Annex I
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
1) Title of project:
Liepa boiler conversion project, Latvia
2) Participants/actors:
|
Item
|
Financier/Reporter
|
Latvian co-reporter
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
Statens Energimyndighet
|
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Swedish National Energy Administration
|
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia
|
|
Department:
|
Division for Eastern Europe- EAES Programme
|
environmental protection Department
|
|
Acronym:
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
SNEA
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Assigned by the Swedish Government for Implementation including financing arrangements.
|
Latvian Climate Responsible Organisation
|
|
Street:
|
Liljeholmsvägen 32
|
Peldu Str. 25
|
|
Post code:
|
S-117 86
|
LV 1494
|
|
City:
|
Stockholm
|
Riga
|
|
Country:
|
Sweden
|
Latvia
|
|
Telephone:
|
+46-8-681 96 07
|
+371-7 026 508
|
|
Fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
+371-7 820 442
|
|
E-mail:
|
gudrun.knutsson@stem.se
|
erna@varam.gov.lv
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
http://www.stem.se
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Westermark
|
Apene
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Sune
|
Ingrid
|
|
Job title:
|
senior officer
|
senior official
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+46-8-681 95 39
|
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+46-8-681 96 67
|
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
sune.westermark@stem.se
|
|
|
Borrower
|
|
Name of organisation(a):
|
|
|
Name of organisation (English):
|
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Borrower
|
|
Street:
|
Smilsu Street1
|
|
Post code:
|
LV1919
|
|
City:
|
Riga
|
|
Country:
|
Latvia
|
|
Telephone:
|
+371- 7 226 672
|
|
Fax:
|
+371-7 820 010
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
|
|
Surname:
|
Rancans
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Andris
|
|
Job title:
|
Town mayor
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+371-41-95 505
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+371-41-20 113
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization(a):
|
|
AF Energikonsult Syd AB
|
|
Name of organization (English):
|
Riga Technical University
|
|
|
Department:
|
|
|
|
Acronym:
|
|
|
|
Acronym (English):
|
|
|
|
Function within activity:
|
Project evaluator
|
Technical support
|
|
Street:
|
Kronovalda Boulv. 1
|
Stensjögatan 3
|
|
Post code:
|
LV 4100
|
S-217 65
|
|
City:
|
Riga
|
MALMÖ
|
|
Country:
|
LATVIA
|
SWEDEN
|
|
Telephone:
|
+371-7 089 923
|
+46-40-37 50 00
|
|
Fax:
|
+371-7 089 923
|
+46-40-13 90 38
|
|
E-mail:
|
|
|
|
WWW-URL:
|
|
|
|
Contact person (for this activity):
|
-------------------------------------
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
Surname:
|
Blumberga
|
Martensson
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Dagnija
|
Roland
|
|
Job title:
|
Professor
|
project leader
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+371 7 210 597
|
+46-40-37 51 04
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+372-7 210 597
|
+46-40-13 03 69
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
eko@mail.bkc.lv
|
rmn@ens.af.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:
|
Liepa is a small town situated in western Latvia. There is one main network with two boiler plants.
The alternative is to supply the town with heat, based on mazout, from the brick factory 1,500
meters from the town. The annual heat production in the town is 16,800 MWh.
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
Renewable energy
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Liepa Town
Cesis region
Latvia
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
August 18, 1997 (Letter of Intent)
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
Loan expire date 31 March 2007
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
Completed
|
|
Lifetime of activity if different from ending date:c)
|
Expected technical lifetime is 15 years which means that the plant is expected to be in operation
till 2012.
|
|
Technical data:d)
|
Erection of a new biofuel fired boiler and refurbishment of an existing one. The new boiler will
have the capacity of 2 MW and the renovated will be 1.5 MW. Automatic fuel storage and flue gas
cleaning equipment are also included in the project. A new pre-insulated pipeline will be installed
to connect the boiler house with the network. The annual heat production amounts to 16,000 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)/
|
1,23
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs)/
|
-19,49
|
US$/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$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs) /
|
-19,49
|
US$/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)/
|
-18,26
|
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 the Swedish side intended that upon agreement with a central Latvian 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 co-operation
with SNEA’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 Latvian Energy Law:
- efficient use of energy resources;
- 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 emissions reduction compared with the baseline scenario
5,800 ton CO2
19 ton SO2
3.2 ton Nox
Boiler plant is firing sawmill waste which earlier was taken to forest.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of environmental benefits?
|
No
|
|
Describe social/cultural benefits in detail:
|
More stable energy supply.
Improved working conditions, increased motivation.
The boiler plant can use the waste from sawmills in neighbourhood.
Improved trade balance.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
No
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Decreased fuel costs approx. 4 USD/MWh
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of economic benefits?
|
No
|
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):
The existing boilers were fired manually with wooden logs. The boilers were worn out with a very low
efficiency and would have been closed down within the next year. It can be considered probable that mazout
would have been the main fuel delivered as hot water from the brick factory. Emissions are calculated from
the elementary analysis of the assumed fuels. The produced amount of energy is 16,000 MWh, which would give
a total CO2 emission during the technical lifetime of 62,900 ton.
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
Emissions are calculated from the ultimate analysis of the assumed fuels. This activity creates no
leakages. The heat production will be 16.000 MWh based on biofuel.
Fill in the following tables as applicable:
Summary table: Projected emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
=1997
|
Year 2
=1998
|
Year 3
=1999
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Energy production at plant based upon the baseline MWh/year)
|
|
4,000
|
16,000
|
16,000
|
|
16,000
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
1,104
|
4,416
|
4,416
|
|
4,416
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-1,104
|
-4,416
|
-4,416
|
|
-4,416
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-1,104
|
-5,520
|
-9,936
|
|
-62,928
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
The first boiler was taken into operation during autumn 1997.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions:
|
GHG
|
Year 1
= 1997
|
Year 2
= 1998
|
Year 3
=1999
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Factual energy production on biofuels (MWh/year)
|
|
4,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
1,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-1,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-1,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
* Estimated values, the first boiler was taken into operation during autumn 1997 and the second during
spring 1998.
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
|
207.500
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistance
|
53.333
|
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) NUTEK’s technical specialist support to the local project leader and municipality.
iii) Personal from boiler plant has been invited to different seminars and work-shops,
documentation for training has been handed over.
iv) Boiler plant is active in "bio club".
|
Endogenous capacity supported or enhanced:
|
Endogenous capacity
(Name of organization1)
|
Development (DEV) /
enhancement (ENH)
|
Describe briefly
|
|
(DEV)
|
|
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:
4) Impacts encountered:
5) Other obstacles encountered:
6) Other:
