/Day 1.53LKWh/Annum

Emission Reduction =Energy saving *E.F. = 1.53LKWh*1.052KgCo2/KWh =1.61LKgCo2 =161Ton of Co2 Saving : Table#3 Total CER Earning by P.F. 161 Cost of CER Pound 16 Total Saving Rs. 154560 Whole Jaipur city Calculation Table #4
Total no. of water tanks of 10LLD Total population Covered Total CER Crediting 28 1210804(approx.) 4508

Saved money (154,560*10)Rs. Leakage Loss (Jaipur city) : Table#5

4,327,680

50

Total no. of Tube-well Total water delivered (L) Approximately Leakage

units per LL)

1635 3956LL/day 395.6LL/day Energy required to pump 1LL of water (kWh 53.2 Co2 reduction Saving in Rs(1Tonco2=16u) 22.141Co2/day=8081.6TonCo2/year 7758300.06Rs

Enhancement of Output and improvement in efficiency of: The overall efficiency of the pumps when operating in parallel is 65.1%, which is less when compared to achievable operating efficiency of above 75%. The output can be enhanced by improvement in efficiency Water supply By Elevated Small Water Tanks (capacity 50,000L) Table#6 Total no. of water tank Total population (Approx. ) Water delivered Energy consumption/LL Total energy consumption Total water leakage Energy lose by leakage Co2 reduction(Leakage) CER Crediting: Table#7 Total Co2 reduction CER Value (1CER=16) Total saving 32 10 Lac 1480LL/day 53.2 78736KWh/annum 145L/day 7714KWh/day=2815610KWh/annum 2962TonCo2/year

2962Ton 2962 2843540.8Rs 28Lac

Table#8 Grant Total Co2 reduction Total CER Earned 1TonCo2/CER=16Uro=960Rs

15712.6TonCo2/year 15712.6
51

Grant total money Saved

1.51Cror

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF JAIPUR CITY

Present Population Connected population

30.38Lac 27.25Lac 4087.5LL 3956LL 3956LL 85LL 58LL 148L 1635 2477 1650 By filter plant and Chlorination Chlorination 85 84 Aug2008 299899 294928 6953 254481 38662 1785 1170 110447 31.21Cror 84.40Cror 44.00Cror 36.44Cror .27Cror 1.91Cror

By water supply Demand of water Water Drawn 1. By tube well 2. Hand-pump 3. by water Tank Per person water consumption Presently water resources 1. Tube well 2. Hand Pump 3. Tanker Trips/day Water purification 1. From RamGarh Bandh 2. By Tube well No. of Clean water resources NO. high resources Total Water connection 1. connected water connection 2. Mitered water connection 3. Flat rate connection Domestic water connection Commercial water connection Industrial connections Public tape (1/2 Run meters water connection) Avg. Revenue from water Connection/year Total spent (Rs)in year 2007-08 1. Electricity burden/year 2. Salary & allowances/year 3. Chemical Expenses/year 4. Pumping &machinery Maintenance

52

5. Others Expenses total Expenses on water 1. Total expenses on 1 kl water 2. According to Bill Made

2.22Cror 6.47Rs 10.55

53