energy efficiency improvements in jaipur_mnit

7/31/2019 Energy Efficiency Improvements in JAIPUR_MNIT

1/53

A

PROJECT DESIGN DOCOMENT

ON

Energy Efficiency Improvements in

Municipal Water Utilities in Jaipur,Rajasthan

Prepared by: Guided by:

Mukesh Sharma Dr Jyotirmay Mathur

ShivRaj Dhaka ReaderVikas Sharma Department of Mechanical eng

MNIT, Jaipur

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

JAIPUR-302017 (RAJASTHAN) INDIA

OCTOMBER 2008

1


2/53

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

2


3/53

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 twosub 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 thefossil 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. Electricitymakes 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 redundantpumps, 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 CO 2 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. KWhconsumption of the water utility, which is then

multiplied by the carbon content (e.g. kg CO2/kWh) of the electricity to calculateassociated GHG emissions.

3


4/53

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 systemimprovements. 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 vastmajority 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 productiveuse. 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 ofteninclude 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 substantialimprovements 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 PFimprovement.

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 capacityback to the grid reduces the energy required by the generator to supply the

4


5/53

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 ofwater 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 equipmentmeans 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 inimproved motor efficiency, capacity and starting torque.

Reduced maximum demand, reduced energy consumption, andsurrender 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 moreresources 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.

5


6/53

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: Fivesub-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 commonpumping 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 waterutility personnel.

New, more efficient pumps and pump components and properly-sized pumps for theirapplications, including impellers.

Power Factor Component

High efficiency capacitors, various capacities

kVA meters, watt meters, PF meters

6


7/53

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 willresult 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 existingsystems. 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, thebaseline 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. Morelikely, 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 thesituation 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 infrastructureimprovements, not the creditworthiness to borrow money.

Power Factor Correction

Power factor correction reduces the electricity needed to generate a magnetic field at power-

consuming 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 befunctioning or adequate to the task. Water pumping maintenance and engineering staff

7


8/53

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 isreasonable 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 normallycharge 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 samplegroup 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 operationsand 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 forsocial 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 financethe 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, mostbankers 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 CO2 Reductions (Tons)

2007 15712

2008 15712

2009 15712

A.4.5 Public Funding: No public money

B. Baseline Methodology

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

8


9/53

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 ofaction taking into account barriers to investment, or

(c) The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previousyear 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 andupgrades 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 andwater 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 theproject 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 collectionpoint 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 useseveral 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 andcurrent 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


10/53

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 isnot 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 wouldbe 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 theelectricity 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 ondemonstrating 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 [


11/53

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 dothe 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 inmost 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 theseinvestments, 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 revenueincome 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 factto 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


12/53


13/53

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 onhttp://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 spectralpolicies directly mandate efficiency improvements for the affected systems.

D.3. Data to be collected in order to monitor emissions from the project activity and howthis data will be archived?IDnumber(Please use

numbers to

easecrossreferen

cing

to

table 5)

IDnumber(Please use

numbers to

easecrossreferen

cing

to

table 5)

Datavariable

Dataunit

Measured (m),

calculated (c)

or

estimat

ed (e)

Recording

frequency

Proportion

of datato

be

monitor

ed

Howwill the

data bearchived

?

(electron

ic/

paper)

Forhow

long isarchiv

ed

data

kept?

Comment

Water

Pumping

EfficiencyCompone

nt

3-1 Amount Total

waterdelivered

M3 m Constan

t

100% Electron

ic

2 year

untilafter

CERs

are

issued

3-2 Amount Total kWh m Constan 100% Electron 2 year

13
http://cdm.unccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.htmlhttp://cdm.unccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.htmlhttp://cdm.unccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.htmlhttp://cdm.unccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html


14/53

energy

required to

water

t ic until

after

CERs

are

issued

Power

factor

correction

componen

t

3-3 Ratio Power

factor

measurement for

facility

kW/k

VA

m or c monthl

y

100% Electron

ic

2 year

until

afterCERs

are

issued

This

may be

measured for

the

entire

facility

3-4 Amount Demand

measurem

ent

kW m Monthl

y

100% Electron

ic

2 year

until

after

CERs

are

issued

Same

as

above

3-5 Amount Total

current

Amps M or c Constan

t

100% Electron

ic

2 year

until

after

CERsare

issued

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

orcalculated

?

Recording

frequency

Will data

becollected

on this

item

How data

will beachieved

For

howlong

will

datawill be

used

14


15/53


16/53

3-8 Low No A simple count can be verified

during periodic plantwalk-throughs

3-9 Low no Estimates will be adequate given the

minimal impact

this factor has on calculated savings

3-10 Med Yes This data should be recorded as part

of normal plantactivities and can be verified using

logs and billing data

3-11 Med Yes Billing data from RRVPNL will be

compared to audit figures both postand pre project installation. Periodic

calibration of the demand meters will

be carried out in accordance with

RRVPNL policy and regulations

3-12 Med Yes Same as above

5-1 Med Yes This information should be available

from RRVPNL. Ifno reliable data is available, IPCC

defaults will be used.

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


17/53


18/53

m3/year kWh/year kWh/m3 m3/year kWh/year kWh/m3

Jaipur 39.56Lac

Equation 1, the pre project efficiency ratio, has already been calculated in the tableabove. 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 ofCO2:

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 anet 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 thedifference 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 ratiocaptures 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/ u )] + kVApo

Where:

18


19/53

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/ (N x 1000)

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 largelyfrom coal)

Hb = Baseline Operating Hours of the facility

4) Potential (or actual) Demand Savings = kVAs = [( x / b) * kVAmx * (1- b / x)] +kVApa

Where:

x = PF in post project period x, projected, measured or from power utility billing recordskVApa = Actual or achievable kVA savings from power optimization not resulting from PF

improvement but due to project implementationkVAmx = metered demand for the facility or unit within the project boundary in

period xx /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


20/53

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 plantefficiency 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 municipalityand 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 useof 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 poweroptimization.

Potential or actual demand savings from project implementation are given by Equation 4:

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

Note: The result of Equation 4 is less than the total potential calculated in Equation 2because 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 wherepower 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 (seeAnnex 3 or 4 for an example of the calculation:

kWhES = 0

20


21/53

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 utilizationimportant because many factors outside of the scope or control of this project could

demand. Measures that save energy, making production more efficient would havenet effect of reducing demand, but the reduced demand would not be due toimplementation 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 thecourse 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 CO2

reductions (tonnes

CO2)*

Total

. For ease of comparison, kVA Capacity Release is totaled as an equivalent grid energy savings.

Year Co2 reduction (tons )

2007 15712.6

2008

2009

F. Environmental Impacts

F.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including

transboundary impacts

21


22/53


23/53

X Existing actual or historical emissions; Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course ofaction, taking into account barriers to investment;

The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previousyears, 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 ofelectricity 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 ofCO2 (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 technicallosses, 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), thismethodology 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 thetotal 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 privatewells 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 waterdelivered 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 wouldhave 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 poorurban 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, reducingthe amount of carbon emitted per unit of water.

23


24/53

Pre Project Efficiency Ratio

kWhb=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

kWhb/M3b = pre project efficiency ratio

*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 willneed 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 meteringthat 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 outany 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

kWhb/M3b = pre project efficiency ratio

CO2/kWhx=carbon factor for electricity of given year (From electric utility, IPCC data orLBNLStandardized 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 noother 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 theCEF 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 designedtoimprove 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. Thiscould 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 tofinish.

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


25/53


26/53


27/53


28/53


29/53


30/53


31/53

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 motorshave 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 ata 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 rarelyor 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 baselineperiod 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 betterpre-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 yearkWhb/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 * CEF x)-

(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

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


32/53


33/53

Emissions from a technology that represents an economically attractive course ofaction, taking into account barriers to investment; The average emissions of similar project activities undertaken in the previous fiveyears, 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 electricityis 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 allthe 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, orreal power, is converted by the equipment intouseful 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), orkilovolt-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 rightangle) of the real power and the

reactive power. Apparent power is measured in kilo-volt amperes (kVA) and is the unit used bypower 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, drawcurrent 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. Circuitshaving 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 samelevel 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 inenergy 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.Consumersmay 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


34/53

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 PFto 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 energyefficiency 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 haveredundant 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 isnecessary 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

ExcessDemandeffect of low PF is that the facility will consume more energy than may benecessary 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 bythe 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 isused to perform work, measured in kWh. Thus, the baseline carbon emissions for the Excess

Demandcomponent 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 thefollowing 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 sub-optimal 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 = 1kVApo = Excess capacity due to sub-optimal power system or equipment

34


35/53


36/53

(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 fordetermining 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 allanthropogenic 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 arebeing 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 pointwhere 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 combustionefficiency 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 theproject 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 demandand supply may fluctuate for reasonsthat are outside of the scope and boundary of the project,

but that is explicitly accounted for by use of the scaling factor, whichcalibrates 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 IDnumber 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 areor are not being

planned.

3-3 Low Yes Power Factor meters will beproperly calibrated andlocated on main feeder lines

tomeasure overall PF as part

of regular O&M practices

36


37/53

3-4 Low Yes Demand meters will becalibrated periodically

3-5 Low Yes Amp meters will becalibrated periodically andrecorded as part of periodico & m practice

3-6 Low No Estimates will be adequategiven the minimal impactthis factor has on calculatedsavings

3-7 Low No Same as above

3-8 Low No A simple count can beverified during periodic

plant walk-throughs

3-9 Low No Estimates will be adequategiven the minimal impact

this factor has on calculatedsavings

3-10 Med Yes This data should berecorded as part of normal

plant activities and can beverifiedusing logs and billing data

3-11 Med Yes Billing data L will becompared to audit figures

both post and pre projectinstallation. Periodiccalibration of the demand

meters will be carried out

3-12 Med Yes As same as above

5-1 Med Yes This information should beavailable from the electrical

utility. If no reliable datais 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 byincreasing the flow of electricity through the system to account for

37


38/53

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 theutility. 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 ordrawing more power from the grid.

Even if a business case can be made for certain energy efficiency improvements, marketbarriers 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 savingsthrough 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 arethus .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 thecities. 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 ofgreenhouse 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


39/53

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 produceddirectly 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 usualscenario. 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 for Water Pumping Efficiency

Improvements

(Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including the identification ofdata 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 monitoringmethodology).

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 systemM3x= 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 factorTCO2x/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 carbonemissions for the given year.

39


40/53

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 emissionsfactor 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 differencebetween 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)

ID number(Please use

numbers toease

crossreferenci

ng

to

table 5)

Data type Data

variable

Data

unit

Measured

(m),

calculated(c)

orestimated

(e)

Recording

frequency

Proportio

n

of data tobe

monitored

How will

the

data bearchived?

(electronic/

paper)

For

how

longis

archived

data

kept?

Com

ment

3-1 amount Total

water

delivere

d

M3 m Constant 100% electronic 2 yearsuntil

after

CERs

are

issued

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 usenumbers 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

datakept?

Comment

40


41/53

5-1 ratioCarbon

Emissions

Factor

Kg/kWh

M or C Annuall

y

100% Electronic 2 yearsuntil

after

CERs

are

issued

This

factor

should be

provided

by

the utilityor IPCC

defaults

will beused

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, datainforming 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 incases where theutility does not calculate their own CEF and the IPCC data is not enough to determine anaccurate 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)

DataIndicate table and IDnumber 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.

3-1 low yes Meters on water lines will beproperly calibrated andchecked periodically foraccuracy.

3-2 low yes Electricity bills will bevalidated based on data

collection done as part of theproject on major energyusing devices (pumps)

5-1 med yes This information should be

available from the electricalutility. If no reliable data

is available, IPCC defaultswill be used.

6. What are the potential strengths and weaknesses of this methodology? (please outlinehow the accuracy and completeness of the new methodology compares to that of approved

methodologies).

41


42/53

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 Waterutility 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 operatingefficiency.

B. Proposed new monitoring methodology for Power Factor Improvement

(Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including the identification ofdata 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 monitoringmethodology).

This monitoring methodology is for assessing the carbon reductions from power factor (PF)

improvement in commercial and industrial facilities (including publics works projects likewater 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 thatcapacity 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 thereforeequivalent 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 increaseswith 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 beevaluated 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 theabsence 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 PFimprovement is:

42


43/53

kVAs = [kVAb * (1- b / x)] + kVApoWhere:

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 measuresin conjunction with PFimprovement

To account for changes in production efficiency or volume, a scaling factor must be

introduced:

kVAb = ( x / b) * kVAmxWith 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)] + kVApoThe 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 emissionssavings from demand savings through PF improvement inpost 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 followingformula:

[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/meterkWhES = 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 twocomponents 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


44/53

Measured Total Current, A 88

Cable Size, Sq.mm 150

Cable Resistance, ohms/meter 0.000124Number of Runs of Cable 1

Cable Length, m 20

Annual Operating Hours 8760Baseline Power Factor 0.75

Post project Power Factor 0.95Operating Load, kW 45

Average Load, kW 40Peak Load 60

Baseline kVA 64

Measured kVA 51CEF 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 xRequired 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 kWhNew 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 verylow (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 isrequired.

(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 whereCEF, expressed as kg/kWh is given by an official source such as the local utility.

The default value if no other estimateis available is the appropriate IPCC value for the CEF

for the country where the project takes place. Annex 6 includes a methodology for determiningthe 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


45/53

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

ID

number

Data

type

Data

variable

Data

unit

Measured

(m),

calculated

(c)

orestimated

(e)

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

kW/kV

A

m or c Monthly 100% Electronic 2 years

until after

CERsare issued

This may be

measured for

theentire facility

or for

individual

circuits

within theproject

boundary

3-4 Amount Demandmeasurements

kW or

kVAm Monthly 100% Electronic 2 years

until after

CERs

are issued

Same as

above (3-3)

3-5 amount Total Current Amps M or C Constant 100% Electronic 2 yearsuntil after

CERs

are issued

3-6 Size Cable Size, Sq.mm m

Annually

100% Electronic 2 yearsuntil after

CERs

are issued

Any changesto cables

during

the project

year must be

recorded andaccounted

for in

thecalculations

3-7 Ratio Cable

resistance

ohms/

meter

M or C Annually 30% Electronic 2 years

until afterCERs

are issued

As same

as above

energy efficiency improvements in jaipur_mnit

Documents