Annex I
UNIFORM REPORTING FORMAT:
ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED JOINTLY UNDER THE PILOT PHASE
List of
Projects
A. Description of project
1) Title of project:
District heating network rehabilitation in Talsi, 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):
|
Talsi Town Council and Talsi Bio-Energia SIA
|
|
Surname:
|
Zalupe
|
|
First name, middle name:
|
Juris
|
|
Job title:
|
director of Talsi bio Energija
|
|
Direct tel:
|
+371-32-22736
|
|
Direct fax:
|
+371-35-32003
|
|
Direct E-mail:
|
|
|
Item
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
Please fill in if applicable
|
|
Name of organization(a):
|
|
ÅF 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
|
Mårtensson
|
|
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:
|
Talsi is a town located 150 km west of Riga with 13,000 inhabitants. The distribution system is an
old worn out 4 pipe system. One boiler has been converted to biofuel financed by EBRD. Total energy
production in town is 33,100 MWh
|
|
Type of project:a)
|
District heating rehabilitation project
|
|
Location (exact, e.g. city, region,
state):
|
Talsi Town
Talsi region
Latvia
|
|
Activity starting date:
|
August 18, 1997 (Letter of Intent)
|
|
Expected activity ending date:
|
Loan expire date :September 30, 2003
|
|
Stage of activity:b)
|
on-going
|
|
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)
|
24 new substations with heat exchangers for the domestic hot water production and temperature
control equipment will be installed. The existng pipelines will be exchanged to pre-insulated
pipeline with smaller dimensions. A total amount of 1,170 MWh heat is saved by the project.
|
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.
|
-
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)/
|
6,34
|
US$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for NUTEK/SNEA
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
recipient's costs
|
|
NPV(recipient's net costs)/
|
16,86
|
US$/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$/ton
|
defined as NPV of costs for recipient country's action case - baseline case
|
|
Emission Reduction comp. base-line
|
(NOTE! negative value is profit)
|
per tonne of CO2 saved compared to baseline scenario during the project's economic
life
|
|
total costs in recipient country
|
|
NPV(recipient country's total costs) /
|
16,86
|
US$/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)/
|
23,20
|
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
lifetime
|
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 Latvia 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 Latvia 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 emission reductions from savings by the project activity.
320 ton CO2
3.5 ton SO2
0.7 ton NOx
|
|
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.
Better indoor climate in buildings.
Improved supply of domestic hot water to inhabitants.
|
|
Do quantitative data exist for evaluation of social benefits?
|
No
|
|
Describe economic benefits in detail:
|
Decreased energy losses
|
|
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):
No energy savings would have been made without the EAES-project. The fuel mix is 40 % mazout and 60 %
biofuels. The biofuels is 1/3 of peat and 2/3 of wood chips and sawdust. The total emission of CO2 from the
baseline scenario during the technical lifetime of the project is 4,640 ton. Emissions are calculated from
the elementary analysis of the assumed fuels
2) Estimated emissions with the activity:
The amount of energy saved is 1,170 MWh, with efficiency of 70 % the amount of fuel saved will be 1,003 MWh
bio fuel and 669 MWh mazout. The bio fuel consists of 1/3 peat and 2/3 sawdust and wooden chips. The
reduction of peat is 334 MWh and 665 MWh from wood. 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
=1998
|
Year 2
=1999
|
Year 3
=2000
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Energy savings at plant based upon the baseline MWh/year)
|
|
550
|
1,170
|
1,170
|
|
1,170
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
160
|
320
|
320
|
|
320
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
0
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
-160
|
-320
|
-320
|
|
-320
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
-160
|
-480
|
-800
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
-4,640
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Includes indirect GHG leakages.
Summary table: Actual emission reductions :
|
GHG
|
Year 1
= 1998
|
Year 2
= 1999
|
Year 3
=2000
|
...
|
Year 15
|
|
Factual energy production on biofuels/ saved energy (MWh/year)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A) Project baseline scenario
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B) Project activity scenarioa)
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C) Effect ( B-A )
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D) Cumulative effect
|
CO2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N2O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Includes indirect GHG leakages.
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
|
333,333 USD
|
|
Grant from NUTEK for technical assistance
|
46,666 USD
|
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 and attended different seminars and workshops.
|
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:
-
Other obstacles encountered:
It took very long time before the Latvia authorities approved Talsi’s application for taking a
foreign loan.
6) Other:
