Annex I
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
1) Title of project:
Energy efficiency in Mustamäe, Estonia.
2) Participants/actors:
|
Item
|
Financier/Reporter
|
Estonian co-reporter
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
Statens Energimyndighet
|
Eesti Vabariigi Keskkonnaministeerium
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Swedish National Energy Administration
|
Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Estonia
|
|
Department:
|
Division for Eastern Europe- EAES Programme
|
International Relation development
|
|
Acronym:
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Assigned by the Swedish Government for Implementation including financing arrangements.
|
Estonian Climate responsible Organisation
|
|
Street:
|
Liljeholmsvägen 32
|
Toompuiestee 24
|
|
Post code:
|
S-117 86
|
EE 0100
|
|
City:
|
Stockholm
|
Tallinn
|
|
Country:
|
Sweden
|
ESTONIA
|
|
Telephone:
|
+46-8-681 96 07
|
|
|
Fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
|
|
E-mail:
|
Gudrun.knutsson@stem.se
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
http://www.stem.se
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Westermark
|
Kratovits
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Sune
|
Andres
|
|
Job title:
|
senior officer
|
councellor
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+46-8-681 95 39
|
+372-62 62 841
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
+372-62 62 845
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
sune.westermark@stem.se
|
andres@ekm.envir.ee
|
|
Borrower
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Estonian Investment Bank
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Borrower
|
|
Street:
|
Narva mnt. 7 P.O. BOX 26
|
|
Post code:
|
EE 0090
|
|
City:
|
Tallinn
|
|
Country:
|
Estonia
|
|
Telephone:
|
+372-620 0800
|
|
Fax:
|
+372-620 0801
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
|
|
Surname:
|
Vanaselja
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Tauno
|
|
Job title:
|
Finance director
|
|
Direct tel:
|
|
|
Direct fax:
|
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization(a):
|
|
byggDirigent
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
Institute of Energy Research
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Project evaluator
|
|
|
Street:
|
Paldiski Road 1
|
Technical support
|
|
Post code:
|
EE 0001
|
S-421 30
|
|
City:
|
Tallinn
|
Västra Frölunda
|
|
Country:
|
ESTONIA
|
SWEDEN
|
|
Telephone:
|
+372-2-45 03 03
|
+46 31 49 03 60
|
|
Fax:
|
+372-2-45 24 35
|
+46-31-47 25 33
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Vares
|
Pahapill
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Villu
|
Taavi
|
|
Job title:
|
Professor
|
project leader
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+372-6-205 505
|
+46-31- 49 03 60
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372-6-532 446
|
+46-31-47 25 33
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
taavi.pahapill@projektsamordning.muth.se
|
|
|
|
a) Organisation includes: institutions, ministries, companies, non-governmental organisations, etc.
involved in the activity, i.e. research institutes associated with the project, auditors, government agency
closely following the activity.
3) Activity:
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
General description:
|
Mustamäe District of Tallinn was built in the 1960’s and 1970’s. There live about
80,000 inhabitants in 20,000 flats. The 15 buildings in this project, with a total of 1,500 flats
were built in 1964-65. The framework is pre-cast concrete elements and walls are of plastered
lightweight concrete. The roofs are flat and have many leaks causing considerable energy losses.
The buildings have open and one-pipe heating systems connected to the district-heating network.
There are no control possibilities available in the substations or in the apartments. Ventilation
consists of natural draught. The buildings are owned by co-operativs.
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
Energy efficiency
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Mustamäe district
Tallinn town
ESTONIA
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
24 september 1996 (Loan agreement)
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
Loan expire date 15 March 2002
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
Ongoing
|
|
Lifetime of activity if different from ending date:c)
|
Expected technical lifetime is 20 years which operation till 2017
|
|
Technical data:d)
|
The actions are various and will consist of the following measures, renovation and insulation of
the roofs, renovation of wall elements joints, insulation of gable sections, installation of new
substations with control equipment and heat exchangers for both heating and domestic hot water,
hydraulic balancing by means of balancing valves in the risers, installation of thermostatic
radiator valves and chemical cleaning of the internal heating system.
The estimated energy savings is approximately 24 % which gives about 4,800 MWh.
|
a) For example, using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) classification: energy efficiency;
renewable energy; fuel switching; forest preservation, restoration or reforestation; afforestation;
fugitive gas capture; industrial processes; solvents; agriculture; waste disposal or bunker fuels.
b) Circle the appropriate option.
c) Methodological work will be required to define lifetime of activities.
