Aéroports de Montréal

Transcription

Report
May 7, 2010
Verification report of a Greenhouse-Gas emissions
reductions project
May 7, 2010
Mrs. Lyne Michaud,
Assistant Director, Environment and Sustainable Development
800 Leigh-Capreol Place
Suite 1000
Dorval, Quebec H4Y 0A5
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Québec H3B 4L8
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Dear Madam:
Re:
Verification report of a Greenhouse-Gas emissions reductions project
You will find enclosed, our verification report of a Greenhouse-Gas emissions reductions
project performed at Aéroports de Montréal, 800 Leigh-Capreol Place, Suite 1000, Dorval,
Quebec, H4Y 0A5.
The quantification report that is subject to our verification is included in our report as
Appendix 1.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information.
Best regards,
Chartered Accountants
Gérald Daly, CA, CISA, CFE
Partner
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
Roger Fournier, CA
Lead Senior Manager
Verification notice on the
declaration of GHG reductions
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Québec H3B 4L8
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Mrs. Lyne Michaud,
Assistant Director, Environment and Sustainable Development
800 Leigh-Capreol Place
Suite 1000
Dorval, Quebec H4Y 0A5
Dear Madam:
We have verified the accompanying GHG Emissions Reductions Quantification Report
entitled Aéroports de Montréal’s Energy efficiency measures for GHG Emissions Reductions
Project 2004-2009 (the Quantification Report).
The project is located at 800 Leigh-Capreol Place, Suite 1000, Dorval, Québec H4Y 0A5.
This quantification report dated May 6, 2010 is included in this report as Appendix 1.
Aéroports de Montréal’s management is responsible for the relevance, consistency,
transparency, conservativeness, completeness, accuracy and method of presentation of the
Quantification Report. This responsibility includes the design, implementation and
maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG Emissions Reductions
Quantification Report that is free from material misstatements. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our verification.
Before undertaking this assignment we made sure no conflict of interests could impair our
capacity of expressing our opinion and we also applied our standard procedure to ensure we
had the skills, competences and appropriate training to undertake this specific assignment.
The work was performed by ISO 14064-3 trained professionals. Training was provided by the
Canadian Standards Association.
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
2
Aéroports de Montréal (ADM)
ADM is a not-for-profit corporation without share capital and is responsible for the
management, operation, and development of Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International
Airport (formerly Montréal–Dorval International Airport) and Montréal–Mirabel International
Airport under the terms of a 60-year lease signed with Transport Canada in 1992.
The emissions reductions project
The project scenario consists of ADM’s implementation of new and energy efficient
technologies for their buildings, for instance replacing inefficient boilers in the heating system
by more efficient technology, with direct digital control and replacement and addition of new
chillers. The project is located at the Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport.
Since 2002, ADM has gradually implemented several energy efficient measures reducing
electricity, natural gas and oil no 2 consumptions. Among them, the measures having the most
important impacts include: the replacement of boilers for the heat generation systems and the
replacement of technology and equipment used for the cooling systems. These energy
efficiency activities are additional to a baseline scenario which consists of the status quo
situation, meaning the ADM would not have made any modification.
The main GHG sources for the project are natural gas, oil and electricity consumption. The
various gas involved in this emissions reductions project are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane
(CH4), and Nitrous Oxide (N2O).
The Quantification Report
The Quantification Report was prepared by L2I Financial Solutions in accordance with
ISO 14064-2 “Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements (2006)”.
This project was based on a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology proposed by
the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) titled: AMS-II.E.
version 10 - Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings, validated
November 2, 2007. This CDM methodology "comprises any energy efficiency and fuel
switching measure" implemented in buildings, which corresponds to ADM’s project
description, proposing a variety of energy efficiency measures.
The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emissions reductions was one
of comparing the intensity factors of the sources of energy used for the project to those used
for the baseline scenario; the quantifier determined the GHG emissions for every source of
energy by using appropriate emissions factors multiplied by the consumption of every GHG
source.
The emissions factors chosen are based on Environment Canada - National Inventory Report 19902006.
3
The verification work
A draft of the Quantification Report was submitted to us on February 4, 2010. Our first review
of the documentation was undertaken on February 18, 2010 and a verification plan was
produced. Thereafter, a visit to ADM’s premises took place on March 8, 2010. We
subsequently received the final report dated May 6, 2010.
The following points were revised with ADM’s representatives: internal control with the
purpose of assessing verification risk, emission sources and GHG involved. During the course
of our verification, we obtained all the necessary cooperation and documents required from
ADM’s management.
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification
with guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006). This standard requires
that we plan and perform the verification to obtain either a reasonable assurance or a limited
assurance about whether the emissions reductions declaration that is contained in the attached
quantification report is fairly stated, is free of material misstatements, is an appropriate
representation of the data and GHG information of ADM and the materiality threshold has
not been reached or exceeded.
It was agreed with the ADM’s representative that a reasonable assurance level of opinion
would be issued and we planned and executed our work accordingly. Consequently, our
verification included those procedures we considered necessary in the circumstances to obtain
a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A reasonable assurance engagement with respect to a GHG statement involves performing
procedures to obtain evidence about the quantification of emissions, and about the other
information disclosed as part of the statement. Our verification procedures were selected based
on professional judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement in the
GHG statement. In making those risk assessments, we considered internal control relevant to
the entity‘s preparation of the GHG statement. Our engagement also included:

Assessing the suitability in the circumstances of ADM’s use of ISO 14064-2, as the basis
for preparing the GHG statement;

Evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies used and
the reasonableness of necessary estimates made by ADM.
Reasonable assurance opinion
In our opinion:
1.
The quantification report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard:
Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse
gas emission reductions or removal enhancements (2006), and the principles of relevance,
completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and conservativeness have been
respected.
2.
The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
4
3.
The baseline scenario is appropriate.
4.
ADM’s data controls management system is appropriate.
5.
The GHG emissions reductions presented in the quantification report entitled Aéroports
de Montréal’s Energy efficiency measures for GHG Emissions Reductions Project 20042009 and dated May 6, 2010 are, in all material respect, fairly stated at 24 205 tCO2 e.
6.
The quantification report is free of material misstatements and it is an appropriate
representation of the data and GHG information of Aéroports de Montréal.
7.
The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has
not been reached or exceeded.
Restricted usage and confidentiality
This verification report is produced to be used by the management of ADM and parties
interested in the above described GHG emissions reductions project. Reliance on the
conclusions of this verification report for any other usage may not be suitable.
The quantification report entitled “Aéroports de Montréal’s Energy efficiency measures for
GHG Emissions Reductions Project 2004-2009’’ and dated May 6, 2010 is an integral part of
this verification report and should in no circumstances be separated from it.
This verification report and the supporting work files are kept confidential and will be
safeguarded for 10 years after which period they will be safely destroyed.
Roger Fournier, CA
Internal Peer Reviewer
Gérald Daly, CA, CISA, CFE
Partner
Montréal, May 7, 2010
Appendix 1
Quantification Report
Aéroports de Montréal’s Energy efficiency measures for GHG Emissions
Reductions Project 2004-2009
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Report
Presented to:
Mrs Lyne Michaud
Assistant Director, Environment and Sustainable
Development
800 Leigh-Capreol Place, Suite 1000
Dorval, Quebec
H4Y 0A5
Prepared by:
L2I Financial Solutions
2015, Victoria Street, suite 200
Saint-Lambert (Quebec)
J4S 1H1
May 6th, 2010
Quantification Group Letter
Aéroports de Montréal, GHG Emission Reductions Report
Page 2 of 37
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction of the Editing and Quantification Team .................................................... 7
Profile Summary of the Team Members ........................................................................ 7
Chapter 1: Description of project ....................................................................................... 8
1.1
Project title:......................................................................................................... 8
1.2
Type/category of the project: ............................................................................. 8
1.3
Estimated amount of emissions reductions over the crediting period including
project size: ..................................................................................................................... 8
Table 1 - GHG Emissions Reductions Summary: ......................................................... 8
1.4
Brief description of the project:.......................................................................... 9
Table 2 – Identification of proposed measures: ......................................................... 9
1.5
Project location: .................................................................................................. 9
1.6
Duration of the project activity/crediting period: ............................................ 10
1.7
Conditions prior to project initiation: ............................................................... 10
1.8
How the project achieves GHG emissions reductions and/or removal
enhancements: ............................................................................................................. 10
1.9
Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of activity: ... 10
Replacement and installation of new chillers ........................................................... 12
Figure 3. Flue gases heat recovery............................................................................ 13
Figure 4. Flue gases heat recovery network ............................................................. 14
Figure 5. Flue gases heat recovery network (continued) ......................................... 15
Figure 6. Diagram of low temperature hot water network ...................................... 16
Figure 7. Diagram of medium temperature hot water network .............................. 17
1.10
Compliance with relevant local laws and regulations related to the project:
18
1.11
Identification of risks that may substantially affect the project’s GHG
emissions reductions or removal enhancements: ........................................................ 18
1.12
Demonstration to confirm that the project was not implemented to create
GHG emissions primarily for the purpose of their subsequent removal or destruction:
18
Page 3 of 37
1.13 – 1.14 Demonstration that the project has not created another form of
environmental credit (for example renewable energy certificates) or rejected under
other GHG programs: .................................................................................................... 19
1.15
Project proponent’s roles and responsibilities, including contact information
of the project proponent, other project participants:.................................................. 19
1.16
Any information relevant for the eligibility of the project and quantification
of emission reductions or removal enhancements: ..................................................... 19
Project quantification and report writing team: ...................................................... 21
Report Use and Users ............................................................................................... 21
Chapter 2: Methodology ................................................................................................... 22
2.1
Title and reference of the methodology applied to the project activity and
explanation of methodology choices:............................................................................... 22
2.2
Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the
project activity: ............................................................................................................. 22
2.3
Identifying GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the baseline scenario and for
the project:.................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3 - Emission sources comparison (metric tons CO2 eq) .................................. 23
2.4
Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the
identified baseline scenario: ......................................................................................... 24
2.5
Description of how the emissions of GHG by source in project scenario are
reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity:
25
Table 4 – The project test (in three steps) ................................................................ 25
Chapter 3: Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 28
Table 6 – II.E version 10 monitoring requirements .................................................. 28
Chapter 4: GHG emissions reductions .............................................................................. 31
4.1
Explanation of methodological choice:............................................................. 31
4.2
Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the baseline scenario: ........ 31
4.3
Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the project: ......................... 33
4.4
Quantifying GHG emissions reductions and removal enhancements for the
GHG project: ................................................................................................................. 33
Table 7 – Project Emissions Reductions Summary (metric tons CO2 eq.) ................ 35
Table 8 – Project Emissions Reductions Summary (metric ton CO2 eq.) .................. 36
Table 9 – Forecasted GHG Emissions Reductions ..................................................... 36
Quantification limits and uncertainty ........................................................................... 36
Page 4 of 37
Chapter 5: Environmental Impact ..................................................................................... 37
Chapter 6: Stakeholders comments ................................................................................. 37
Chapter 7: Schedule .......................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 8: Ownership ....................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 9: Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 37
Page 5 of 37
ABBREVIATIONS
BS:
Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)
CH4:
Methane
CO2:
Carbon dioxide
CO2 eq:
Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)
EPA:
Environmental Protection Agency
HDD:
Heating Degree day
GHG:
Greenhouse gases
IPCC:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
N2O:
Nitrous oxide
PS:
Project Scenario (GHG emission source)
Page 6 of 37
Introduction
Introduction of the Editing and Quantification Team
L2I Financial Solutions is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate financing. These
past five years, we have developed an expertise in the quantification of carbon credits.
In that capacity, we help companies count, quantify and accrue their carbon offsets and
ensure their sale. Our expertise consists in selecting, applying and elaborating
quantification methodologies to quantify the emissions based on reputable
international sources. The reports are drafted in accordance with the following
guidelines: ISO 14064-2.
In this project’s case, L2I Financial Solutions’ mandate of is to quantify the emissions
reductions resulting from the energy efficiency projects proposed by the Aéroports de
Montréal (Montreal Airport).
Profile Summary of the Team Members
Supervision
Mr. Yves Legault and Mrs. Mélina Valéro are responsible for supervising the carbon
credits quantification team. For many years now, they have been on the look-out for
their customers’ needs regarding the quantification of greenhouse gases. They offer
GHG quantification services, report redaction and the subsequent sale of the carbon
credits on organized markets such as the Voluntary Carbon Market.
Page 7 of 37
Chapter 1: Description of project
1.1 Project title:
Aéroports de Montréal’s energy efficiency measures for GHG Emissions Reductions
Project.
1.2 Type/category of the project:
Aéroports de Montréal’s energy efficiency measures for GHG emissions reductions
project was contracted with regard to its validation/verification under ISO 14064-2 as an
Energy Efficiency Improvement type of project.
Energy Efficiency is a valid project category as per the clean development
mechanism approved project activities: AMS-II.E.version 10 - Energy
efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings1, validated 2 November
2007.
Energy Efficiency is a valid category under CSA’s GHG CleanProjects™ Registry.
1.3 Estimated amount of emissions reductions over the crediting period
including project size:
Aéroports de Montréal’s project is a standard size project with the following
emissions reductions:
Table 1 - GHG Emissions Reductions Summary:
Year
TOTAL GHG Emission
Reductions
(tCO2 eq)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
821,05
2865,36
3976,53
3699,98
6342,03
6500,38
TOTAL
24 205,34
1
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNEC8AP
NP
Page 8 of 37
1.4
Brief description of the project:
The project scenario consists of Aéroports de Montréal’s use of new and energy efficient
technologies for their buildings, for instance replacing inefficient boilers in the heating
system by new efficient ones, with direct digital control and replacement and addition
of new chillers. The project is located at the Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau
International Airport. Since 2002, Aéroports de Montréal has gradually implemented
several energy efficient measures reducing electricity, natural gas and oil no.2
consumptions. Among them, the ones having the most important impacts include: the
replacement of boilers for the heat generation systems and the replacement of
technology and equipment used for the cooling systems. Below is a summarized view of
what was modified, when it was modified and what was altered by the modification of
the energy efficient technologies:
Table 2 – Identification of proposed measures:
Measure
Measure’s impact
1- Replacement of boilers
2- Replacement and
installation of new chillers
Gas
Oil
Electricity
Gas
Oil
Electricity
Measure’s start year and
duration
2003-2004
2002-2003
These energy efficiency activities are additional to a baseline scenario which consists of
the status quo (before implementation) for the heating and cooling systems. The
baseline scenario chosen is explained in section 2.4 of the present.
1.5
Project location:
Aéroports de Montréal’s Energy Efficiency measures are located at:
Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport
975, boul. Roméo-Vachon N
Montreal, Quebec
H4Y 1H1
Canada
Latitude: 45° 27' 27'' N
Longitude: 73° 45' 04'' W
Page 9 of 37
1.6
Duration of the project activity/crediting period:
Aéroports de Montréal’s energy efficiency project was gradually implemented from the
start date of 2002. The project crediting period start date is January 2004. The project
activities are planned to be ongoing for at least a crediting period of 10 years.
1.7
Conditions prior to project initiation:
The conditions in place before implementation of the project were status quo on energy
efficiency technologies. The conditions were also status quo on energy utilization,
heating and cooling systems.
1.8 How the project achieves GHG emissions reductions and/or removal
enhancements:
The project contributes to GHG emissions reductions since it makes it possible to
consume less energy than it would otherwise consume in the baseline scenario. The
significant GHG reductions measures in this report are:
1) The replacement of inefficient boilers by new and efficient ones;
2) The replacement of two old chillers and addition of five new ones, cooling
system renovation ;
The other measures have a smaller overall impact on the total GHG emissions
reductions. However, it is important to mention the substantial environmental efforts
carried out by Aéroports de Montréal.
The project achieves GHG emissions reductions by installing energy efficient
technologies and thus consuming less energy (natural gas, oil and electricity) than what
would have happened with the baseline scenario: status quo on energy efficiency
measures (heating and cooling systems).
1.9 Project technologies, products, services and the expected level of
activity:
The energy efficiency project carried out by Aéroports de Montréal is mainly the
replacement of heating and cooling systems at the Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau
International Airport. Along with the equipment’s upgrade, it is important to note that
Aéroports de Montréal has also increased the size of their buildings from 119,940
square meters in 2002 to 281,500 square meters in 2009.
Page 10 of 37
These renovations gradually began in 2002 and were completed in 2004. The activities
are divided into two main steps:
1) Boilers replacement (2003-2004)
2) Chillers’ replacement and installation (2002-2003)
Boilers replacement
Aéroports de Montréal’s thermal power plant’s upgrade necessitated the replacement
of four existing boilers by more efficient ones. The inefficient high temperature (HT)
boilers of 30 MWh (efficiency of 75%) were replaced by high-efficiency boilers of 1800
BHP (efficiency of 82%). These new boilers are fuelled with natural gas but can also use
light oil as auxiliary fuel.
Figure 1. New efficient boiler
Page 11 of 37
Replacement and installation of new chillers
Two old chillers of 700 and 1 200 tons were replaced and five new ones were installed,
including three water towers. Thus, the new cooling system includes eight chillers.
Figure 2. New efficient chiller
Moreover, two of the five new chillers are heat recovery types (total capacity 930 tons).
The efficiency of the new chillers in cooling mode at full load is around 0.6 kW/ton. The
heat recovery type chillers produce low temperature hot water (30°C - 40°C), shifting a
heating load of about 4000 kW from the boilers. These 4000 kW are produced more
efficiently and with cleaner energy (hydroelectricity instead of natural gas or oil).
Other energy efficient technologies implemented:
-
Boiler flue gases heat recovery increasing boilers’ efficiency to 90%
Fresh air injection in the air systems’ supply to lower energy consumption of fans
A central control system for optimization of energy consumption
Page 12 of 37
Figure 3. Flue gases heat recovery
Page 13 of 37
Figure 4. Flue gases heat recovery network
Page 14 of 37
Figure 5. Flue gases heat recovery network (continued)
Page 15 of 37
Figure 6. Diagram of low temperature hot water network
Page 16 of 37
Figure 7. Diagram of medium temperature hot water network
Page 17 of 37
1.10 Compliance with relevant local laws and regulations related to the
project:
There is no specific Canadian or Quebec law or regulation that stipulates the obligation
to install more efficient technologies in existing buildings when they have the choice of
repairing or changing their old technologies. In other words, Aéroports de Montréal was
not forced to change its inefficient boilers or install the other energy efficient projects
described in this report. The project’s implementation was voluntary. However, there
are requirements in federal regulations for the installation of new gas boilers: Guide
d’interprétation du règlement sur l’efficacité énergétique du Canada and the Energy
Efficiency Regulations. 2 For this project, the installation of the new boilers was
completed according to the specifications required by law.
1.11 Identification of risks that may substantially affect the project’s
GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements:
This emissions reductions report was written according to ISO 14064-2 Specifications
Requirements for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
reductions and removal enhancements assertions. In order to minimize risks, we took as
guidelines a methodology that was developed by the UNFCCC and published in 2007 for
small scale projects.3 No serious potential risks which could alter this GHG emissions
reductions project were identified.
1.12 Demonstration to confirm that the project was not implemented to
create GHG emissions primarily for the purpose of their subsequent
removal or destruction:
No GHG emissions were possibly created primarily to justify further reductions since the
baseline scenario is the scenario which would have occurred in case the project would
not have occurred. In this case, the baseline scenario would have been status quo
technology and additional maintenance activities for boilers and chillers systems.
2
Canada’s Energy Efficiency Regulations (2008), Internet link:
http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/regulations/home_page.cfm
3
NP
Page 18 of 37
1.13 – 1.14 Demonstration that the project has not created another form
of environmental credit (for example renewable energy certificates) or
rejected under other GHG programs:
The project did not create any other environmental credit nor was it rejected under any
other GHG program application.
1.15 Project proponent’s roles and responsibilities, including contact
information of the project proponent, other project participants:
Mrs. Lyne Michaud
Assistant Director
Environment and Sustainable Development
800 Leigh-Capreol Place, Suite 1000
Dorval (Québec),
Canada
H4Y 0A5
Tel: (514) 633-2698
Lyne.michaud@admtl.com
Aéroports de Montréal is responsible for the project implementation, emissions
reductions and data monitoring.
1.16 Any information relevant for the eligibility of the project and
quantification of emission reductions or removal enhancements:
The following profile of Aéroports de Montréal is available on its Web site:
http://www.admtl.com
Canada’s international airports, including Montréal–Trudeau and Montréal–Mirabel,
were built, operated and maintained by the Government of Canada until their
divestiture by the government in the early 1990s. Although Transport Canada remains
the legal owner of the airports, they are now managed, operated and developed by local
airport authorities like ADM. This model, unique in the world, has allowed Canada to
develop a national network of highly effective national airports while freeing the federal
government of all financial responsibility and providing it with a substantial return on its
initial investment.
Page 19 of 37
In December 1986, the federal government announced that Montréal–Dorval and
Montréal–Mirabel International airports would be united in an integrated airport
system under a single management body. During the following year, the Government of
Canada developed a new national policy for divesting itself of the country’s major
airports. Thus, on August 1, 1992, ADM took over the management, operation and
development of Montréal’s two international airports.
The challenges at the time were numerous. The sharing of Montréal’s air traffic
between two distant airports was adversely affecting the industry’s development and
complicating connections between the international sector and the domestic and
transborder sectors. The airport facilities at Dorval were suffering from many years of
under-investment.
In 1995, ADM announced an investment program to modernize and expand Montréal–
Dorval International Airport and to improve some of the existing infrastructures of
Montréal–Mirabel International Airport.
Then in 1997, in order to maintain the city’s competitive position and encourage the
development of connecting traffic, ADM changed its international passenger flight
assignment policy and allowed scheduled carriers to operate out of the airport of their
choice. All of the scheduled carriers opted for Dorval, leaving Mirabel only
international charter flights.
In 2000, ADM embarked upon an extensive modernization and expansion program at
Dorval, including new transborder and international jetties as well as a new
international arrivals complex featuring a Canada customs hall and a baggage-claim
room. This vast program was completed in 2006 on budget and on schedule.
In 2002, the ADM Board of Directors adopted new strategic orientations that included
consolidating all passenger flights at Dorval beginning in the fall of 2004, while Mirabel
would continue to handle all-cargo flights, test flights of aircraft built or repaired at the
site, as well as general aviation operations.
On January 1, 2004, Dorval Airport was renamed in honour of the Right Honourable
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, former Canadian prime minister.
Figure 8. View of Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport
Page 20 of 37
Project quantification and report writing team:
Melina Valéro,
L2I Financial Solutions,
2015 Victoria, Suite 200
Saint-Lambert, (Québec)
Canada
J4S 1H1
L2I Financial Solutions is responsible for the project redaction and the VER negotiations
on the voluntary carbon market.
Report Use and Users
The target users are the potential offset VERs (Verified Emission Reductions) buyers on
the carbon voluntary market.
Verification Notification
Initially quantified by L2I Financial Solutions, the verification of the VERs will be
conducted by the external verification entity Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton according
to ISO 14064 part 3.
Page 21 of 37
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 Title and reference of the methodology applied to the project
activity and explanation of methodology choices:
This project was based on a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology
proposed by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
titled: AMS-II.E.version 10 - Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings,
validated 2 November 2007.4 This CDM methodology "comprises any energy efficiency
and fuel switching measure" 5 implemented in buildings, which corresponds to the
Aéroports de Montréal project description, proposing a variety of energy efficiency
measures.
2.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is
applicable to the project activity:
This methodology was selected for its completeness allowing us to introduce different
energy efficiency measures in the same report and to select the most appropriate
baseline scenarios. Also, Aéroports de Montréal’s project meets the criteria established
in version 10 of the AMS-II.E CDM methodology.
2.3 Identifying GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the baseline
scenario and for the project:
In this project’s case, from cradle to grave, GHG emissions sources were only controlled
ones, there was no associated or affected source, since Aéroports de Montréal is not
marketing any kind of product. The controlled sources are identified as follows:
Figure 9: Project and Baseline Scenario Sources
4
NP
5
buildings, p.1. Internet link:
NP
Page 22 of 37
Project Scenario
PSInstallation of new efficient
boilers
Installation and replacement
of new efficient chillers
including 930 tons of heat
recovery
Baseline Scenario
BSStatus quo
(Inefficient heating and
cooling systems without heat
recovery)
Table 3 - Emission sources comparison (metric tons CO2 eq)
Project Scenario
Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures
Baseline Scenario
Status quo
(Inefficient heating and cooling systems without
heat recovery)
Emission factors
- Project (Factors – (metric tons CO2
eq/ type of energy)
National Inventory factor:
-3
3
1.903 x 10 tCO2 eq/m
natural gas;
-3
2.7351 x 10 tCO2 eq/L oil
no.2;
and
-6
6.0 x 10 tCO2 eq/kWh
electricity
Emission factors
- No-project (Factors – (metric tons CO2
eq/ type of energy)
Same emission factor as for
the project scenario
PS1: Installation of
new efficient boilers
Installation and
replacement of new
efficient chillers with
930 tons of heat
recovery
BS1- Inefficient heating
and hot water systems
- Inefficient cooling
systems without heat
recovery
BS: Baseline Scenario GHG emission source
PS: Project Scenario GHG emission source
The emission factors used in this report are not different for the baseline and the
project scenario. The emission factors for all the sources are included in the National
Page 23 of 37
Canadian Inventory for the baseline and project scenario.6 The only difference is the
quantity of natural gas, oil and electricity consumed; consumption data from Aéroports
de Montréal’s bills and from their Financial Department’s inventory files were used for
energy consumptions – see chapter 4 on GHG emissions reductions.
2.4 Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and
description of the identified baseline scenario:
The baseline scenario was selected among alternative scenarios representing what
would have happened without this project.
Baseline potential scenarios:
1. Status quo or keeping the current boilers and chillers, not changing the piping
system and not installing central controls, no steam heat recovery;
2. Another scenario would be to replace the existing boilers with efficient ones, but
installation of standard cooling system (less efficient) and not installing a central
control system. No changes for the other technologies mentioned above;
3. The project scenario is the replacement of the less efficient boilers and chillers in
place by new efficient ones, physical modification of the piping system,
installation of a central control system and steam heat recovery system and the
implementation of energy efficiency measures.
The first option was considered realistic since, before the project started the boilers and
chillers were working and usual maintenance work was necessary. The second scenario
was evaluated to be different from the first one in terms of efficiency, but there is still
some energy loss with the old cooling and piping system in place and no central control
to optimize the system. The third scenario has a financial barrier compared to the status
quo, required for the analysis of the system, the modifications and the subsequent tasks.
Finally, the financial barriers are significant for the third scenario and thus, this scenario
is rejected as a baseline and is proposed as the project scenario.
In summary, baseline scenario:
Using inefficient boilers and chillers and no central command;
No implementation of energy efficiency measures: i.e. Heat recovery from steam.
6
National Inventory Report 1990-2006 (May 2008), Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada,
Internet link : http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2006_report/2006_report_e.pdf
Page 24 of 37
2.5 Description of how the emissions of GHG by source in project
scenario are reduced below those that would have occurred in the
absence of the project activity:
The project scenario reduces the GHG emissions under what would have occurred
without implementing energy efficient measures.
A Project Test will demonstrate that the Aéroports de Montréal’s project is additional:
Table 4 – The project test (in three steps)
Steps
Conditions
Facts
1- Regulatory
Surplus
The project shall not
be mandated by any
enforced law, statute
or other regulatory
framework
The project shall face
one(or more) distinct
barrier(s) compared
with barriers faced by
alternative projects :
Investment barrier
As explained in section 1.10, Aéroports de Montréal
has no legal obligation to implement the proposed
project.
2Implementation
Barrier
3- Common
practice
Project scenario :
The overall capital investment is relatively high for all
energy efficiency technology and energy switch
measures involved in the Aéroports de Montréal’s
project. Thus, the return on investment (ROI) will
improve on a long term basis. Since Aéroports de
Montréal is a non-profit organisation, the additional
revenues associated with the generation of VERs
were considered as potentially helpful in order to
mitigate the social impact of the investment and to
improve the ROI.
Baseline scenario :
Since the baseline scenario does not include any
other energy efficiency measures or replacement in
the heating or cooling system, no other costs are
involved.
Demonstrate that the The most recent information available from the
project is not common Canadian Government (Natural Resources Canada) is
practice, or if so,
presented in the table below. It shows us that, even
identify the barriers
though the energy efficiency measures reduce
faced compared with energy consumption by 23%, the total consumption
existing projects
for the sector is increasing Thus, all energy efficiency
measures are important. Limiting the
implementation of those projects, the financial
barrier is the most significant one.
Page 25 of 37
The following table presents the most recent information available from the Canadian
Government concerning the commercial/institutional sector energy consumption and
efficiency change from 1990 until 2006, demonstrating that all energy efficiency
measures are important in controlling the energy consumption.
Table 5 - Total End-Use Sector – Energy Use Analysis7
Total End-Use Sector - Energy Use Analysis (Energy use by sector (PJ))
1990
1995
1996
Commercial/Institutional
1997
1998
867.02
960.85
981.47
998.47
944.13
0.00
93.84
114.45
131.45
77.11
Activity Effect
0.00
81.97
92.25
106.78
121.50
Structure Effect
0.00
0.52
0.23
0.43
0.80
Weather Effect
0.00
28.45
42.39
18.84
26.60
0.00
33.19
39.51
45.80
52.28
0.00
48.09
58.02
38.07
67.82
0.00
1.17
1.45
1.47
1.44
Service Level Effect
Energy Efficiency Effect
Other (Street Lighting)
7
Natural Resources Canada (2007), Office of Energy Efficiency, Total End-use Sector – Energy use analysis.
Last update: 2007/9/12. Available at the following URL address:
http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tablesanalysis2/aaa_ca_1_e_2.cfm?attr=0
Page 26 of 37
1990
1999
2000
2001
2002
867.02
979.19
1 072.80
1 060.93
1 131.55
0.00
112.17
205.78
193.91
264.53
Activity Effect
0.00
137.21
153.63
169.62
188.42
Structure Effect
0.00
1.22
2.09
2.26
2.00
Weather Effect
0.00
1.36
9.38
8.49
28.78
0.00
58.91
65.57
72.38
79.59
0.00
79.89
19.51
36.12
29.15
0.00
1.47
1.21
1.22
1.11
1990
2003
2004
2005
2006
867.02
1 166.49
1 172.75
1 158.93
1 092.59
0.00
299.47
305.73
291.91
225.58
Activity Effect
0.00
207.34
228.23
247.65
273.76
Structure Effect
0.00
2.06
1.63
1.21
1.44
Weather Effect
0.00
24.01
0.12
23.00
23.30
0.00
88.12
90.23
91.78
93.43
0.00
16.84
9.85
68.64
116.32
0.00
1.09
1.13
0.67
0.54
Page 27 of 37
Chapter 3: Monitoring
The monitoring requirements listed in the standard 5.10 of ISO 14 064 part 28 and in the
CDM methodology used in this report are already applied in the Aéroports de Montréal
grouped project and readily available.
Table 6 – II.E version 10 monitoring requirements
Type of measure
Retrofit measures
(replacement and new
technologies)
Requirements
Documenting the
specifications of the
replaced equipment
Comments
All the documentation (spec sheets) is
kept at the head office for the new
boilers, chillers and all other
technologies involved in the project.
Calculating the energy The energy savings is based on the
savings due to the
energy bills. Suppliers are Hydroimplemented
Québec and Gaz métropolitain bills.
measures
The oil (no.2) comes from different
suppliers yearly, for 2008 the supplier
was Groupe Pétrolier Olco inc.
The project’s monitored data is used in the quantification of the Aéroports de Montréal
GHG emission reductions. Three types of energy units are basically used: KWh for
electricity, Liters for oil (no.2) and m3 for natural gas. The data will be monitored directly
from the energy bills for the electricity and natural gas consumptions. The oil no.2
consumptions’ data are monitored from the inventory electronic files of the Aéroports
de Montréal’s Financial Department. Hydro-Québec is the electricity supplier and Gaz
métropolitain is the natural gas supplier. The oil (no.2) comes from different suppliers
yearly, for 2008 the supplier was Groupe Pétrolier Olco inc.
All the energy consumption bills are managed by the contract and administration
department. At the thermal power plant, systematic readings are done for different
meters. Aéroports de Montréal is also subscribed to Gaz Metro’s VIGIE and Hydro-
Québec’s VIGILIGNE softwares through which they have access to daily, weekly,
monthly and yearly consumptions.
Three persons are responsible for the monitoring:
8
International Standards ISO 14064-2: 2006(F), section 5.10, p.13.
Page 28 of 37
Mr. Jean Ghanem
Mechanical Engineering and Energy
Architecture and Engineering Direction
jean.ghanem@admtl.com
Mrs. Marlène Ross
Administration and Contracts
marlene.ross@admtl.com
Mr. Marcel Lafleur
Thermal Power Plant
marcel.lafleur@admtl.com
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
Source of data to be used :
Value of data applied for the
purpose of calculating expected
emission reductions :
Description of measurement
methods and procedures to be
applied :
QA/QC procedures to be applied :
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
9
Electricity
kWh
Electricity consumption for Montréal-Pierre Elliott
Trudeau International Airport
Hydro-Québec energy bills
GHG Emission factor used for electricity in
Quebec:
6.0 x 10-6 tCO2 eq/kWh
Collect data directly on energy bills and enter
them into Excel software.
Section 5.10 of ISO 14064-29
Natural Gas
m3
Natural gas consumption for Montréal-Pierre
Elliott Trudeau International Airport
Gas Métro energy bills
GHG Emission factor used for natural gas in
Quebec:
1.903 x 10-3 tCO2 eq/m3
Collect data directly on energy bills and enter
them into Excel software.
International Standards ISO 14064-2 :2006(F), Section 5.10, p.13
10
Idem
Page 29 of 37
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
applied :
11
Light Fuel Oil
Litres
Light Oil consumption for Montréal-Pierre Elliott
Trudeau International Airport
Groupe Pétrolier Olco inc. (for 2008)
GHG Emission factor used for light oil in Quebec:
2.7351 x 10-3 tCO2 eq/L
Collect data from the inventory electronic files of
the Financial Department of Aéroports de
Montréal and enter them into Excel software.
Idem
Page 30 of 37
Chapter 4: GHG emissions reductions
4.1
Explanation of methodological choice:
As already stated, this project was based on a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
methodology proposed by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) titled: AMS-II.E. version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, approved in November 2007.
All emission factors in this report reflecting electricity consumption and fuel combustion
originate from the Canadian Inventory official source. CDM methodology will take into
account the major gas involved in all emission sources involved in this project.
The major greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, as per IPCC 2006
guidelines, are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), perfluorocarbon (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF 6). Among
them, gases involved in this project are CO2, CH4 and N2O, based essentially on natural
gas combustion and electricity consumption.
4.2
Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the baseline
scenario:
The data for the baseline quantification was taken from the year before implementation
of the project, in this case 2003 energy consumption data. This is a conservative way of
estimating the baseline GHG emissions because the overall energy consumption in the
commercial/institution sector has increased over the years and this project proposes
2003 data to estimate what would have occurred between 2004 and 2009.12
The energy consumptions were weather normalized with the heating degree days’
method (HDD). Heating degree days’ method assesses recent energy performance by
comparing recent consumption with a past-performance-based estimate of expected
consumption. This process is used to identify excess consumption (or overspend), and to
quantify the savings from improvements in energy efficiency.
Baseline scenario GHG emissions quantification:
12
Natural Resources Canada (2007), Office of Energy Efficiency, Total End-use Sector – Energy use
analysis. Last update: 2007/9/12. Available at the following URL address:
http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/tablesanalysis2/aaa_ca_1_e_2.cfm?attr=0
Page 31 of 37
BSE = [(EF * BSQE) + [(NGFCO2+NGFCH4+NGFN2O) * BSQNG] + [EFLight Fuel Oil-CO2 + EFLight Fuel OilCH4 + EFLight Fuel Oil-N2O) * BSQF] / SUP2003]* SUPy
BSE =
Baseline scenario emissions resulting from the production, transportation
and consumption of electricity (metric tons CO2 eq), natural gas (metric
tons CO2 eq) and consumption of light fuel oil (metric tons CO2 eq) for
Montreal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport;
EF =
BSQE =
GHG emission factor for electricity (6.0 x 10-6 metric tons CO2 eq/kWh)13;
Quantity of electricity consumed for the baseline scenario (kWh);
NGFCO2 =
NGFCH4 =
NGFN2O =
BSQNG =
CO2 emission factor for natural gas (1.89 x 10-3 metric tons CO2 eq/m3)14;
CH4 emission factor for natural gas (7.77 x 10-7 metric tons CO2 eq/m3)15;
N2O emission factor for natural gas (1.085 x 10-5 metric tons CO2 eq/m3)16;
Quantity of natural gas consumed for the baseline scenario (m3);
EFLight Fuel Oil-CO2 =
CO2 emission factor for light fuel oil (2.725 x 10-3 tCO2 eq/L)17;
EFLight Fuel Oil-CH4 =
CH4 emission factor for light fuel oil (5.0 x 10-7 tCO2 eq/L)18;
EFLight Fuel Oil-N2O =
N2O emission factor for light fuel oil (9.6 x 10-6 tCO2 eq/L)19;
BSQF =
Quantity of light fuel oil (no. 2) consumed for the baseline scenario
(Litres)
SUP2003 = Aéroports de Montréal’s area in 2003
SUPy = Aéroports de Montréal’s area in year y
13
National Inventory Report 1990-2006 (May 2008), Greenhouse Gas Source and Sinks in Canada, p.512
14
15
Idem 14
16
Idem 14
17
18
Idem 17
19
Idem 17
Page 32 of 37
4.3
Quantifying GHG emissions and/or removals for the project:
Project scenario GHG emissions quantification:
PSE = (EF * PSQE) + [(NGFCO2+NGFCH4+NGFN2O) * PSQNG] + [EFLight Fuel Oil-CO2 + EFLight Fuel OilCH4 + EFLight Fuel Oil-N2O) * PSQF]
PSE =
Project scenario emissions resulting from the production, transportation
and consumption of electricity (metric tons CO2 eq), natural gas (metric
tons CO2 eq), light oil fuel (metric tons CO2 eq) for Montreal – Pierre
Elliott Trudeau International Airport;
EF =
PSQE =
GHG emission factor for electricity (6.0 x 10-6 metric tons CO2 eq/kWh)20;
Quantity of electricity consumed for the project (kWh).
NGFCO2 =
NGFCH4 =
NGFN2O =
PSQNG =
CO2 emission factor for natural gas (1.89 x 10-3 metric tons CO2 eq/m3)21;
CH4 emission factor for natural gas (7.77 x 10-7 metric tons CO2 eq/m3)22;
N2O emission factor for natural gas (1.085 x 10-5 metric tons CO2 eq/m3)23;
Quantity of natural gas consumed for the project (m3).
EFLight Fuel Oil-CO2 =
CO2 emission factor for light fuel oil (2.725 x 10-3 tCO2 eq/L)24;
EFLight Fuel Oil-CH4 =
CH4 emission factor for light fuel oil (5.0 x 10-7 tCO2 eq/L)25;
EFLight Fuel Oil-N2O =
N2O emission factor for light fuel oil (9.6 x 10-6 tCO2 eq/L)26;
PSQF =
Quantity of light fuel oil for the project (Litres).
4.4 Quantifying GHG emissions reductions and removal enhancements
for the GHG project:
20
21
22
Idem 14
23
Idem 14
24
25
Idem 24
26
Idem 24
Page 33 of 37
The following equation illustrates the GHG emission reductions quantification:
TPER (metric tons CO2 eq.) = BSE – PSE
TPER =
Total Project Emissions Reductions (metric tons CO2 eq.).
Page 34 of 37
Table 7 – Project Emissions Reductions Summary (metric tons CO2 eq.)
Natural gas Natural
Light oil
Light oil
Emission
gas GHG
Emission
consumed
Factor
Emissions
Factor
(l)
(tCO2eq)
(tCO2eq)
(tCO2eq)
Light oil
GHG
Emissions
(tCO2eq)
Electricity
consumed
(kWh)
Electricity
Emission
Factor
(tCO2eq)
Electricity
GHG
Emissions
(tCO2eq)
Total GHG
Emissions
(tCO2 eq)
Area
2
(m )
BSL GHG
GHG EmissionsR
2
per m eductions
(tCO2 eq)
PS GHG
Emission
Reductions
(tCO2 eq)
Year
Natural gas
consumed
3
(m )
2003
1634048
0,001903
3108,98
480796
0,00274
1315,03
62693822
0,000006
376,16
4800,17
128261
0,037
4800,17
4800,17
2004
1905181
0,001903
3624,85
12728
0,00274
34,81
67283751
0,000006
403,70
4063,36
130512
0,031
4884,42
4063,36
2005
1908080
0,001903
3630,36
82360
0,00274
225,26
79457016
0,000006
476,74
4332,37
192324
0,023
7197,73
4332,37
2006
1532152
0,001903
2915,11
17635
0,00274
48,23
85778699
0,000006
514,67
3478,02
199186,3
0,017
7454,55
3478,02
2007
1514948
0,001903
2882,38
157717
0,00274
431,37
83989192
0,000006
503,94
3817,69
200872,7
0,019
7517,67
3817,69
2008
1909141
0,001903
3632,38
38621
0,00274
105,63
85997696
0,000006
515,99
4254,00
283126,9
0,015
10596,03
4254,00
2009
1561469
0,001903
2970,89
166351
0,00274
454,99
101483469
0,000006
608,90
4034,78
281500,4
0,014
10535,16
4034,78
Page 35 of 37
Table 8 – Project Emissions Reductions Summary (metric ton CO2 eq.)
Total GHG Emissions Reductions
Year
Baseline Scenario
GHG Emissions
Reductions
tCO2 eq
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
4884,42
7197,73
7454,55
7517,67
10596,03
4063,36
4332,37
3478,02
3817,69
4254,00
821,05
2865,36
3976,53
3699,98
6342,03
2009
10535,16
4034,78
6500,38
48185,56
23980,22
24 205,34
TOTAL
Project Scenario
Emissions
Reductions
tCO2 eq
TOTAL GHG Emissions
Reductions
tCO2 eq
Table 9 – Forecasted GHG Emissions Reductions
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total:
Total GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(Metric ton CO2 eq.)
6 500,38
6 500,38
6 500,38
6 500,38
26 001,52
Quantification limits and uncertainty
CDM methodologies are recognized internationally. As of today, they offer the most
complete methodologies. The AMS-II.E. is a flexible small scale methodology as long as
you can prove your emission reduction by verifiable facts (ex. invoice). So there is no
particular limit with the CDM methodology proposed. The provincial emissions
coefficient used are closer to the reality than national ones, since the electricity is
produced differently from one province to another. This conservative choice limits the
uncertainty and the overestimation of the GHG reduction for the Aéroports de Montréal
emission reduction project.
Uncertainty is also associated with the data collection and its subsequent storage. The
uncertainty is low since they are verified and correlated using a variety of sources (i.e.
Invoices, Internal data spreadsheets). Thus, we can conclude that the uncertainty is low
since we followed the CDM methodology and that we made conservative choices.
Page 36 of 37
Chapter 5: Environmental Impact
The environmental impact is managed through an authorization certificate delivered by
the City of Montreal, according to the Environment Quality Act of the Ministère du
Développement Durable, Environnement et Parcs Québec (MDDEP). In the case of this
project, it is considered limited. The disposal of replaced boilers was completed under
the environmental laws in place.
Chapter 6: Stakeholders comments
Aéroports de Montréal is a non-profit organisation. No stakeholders.
Chapter 7: Schedule
For the years to come, Aéroports de Montréal will have to maintain their monitoring
plan developed in section 3. Most of the energy efficiency measures proposed in this
report were already initiated by 2004, though some were only initiated in 2006 and may
have taken until 2008 to be completed. Aéroports de Montréal will follow their emission
reductions plan. The total GHG emission reductions will get outgoing and it will be
monitored.
Chapter 8: Ownership
Aéroports de Montréal owns all the equipment needed for the energy efficiency
measures and energy replacement measures proposed in this report.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
Aéroports de Montréal energy efficiency measures contribute to reduce GHG emissions
by reducing energy consumption. Consistent with their environmental mission,
Aéroports de Montréal and their committed employees are proud to be working toward
the resolution of the global climate change issues.
Page 37 of 37