- Methodological work will be required to determine for each type of activity what the minimum
data requirements are.
Heat production plants (bio fuel)
|
25 years
|
New installation of all main equipment parts (fuel handling system, firing equipment and boiler)
and modernisation of secondary equipment.
|
|
15 years
|
Conversion of existing boiler but new installation fuel handling system and firing equipment.
Modernisation of secondary equipment.
|
|
10 years
|
Limited installation of new equipment (only one part of the three main parts, normally the firing
equipment). Modernisation of other equipment.
|
Heat distribution systems and sub-stations
|
25 years
|
Pre-fabricated pipes including western installation supervision
|
|
15 years
|
Pre-fabricated pipes including local installation supervision
|
|
10 years
|
Modernisation of existing pipes.
|
4) Cost (to the extent possible):
The cost analysis is based on a model developed within the framework of an expert group set up by the
Nordic Council of Ministers and presented in the report TemaNord:564. The calculations include:
1. How would the CO2 emissions have developed without the investment from the investor country,
i.e. determination of a reference alternative.
2. The investment cost of the project.
3. Differences in operation costs before and after the investment.
4. Changes in other economic conditions, e-g- reduction of other environmentally damaging emissions.
5. The time before the project would have been implemented anyhow, or the economic lifetime of the project
if it is reasonable to expect that the project alternatively would not have been implemented within the
period in question.
The more detailed calculations are found in the table enclosed as the last page to this project report.
|
Swedish National Energy Administration's costs
|
|
NPV(Swedish net costs)/
|
10,19
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs)/
|
4,92
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient's action - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient country's economic costs
|
|
NPV(recipient country's economic costs) /
|
0,00
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs) /
|
-4,26
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient's and recipient country's action case - baseline
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
Overall costs
|
|
NPV(all costs)/
|
5,27
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of all costs for SNEA, recipient, and recipient country's action case - baseline
case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
5) Mutually agreed assessment procedures:
|
Describe the procedures, including name of organizations involveda):
|
|
It is from teh Swedish side intended that upon agreement with a central Estonian authority on
reporting of JI-projects, this authority will assign a local organisation, which will be involved
in the evaluation of the climate effects of this project. After an initial work in cooperation with
STEM’s assigned consultant, this local organisation would take the main responsibility the
continued measuring for JI-reporting.
|
a) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organizations mentioned is reported under
section A.2 above.
B. Governmental acceptance, approval or endorsement
Bearing in mind that all activities implemented jointly under this pilot phase require prior acceptance,
approval or endorsement by the Governments of the Parties participating in these activities, which shall be
shown as follows:
(a) In the case of joint reporting, the report is submitted by the designated national authority of one
participating Party with the concurrence of all other participating Parties as evidenced by attached
letters issued by the relevant national authorities;
(b) In the case of separate reporting, the reports are submitted separately by the designated national
authority of each and every participating Party. Information will only be compiled once reports have been
received from all participating Parties.
1) For the activity:
First report.
2) This report is a joint report:
3) General short comment by the government(s) if applicable:
cf. Annex II, section B
C. Compatibility with and supportiveness of national economic development and socio economic and
environment priorities and strategies
|
Describe (to the extent possible) how the activity is compatible with and supportive of national
economic development and socio economic and environment priorities and strategies
|
|
The following objectives in the Estonian Energy Law:
- efficient use of energy resources;
-
n creation and usage of energy efficient technologies, fuel/energy consuming and diagnostic
equipment, construction and insulation materials; energy flow metering and control devices,
automated energy consumption control systems;
|
D. Benefits derived from the activities implemented jointly project
Whenever possible, quantitative information should be provided. Failing that, a qualitative description
should be given. If quantitative information becomes available, it could be submitted using the update(s).
(If the amount of quantitative information is too large, the source could be indicated.)
|
Item
|
Please fill in
|
|
Describe environmental benefits in detail:
|
Annual emission reductions based on 4,800 MWh savings from the baseline scenario.
1,326 ton CO2
21,3 ton SO2
2.4 ton NOx
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?
|
No.
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
The inhabitants have become much more aware of environmental aspects. Inhabitants and neighbors
find that they can see "the light in the tunnel" - they have common positive issues to
discuss. This creates of course unity and identity.The process give also as result a
form of self-identity and proudness to take part in the evolution. Looking at the actors in the
process from local manager to architects, engineers, suppliers they receive an example how to act
commercially and at the same time keep the ethic in business.
Much better comfort thanks to a 2-30C higher inside temperature.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
Yes, some studies has been curried out
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Decreased energy consumption between 8-30 %. The experiences from this project encouraged the
actors to go further with new projects. For example the whole Mustamäe District will have new
substations in the end of the year 1997.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits?
|
Yes, some studies has been curried out
|
E. Calculation of the contribution of activities implemented jointly projects that bring about real,
measurable and long-term environmental benefits related to the mitigation of climate change that would not
have occurred in the absence of such activities
1) Estimated emissions without the activity (project baseline):
Annual heat supply would continue to have been provided with district heating based on mazout. For the
comparison of emission reduction, only the saved energy is used as the source of emissions for the baseline
calculation. It is assumed that the inhabitants in the co-operatives would have done energy savings
measures by themselves. The annual savings would be 3 % for three years starting 2 years from the start of
this project. The energy reduction made would thus be 10 %. Emissions are calculated from elementary
analysis of the assumed fuels.
The amount of CO2 emitted without the project during the technical lifespan is 17,070 ton.
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
Annual heat is provided with district heating based on mazout. The annual energy savings is estimated to 55
kWh/m2 and 87,000 m2, giving 4,800 MWh in savings. The emissions are calculated from
the elementary analysis of the assumed fuels.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reduction s:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
=1997
|
Year 2
=1998
|
Year 3
=1999
|
Year 4
=2000
|
Year 15
|
|
Planned energy saving MWh/year
|
|
1,600
|
3,200
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
442
|
857
|
1,248
|
1,210
|
1,210
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-442
|
-857
|
-1,248
|
-1,210
|
-1,210
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-442
|
-1,299
|
-2,547
|
-3,757
|
-17,070
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Includes indirect GHG leakages.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions :
|
GHG
|
Year 1
= 1997*
|
Year 2
= 1998
|
Year 3
=1999
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Factual energy saving MWh per year
|
|
1,600
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
442
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-442
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-442
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
* Estimated values, the parts of the project was done and commissioned during 1997.
F. Additionality to financial obligations of Parties included in Annex II to the Convention within the
framework of the financial mechanism as well as to current official development assistance flows
Please indicate all sources of project funding.
|
Category of funding
(For each source one line)
|
Amount
(US dollars)
|
|
Loan from NUTEK
|
400,000
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistans
|
160,000
|
1 USD = 7.50 SEK
G. Contribution to capacity building, transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how to
other Parties, particularly developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the
Convention. In this process, the developed country Parties shall support the development and enhancement of
endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties
|
Transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how
|
Describe briefly
|
|
Schematically, the transfer of knowledge involves the following activities over time:
i) Technology transfer through NUTEKs technical specialist during the implementation of the
project.
ii) Technology transfer through cooperation between foreign supplier and local partner
iii) Conferences, seminars, documentation and training.
iv) Stimulate "net-working" for the exchange of experience between plant owners with
similar problems, e g "bio-clubs"
|
technology transfer has taken place through
i) NUTEKs technical specialist support to the local project leader and municipality. ii) Technology
transfer through cooperation between foreign consultants, supplier and local consultant and
building constructor.
- iii) information and meetings with personal involved in the project and the tenants
iv) Stimulate cooperation with local experts, consultants to achieve two-way communication and
to find respect for chosen solutions from both sides.
i) Involve professional groups besides energy experts i.e. architects, construction engineers,
fire security experts and so on to achieve optimal solutions and to secure other aspects such
as esthetical view.
|
Endogenous capacity supported or enhanced:
|
Endogenous capacity
(Name of organization1)
|
Development (DEV) /
enhancement (ENH)
|
Describe briefly
|
|
(DEV)
|
The local project leader has been an important person who continues the energy efficiency projects
in larger scale and informs other interested. The representatives for the cooperatives have become
important references for others.
|
1) Please ensure that detailed contact information for all organizations listed is reported under section
A.2 above .
H. Additional comments, if any, including any practical experience gained or technical difficulties,
effects, impacts or other obstacles encountered
Fill in as appropriate:
-
Any practical experience gained:
-
Technical difficulties:
-
Effects encountered:
Apartments in renovated houses have a higher market value compared with not renovated so much as 35-70 $
/m2
4) Impacts encountered:
5) Other obstacles encountered:
6) Other:
