SGT800 Verification Report

CERTIFICATION
Reviewed
Ii )/1
Bureau Veritas C rtification Init . r(;~Cf
Holding A BUREAU
VERITAS
Date : I~ Ie V{C / -\.;
DETERMINATION RE~!(::::I=:::=:j
GLOBAL CARBON BV
DETERMINATION OF THE
"INSTALLATION OF THREE GAS TURBINES
SGT-800 TYPE AT GTES "KOLOMENSKOE" ,
Moscow, RUSSIAN FEDERATION ( EX.
INSTALLATION OF THREE COMBINED CYCLE
GAS TURBINE SGT-800 AT GTES
"KOLOMENSKOE", Moscow, RUSSIAN
FEDERATION)"
REPORT No. RUSSIA-DET/0120/201 1

REVISION No . 02
BU EAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION
BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION
Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02
Determination Report on JI project

“Installation of three gas turbines SGT-800 type at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian
Federation (ex. Installation of three combined cycle gas turbine SGT-800 at GTES
“Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation)”
Date of first issue: Organizational unit:
15/04/2011 Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS

Client: Client ref.:
Global Carbon BV Mr. Lennard de Klerk
Summary:
Bureau Veritas Certification has made the determination of the project “Installation of three gas turbines SGT-
800 type at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation (ex. Installation of three combined cycle gas
turbine SGT-800 at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation)” project of company Global Carbon
BV, located in Moscow, Mira av., 36/1 on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the JI, as well as criteria given to
provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. UNFCCC criteria refer to Article 6 of the
Kyoto Protocol, the JI rules and modalities and the subsequent decisions by the JI Supervisory Committee, as
well as the host country criteria.
The determination scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design document, the
project’s baseline study, monitoring plan and other relevant documents, and consisted of the following three
phases: i) desk review of the project design and the baseline and monitoring plan; ii) follow-up interviews with
project stakeholders; iii) resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final determination report and
opinion. The overall determination, from Contract Review to Determination Report & Opinion, was conducted
using Bureau Veritas Certification internal procedures.
The first output of the determination process is a list of Clarification and Corrective Actions Requests (CL and
CAR), presented in Appendix A. Taking into account this output, the project proponent revised its project design
document.
In summary, it is Bureau Veritas Certification’s opinion that the project applies the appropriate baseline and
monitoring methodology and meets the relevant UNFCCC requirements for the JI and the relevant host country
criteria.
In the Determination Report rev.01, Bureau Veritas Certification recommended the project for approval by the
Host Party. The approval was issued by the Ministry for Economic Development of the Russian Federation by
Order No 112 dated 12 March 2012. The Project Participant issued on 16 March 2012 the PDD version 1.4
which refers in Section A.5 to the received project approval. Due to the above, CAR 01 in the Determination
Report rev.01 which addressed the absence of the project approval is closed and hence all implications in the
Determination Report and Appendix A related to CAR 01 have become irrelevant to the approved project.
Report No.: Subject Group: NO

RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 JI
Project title:
“Installation of three gas turbines SGT-800 type Limited distribution
at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian
Federation (ex. Installation of three combined
cycle gas turbine SGT-800 at GTES
Work carried out by:
Daniil Ukhanov – Lead verifier Unrestricted distribution
Work reviewed by:
Leonid Yaskin – Internal Technical Reviewer
Work approved by:
Flavio Gomes – Operational Manager

Date of this revision: Rev. No.: Number of pages:
19/03/2012 02 59
1
Report Template Revision 6, 10/09/2010

Abbreviations
AIE Accredited Independent Entity
BVC Bureau Veritas Certification
CAR Corrective Action Request
CL Clarification Request
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
DDR Draft Determination Report
DR Document Review
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIAR Environmental Impact Assessment Report
ERU Emission Reduction Unit
GHG Greenhouse House Gas(es)
GTU Gas Turbine Unit
IE Independent Entity
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRR Internal Rate of Return
JI Joint Implementation
JISC Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee
NG Natural gas
PDD Project Design Document
PP Project Participant
RF Russian Federation
tCO2e Tonnes CO2 equivalent
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change
2

Table of Contents Page

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Objective 4
1.2 Scope 4
1.3 Determination team 4
2 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Review of Documents 5
2.2 Follow-up Interviews 6
2.3 Resolution of Clarif ication and Corrective Action Requests 7
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 8
4 DETERMINATION CONCLU SIONS .............................................................. 9

4.1 Project approvals by Parties involved (19 -20) 9
4.2 Authorization of project participants by Parties involved (21) 10
4.3 Baseline setting (22 -26) 10
4.4 Additionality (27-31) 10
4.5 Project boundary (32 -33) 11
4.6 Crediting period (34) 12
4.7 Monitoring plan (35 -39) 12
4.8 Leakage (40-41) 16
4.9 Estimation of emission reductions or enhancements of net removals (42-47)16
4.10 Environmental impacts (48) 17
4.11 Stakeholder consultation (49) 16
4.12 Determination regarding small scale projects (50-57) 16
4.13 Determination regarding land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)
projects (58-64) 16
4.14 Determination regarding programmes of activities (65-73) 16
5 SUMMARY AND REPORT O F HOW DUE ACCOUNT W AS T AKEN

OF COMMENTS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO PARAGRAP H 32 OF
THE JI GUIDELINES ........................................................................................ 17
6 DETERMINATION OPINIO N .......................................................................... 17
7 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 18
DETERMINATION PROTOCOL ......................................................................................... 21
3

“Installation of three gas turbines SGT-800 type at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow,
Russian Federation (ex. Installation of three combined cycle gas turbine SGT-800 at
GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation)”
1 INTRODUCTION
Global Carbon BV (hereafter called “Global Carbon ”) has commissioned
Bureau Veritas Certification to determine JI project “Installation of three
gas turbines SGT -800 type at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian
Federation (ex. Installation of three combined cycle gas turbine SGT -800
at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation ” (hereafter called
“the project”) located in the city of Moscow, Russian Federation .
This report summarizes the findings of the determination of the project,

performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria, as well as criteria given to
provide for consistent p roject operations, monitoring and reporting.
1.1 Objective
The determination serves as project design verification and is a
requirement of all projects. The determination is an independent third
party assessment of the project design. In particular, the proje ct's
baseline, the monitoring plan (MP), and the project’s compliance with
relevant UNFCCC and host country criteria are determined in order to
confirm that the project design, as documented, is sound and reasonable,
and meets the stated requirements and i dentified criteria. Determination
is a requirement for all JI projects and is seen as necessary to provide
assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended
generation of emissions reductions units (ERUs).
UNFCCC criteria refer to A rticle 6 of the Kyoto Protocol, the JI rules and
modalities and the subsequent decisions by the JI Supervisory
Committee, as well as the host country criteria.
1.2 Scope
The determination scope is defined as an independent and objective
review of the project design document, the project’s baseline study and
monitoring plan and other rel evant documents. The information in these
documents is reviewed against Kyoto Protocol requirements, UNFCCC
rules and associated interpretations.
The determination is not meant to provide any consulting towards the

Client. However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective
actions may provide input for improvement of the project design.
1.3 Determination team

The determination team consists of the following personnel:
4

Daniil Ukhanov
Bureau Veritas Certification Climate Change Lead Verifier
This determination report was reviewed by:
Leonid Yaskin
Bureau Veritas Certification, Internal reviewer
2 METHODOLOGY
The overall determination, from Contract Review to Determination Report
& Opinion, was conducted using Bureau Veritas Certification internal
procedures.
In order to ensure transparency, a determination protocol was customized

for the project, according to the version 01 of the Joint Implementation
Determination and Verification Manual, issued by the Joint
Implementation Supervisory Committee at its 19 meeting on 04/12/2009.
The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria (requirements),
means of determination and the results from determining the identified
criteria. The determination protocol serves the following purposes:
 It organizes, details and clarifies the requirements a JI project is
expected to meet;
 It ensures a transparent determination process where the determiner
will document how a particular requ irement has been determined and
the result of the determination .
The completed determination protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this

report.
2.1 Review of Documents

The Project Design Document (PDD) submitted by Global Carbon and
additional background doc uments related to the project design and
baseline, i.e. country Law, Guidelines for users of the joint
implementation project design document form , Guidance on criteria for
baseline setting and monitoring , Kyoto Protocol to be checked by an
Accredited Independent Entity were reviewed.
To address Bureau Veritas Certification corrective action and clarification

requests, Global Carbon revised the original PDD v. 1.1 dated 25/02/2011
and resubmitted it as v. 1.3 dated 11/04/2011.
The first deliverable of the d ocument review was the Determination

Protocol Version 01 dated 16/03/2011 which contained 28 CARs and 4
CLs.
5

The determination findings presented in this Determination Report Version

01 and Appendix A relate to the project as described in the PDD versions
1.1 (published) and version 1.3 (final) dated 11/04/11.
2.2 Follow-up Interviews

On 30/03/2011 Bureau Veritas Certification lead verifier D.Ukhanov
performed a visit to the project site. On -site interviews with the project
participant LLC NaftaSib Energy and the PDD developer Global Carbon
were conducted to co nfirm the selected information and to clarif y some
issues identified in the document review. Representatives of LLC NaftaSib
Energy and the PDD Developer Global Carbon were interviewed (see
References). The main topics of the interviews are summarized in Table
1.
Table 1 Interview topics
Interviewed Interview topics
organization
LLC NaftaSib Energy  Starting date of the project
 Reasoning for project implementation
 Project history and Implementation schedule
 Baseline scenario
 Project scenario
 Technologies applied
 Investment issues
 Commissioning and proven trials
 Training of personnel
 Environmental permissions
 Environmental Impact Assessment
 Public hearings
CONSULTANT  Baseline scenario
Global Carbon BV  Additionality proofs
 Project scenario
 Investment issues
Stakeholders  N/A
2.3 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action

Requests
The objective of this phase of the determination is to raise the requests
for corrective a ctions and clarification and any other outstanding issues
that needed to be clarified for Bureau Veritas Certification positive
conclusion on the project design.
6

Corrective Action Request (CAR) is issued, where:

(a) The project participants have made mis takes that will influence the
ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional
emission reductions;
(b) The JI requirements have not been met;
(c) There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or
calculated.
The determination team may also issue Clarification Request (CL), if

information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the
applicable JI requirements have been met.
The determination team may also issue Forward Action Request (FAR),
informing the project participants of an issue that needs to be reviewed
during the verification.
To guarantee the transparency of the verification process, the concerns

raised are documented in more detail in the verification protocol in
Appendix A.
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project objective
The project’s purpose is construction of a Gas Turbine Power Plant

“Kolomenskoe” (here in after referred as GTES -“Kolomenskoe” with the
use of natural gas as a fuel and intended for the combined production of
electricity and heat. This project will allow increasing of natural gas
combustion efficiency and reducing of СО2 emissions due to the use of
modern equipment and combined heat and electricity generation.
Project concept
• Situation existing prior to the project
Prior to the project implementation electricity to meet residential needs of

municipalities Moskvorechye - Saburovo, Nagatino - Sadovniki and
Tsariсino of the Southern Administrative District of Moscow was imported
from a centralized power system (URES “Centre”). Th e URES “Centre” is
composed of 18 provincial electricity systems (PESs), while these
systems have interconnections with the neighboring ones. Supply of heat
energy was carried through: district heating station (DHS) Kolomenskoe,
DHS Nagatino, DHS Lenino -Dachnoe, Quarter heating station (QHS) -16
and QHS-17.
• Baseline scenario
7

The baseline scenario represents Business as Usual (BAU) practice. In

the absence of the project activity the current heat generation from the
DHSs and QHSs using natural gas and el ectricity supply from the
centralized power system (URES “Centre”) would continue.
• Project scenario
The project includes the construction and operation of the GTES

“Kolomenskoe”. The GTES “Kolomenskoe” was commissioned in May
2009. The GTES “Kolomensk oe” has power capacity 136 MW and heat
capacity 171 Gcal/h. The project includes construction of 3 gas turbine
units (GTU), with capacity 45.3 MW each, while exit gases will be used in
the 3 heat-recovery boilers with capacity 57 Gcal/h each. Natural gas w ill
be the main and back -up fuel for the new GTES Kolomenskoe.
Electricity and heat at the GTES “Kolomenskoe” will be generated using

more efficient technology. Electricity will replace electricity that otherwise
would be generated using less efficient t echnologies at the power plants
connected to the grids of the Russian Federation. Heat generated at
GTES Kolomenskoe will replace heat supplied to the consumers by the
DHS and QHS. The heat generated by GTES Kolomenskoe is transmitted
into the heating network of OJSC “MOEK” (Moscow Joint Energy
Company)
History of the project

The decision to construct the GTES was taken in 2006 on the working
meeting. Benefits and disadvantages of constriction of the new GTES
were discussed. The idea to attract Kyoto fin ancing was announced at this
meeting. After due discussions and research regarding possibilities to
implement this project as a JI project activity the decision to implement
this project within the framework of the Kyoto protocol was taken. The
project had been started in 2007 and commissioned in May 2009.
4 DETERMINATION CONCLUSIONS
In the following sections, the conclusions of the determination are stated.
The findings from the desk review of the original project design
documents and the findings from in terviews during the follow up visit are
described in the Determination Protocol in Appendix A.
The Clarification and Corrective Action Requests are stated, where

applicable, in the following sections and are further documented in the
Determination Protocol in Appendix A. The determination of the Project
resulted in 28 Corrective Action Requests and 4 Clarification Requests.
8

The number between brackets at the end of each section corresponds to

the DVM paragraph.
4.1 Project approvals by Parties involved (19 -20)

The project has no approvals by the Host Party, therefore CAR 06
remains pending.
A written project approval by Party B should be provided to the AIE and

made available to the secretariat by the AIE when submitting the first
verification report for pu blication in accordance with paragraph 38 of the
JI guidelines. It has not been provided to AIE at the determination stage.
4.2 Authorization of project participants by Parties involved

(21)
The participation for NaftaSib Energy LLC listed as project pa rticipant in
the PDD is not authorized by the Host Party because the project a pproval
by the Host Party was not received. Project approval for Party B – Global
Carbon BV is received neither .
The authorization is deemed to be carried out through the issuance o f the

project appro vals.
4.3 Baseline setting (22-26)

The PDD explicitly indicates that using a methodology for baseline setting
and monitoring developed in accordance with appendix B of the JI
guidelines (hereinafter referred to as JI specific approach ) was the
selected approach for identifying the baseline.
JI specific approach
The PDD provides a detailed theoretical description in a complete and
transparent manner, as well as justification, that the baseline is
established:
(a) By listing and describing the f ollowing plausible future scenarios on
the basis of conservative assumptions and selecting the most
plausible one being Alternative1 :
a. Alternative scenario 1: Continuation of the existing practice,
i.e. supply of the heat energy from the nearest boilers of DHS,
QHS and electricity from URES “Centre” ;
b. Alternative scenario 2: The proposed project not developed as
a JI project;
c. Alternative scenario 3: Construction of the new boiler house
for heat energy generation, electricity supplied from the URES
“Centre”;
9

d. Alternative scenario 4: Construction of gas turbine unit and

autonomous heat boiler for heat supply;
e. Alternative scenario 5: Construction of combined cycle gas
turbine power plant (CCGT);
f. Alternative scenario 6: Construction of the common steam
turbine (CHP ).
(b) Taking into account relevant national and/or sectoral policies and
circumstances, such as sectoral reform initiatives (orders,
regulations), the economic situation in the energy sector ,
availability of capital, existing heating capacities . In this conte xt,
the following key factors that affect a baseline are taken into
account:
a. Sectoral reform policies and legislation in energy industry
such as: balances of the CJSC “Agency for Prediction of
Balances in Electric Energy, etc.
b. Balance of electricity genera tion and consumption in the URES
“Centre”;
c. Availability of capital (including investment analysis ).
Capital is available; however IRR of the project is less than
the set benchmark (refer to Section B.2);
After screening of alternative scenario s the first alternative is left as the

most plausible, namely:
Alternative 1: Continuation of the existing practice, i.e. supply of the
heat energy from the nearest boilers of DHS, QHS and electricity from
URES “Centre”.
All explanations, descriptions and analyses p ertaining to the baseline in

the PDD are made in accordance with the referenced JI specific approach
and the baseline is identified appropriately.
Outstanding issues related to Baseline setting (23) , PP’s response and

the AIE conclusion are summarized in Appendix A (refer to CAR s 07-10).
4.4 Additionality (27-31)

The most recent version 05.2 of the "Tool for the demonstration and
assessment of add itionality" approved by the CDM Executive Board is
used to demonstrate additionality. All e xplanations, descriptions and
analyses are made in accordance with the s elected tool.
The PDD developer provides a justification of the applicability of the

approach with a clear and transparent description, as per item 4.3 above.
10

PDD developer described and scrutinized plausible alternative scenarios

which have been provided in Section B.1 .
Justification of additionality has been done in several steps, prescribed by

the Tool:
(a) identification of alternatives to the project activity (refer to Section
B.1),
(b) investment analysis,
(c) common practice analysis.
The key additionality proofs were the results of the investment analysis
and common practice analysis . The investment analysis shows that the
project (Alternative scenario 2) with capital investment 187,275 kEuro has
less IRR than set benchmark , hence it is not financially attractive . The
sensitivity analysis of variations of key parameters ( capital investments,
natural gas price , electricity price, heat energy price ) confirms the
conclusion of the basic in vestment analysis.
The spreadsheet with the investment and sensitivity analyse s was made
available for the verifier, and Bureau Veritas Certific ation will submit it to
JISC at the final determination as the supporting docume ntation.
The common practice analysis has reasonably shown that the proposed JI
project does not represent a widely observed practice in the geographical
area concerned.
The verifier determined that additionality is demonstrated appropriately as

a result of the analysis using the a pproach chosen.
Outstanding issues related to Additioality (29) , PP’s response and the AIE
conclusion are summarized in Appendix A (refer to CAR s 11-17 and CL
02).
4.5 Project boundary (32-33)

The project boundary defined in the PDD , Section B.3 , Table B.3.1 for
project and baseline scenario accordingly, encompasses all anthropogenic
emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are:
(i) Under the control of the project participants such as:
- On-site natural gas combustion ;
(ii) Reasonably attributable to the project such as:
- Electricity generation of the URES “Centre” ;
- Natural gas combustion at DHS and QHS ;
(iii) Significant such as:
11

- All the sources mentioned above .
The delineation of the project boundary and the gases and sources
included are appropriately described and justified in the PDD, Section
B.3.
Based on the above assessment, the AIE hereby confirms that the
identified boundary and the selected sources and gases are justified for
the project activity.
Outstanding issues related to Project boundary (32), PP’s response and

the AIE conclusion are summarized in Appendix A (refer to CAR 18 and
CL 03-04).
4.6 Crediting period (34)

The PDD states the starting date of the project as the date on which the
implementation or construction or real action of the project began, and the
starting date is 18/07/2007, which is after the beginning of 2000.
The PDD states the expected operational lifetime of the project in years
and months, which is 20 years or 240 months.
The PDD states the length of the crediting period in years and months,
which is 3 years or 7 months, and its starting date as 26/05/2009, which is
on the date the first emission reductions are generated by the project.
4.7 Monitoring plan (35-39)

The PDD, in its monitoring plan section, e xplicitly indicates that JI specific
approach was selected.
The monitoring plan describes all relevant factors and key characteristics
that will be monitored, and the period in which they will be monitored, in
particular also all de cisive factors for the control and reportin g of project
performance, such as:
- Natural gas consumption ;
- Net calorific value of natural gas ;
- Emission factor for natural gas ;
- Annual electricity supply;
- Baseline emission factor for the electricity generated at the URES
“Centre”;
12

- Annual heat supply .

Remainder factors and key characteristics are listed in the PDD, Sections
D.1, D.1.1.1 for the project , Section D.1.1.3 for the baseline .
The monitoring plan specifies the indicators, constants a nd variables that

are reliable, valid, and that provide a transparent picture of the emission
reductions to be monitored such those listed in the PDD, Sections D .1.1.1
and D.1.1.3.
The monitoring plan is developed subject to the list of standard variables

contained in appe ndix B of “Guidance on criteria for baseline setting and
monitoring” developed by the JISC .
All categories of data to be collected in order to monitor GHG emissions

from the project and determine the baseline of GHG emissions (Option 1)
are described in required details.
The monitoring plan e xplicitly and clearly distinguishes where

appropriate:
(i) Data and parameters that are not monitored throughout the crediting
period, but are determined only once (and thus remain fixed
throughout the crediting period), and that are available already at the
stage of determination, such as:
- Emission factor for natural gas ;
- Average efficiency of boilers of central heating workshop DHS
- Conversion factor .
(ii) Data and parameters that are not monitored throughout the crediting
period, but are determined only once (and thus remain fixed
throughout the crediting period), but that are not already available at
the stage of determination (there are no such parameters);
(iii) Data and parameters that are monitored throughout the crediting
period, such as those presented in Sect ion D.1.1.1 for the project,
Section D.1.1.3 for the baseline.
Step-by-step application of the used approach for monitoring is descr ibed

in PDD Section D including monitoring procedures, formulae, p arameters,
data sources etc.
The monitoring plan describes the methods employed for data monitoring
(including its frequency) and recording; please r efer to PDD, Section
D.1.1.1 and Section D.1.1.3.
The monitoring plan elaborates all algorithms and formulae used for the
estimation/calculation of baseline emissions, project emission s as
13

appropriate, such as formula in Section D.1.1.4 for basel ine emissions

(Formula 3-5) and Section D.1.1.2 for projec t emissions (Formula 1 -2).
The monitoring plan presents the quality assur ance and control
procedures for the monitoring process , all the QC/QA procedures are
specified in PDD Section D.2
The procedures include, as appropriate, information on calibration and on

how records on data and/or method validity and accuracy are kept an d
made available on request.
The monitoring plan clearly identifies the responsibilities and the authority
regarding the monitoring activities. The operating and management
structure for GHG monitoring is described in PDD Section D.3, Figure
D.3.1.
On the whole, the monitoring report reflects good monitoring practices

appropriate to the project type.
The monitoring plan provides, in tabular form, a complete compilation of

the data that need to be collected for its application, including data that
are measured but not including data that are calculated with equations ,
except baseline emission factor for the URES “Centre” and net calorific
value.
The monitoring plan indicates that the data monitored and required for
verification are to be kept for two y ears after the last transfer of ERUs for
the project.
Outstanding issues related to Monitoring plan (36), PP’s response and the
AIE conclusion are summarized in Appendix A (refer to CAR s 19-25).
4.8 Leakage (40-41)

The PDD appropriatel y describes an assessment of the potential leakage
of the project and appropriately explains that the estimation of leakage is
neglected from conservative reasons because the leakage in project
scenario is less than in baseline scenario .(see Section B.3 )
4.9 Estimation of emission reductions or enhancements of net

removals (42-47)
14

The PDD indicates assessment of emissions in the baseline and project

scenario as the approach chosen to estimate the emission reductions of
the project.
The PDD provides the ex ante estimates of:

(a) Emissions for the project scenario (within the project boundary),
which are 1,311,962 tons of CO2eq;
(b) Leakage are considered zero ;
(c) Emissions for the baseline scenario (within the project boundary),
which are 1,919,738 tons of CO2eq;
(d) Emission reductions adjusted by leakage (based on (a) -(c) above),
which are 607,776 tons of CO2eq.
Reporting period: From 26/05/2009 to 31/12/2012.
The formulae used for calculating the estimates are referred in the PDD,
Sections D.1.1.2, D.1.1.4, D.1.4, E.1,E.4, E.5.
For calculating the estimates referred to above, key factors defined in the
monitoring plain influencing the project and baseline emissions were
taken into account, as appr opriate.
The estimation referred to above is bas ed on conservative assumptions

and the most plausible scenario in a transparent manner.
The estimates referred to above are consistent throughout the PDD.
The annual average of estimated emission reductions over the crediting

period is calculated by dividing the total estimated emission reductions
over the crediting period by the number of months of the crediting period,
and multiplying by twelve.
The PDD Section E includes an illustrative ex ante emissions ca lculation.
Outstanding issue related to Estimation (43), PP’s response and the AIE
conclusion are summarized in Appendix A (refer to CAR 26-28).
4.10 Environmental impacts (48)

The PDD lists and attaches documentation on the analysis of the
environmental im pacts of the project ( transboundary impacts are not
applicable to the project) , in accordance with procedures as determined
by the host Party, such as the Federal Law “On the Environmental
protection #7-FZ”.
15

The PDD provides conclusion and all references to supporting

documentation of an environmenta l impact assessment undertaken in
accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party.
4.11 Stakeholder consultation (49)

Stakeholder consultation was not undertaken as it is not required by the
host party.
4.12 Determination regarding small scale projects (50-57)

Not applicable
4.13 Determination regarding land use, land-use change and forestry

(LULUCF) projects (58-64)
Not applicable
4.14 Determination regarding programmes of activities (65-73)

Not applicable
5 SUMMARY AND REPORT OF HOW DUE ACCOUNT WAS

TAKEN OF COMMENTS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO
PARAGRAPH 32 OF THE JI GUIDELINES
No comments, pursuant to paragraph 32 of the JI Guidelines, were
received.
6 DETERMINATION OPINION
Bureau Veritas Certification has performed a determination of the
“Installation of three gas t urbines SGT -800 type at GTES “Kolomenskoe”,
Moscow, Russian Federation (ex. Installation of three combined cycle gas
turbine SGT-800 at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation) ”
Project in Russia. The determination was performed on the basis of
UNFCCC criteria and host country criteria and also on the criteria given to
provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting.
The determination consisted of the following three phases: i) a desk

review of the project design and the baseline and monitoring plan; ii)
follow-up interviews with project stakeholders; iii) the resolution of
outstanding issues and the issuance of the final determination report and
opinion.
Project participant used “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of

additionality” (Version 05.2) . In line with this tool, the PDD provides
investment analysis and common practice analysis, to determine that the
project activity itse lf is not the baseline scenario .
16

Emission reductions attributable to the project are hence ad ditional to any

that would occur in the absence of the project activity. Given that the
project is implemented and maintained as designed, the project is likely to
achieve the estimated amount of emission reductions.
The review of the project design docu mentation and the subsequent
follow-up interviews have provided Bureau Veritas Certification with
sufficient evidence to determine the fulfilment of stated criteria.
The determination revealed two pending issues related to the current
determination stage of the project: the issue of the written approval of the
project and the authorization of the project participant by the host Party .
If the written approval and the authorization by the host Party are
awarded, it is our opinion that the project as describ ed in the Project
Design Document, Version 1.3 dated 11/04/2011 meets all the relevant
UNFCCC requirements for the determination stage and the relevant host
Party criteria.
The determination is based on the information made available to us and

the engagement conditions detailed in this re port.
7 REFERENCES
Categor y 1 Documents:
Documents provided by NaftaSib Energy LLC and Global carbon BV that
relate directly to the GHG components of the project.
/1/ “Installation of three combined cycle gas turbine SGT -800 at GTES
“Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation (ex. Installation of three
combined cycle gas turbine SGT -800 at GTES “Kolomenskoe”,
Moscow, Russian Federation) ”, PDD Version 1.3 dated 11/04/2011.
/2/ Excel spreadsheet with calculation of emission r eduction
“20110411_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe GTPP_v3_en”.
/3/ Excel spreadsheet with grid emission factor calculation
“20110411_EF_GTPP_v2_eng”.
Category 2 Documents:
Background documents related to the design and/or methodologies
employed in the design or o ther reference documents.
/1/ Guidelines for Users of the Joint Implementation Project Design
Document Form/Version 04, JISC.
/2/ JISC Guidance on criteria for baseline setting and monitoring. Version
02.
17

/3/ Glossary of Joint Implementation terms. Version 02, JI SC.

/4/ 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
/5/ Moscow Government’s order dd. 19/09/2006 concerning the tender.
/6/ Permission on commissioning of the GT HPP.
/7/ Permission on pollutants emissions #6095 dd. 25.05.2009 from
Rostekhnadzor.
/8/ Training certificate of Ushakov Alexandr from Siemens.
/9/ Protocol #008 on examination of working health and safety of the
plant staff.
/10/ 6-TP statistical form for 2009.
/11/ 6-TP statistical form for 2010.
/12/ Total forecast balance on generation and supply of electricity on
2011.
/13/ Protocol of working meeting on construction of GTES Kolomenskoe
with the use of Kyoto Protocol.
/14/ Positive conclusion of State Expertise on the project of the plant
construction.
/15/ Permission on construction of the GTPP #RU7716100 0-001745 from
State construction committee.
/16/ Certificate of conformity #POCC SE. МП12.В01080 for SGT-800.
/17/ Permission from Rostekhnadzor for SGT -800.
Persons interviewed:
List persons interviewed during the determination or persons that contributed with other
information that are not included in the documents listed above.
/1/ V. Esipov – Head of Technical Production Department
/2/ N. Andrianov – Head of the working shift of the plant
/3/ V. Petrochenkov – JI project consultant, Global Carbon BV
18
Report No:RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

“Installation of three gas turbines SGT-800 type at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation (ex. Installation of three
combined cycle gas turbine SGT-800 at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian Federation)”
DETERMINATION PROTOCOL
Table 1
Check list for determination, according JOINT IMPLEMENTATION DETERMINATION AND VERIFICATION MANUAL (Version 01)
DVM Check Item Initial finding Draft Final
Paragraph Conclusion Conclusion
General description of the project
Title of the project
- Is the title of the project presented? The title of the project is “Installation of three combined cycle gas CAR 01 OK
turbine SGT-800 at GTES “Kolomenskoe”, Moscow, Russian
Federation”.
CAR 01. The term “combined cycle“ in the project title is used
incorrectly. The plant provides a combined production of
electricity and heat. Terminologically, this is a gas turbine
cogeneration power plant but not the combined cycle which by
definition is the combination of Brayton cycle (gas turbine) and
Renkin cycle (steam turbine). In the project, a simple gas turbine
cycle is used.
- Is the sectoral scope to which the project pertains Sectoral scope: 1. Energy industries (renewable/non-renewable OK
presented? sources).
- Is the current version number of the document PDD Version: 1.1. OK
presented?
- Is the date when the document was completed The date of PDD completion: February 25, 2011. OK
presented?
Description of the project
- Is the purpose of the project included with a concise, Requirements a), b), c) to the description of the project are met OK
summarizing explanation (max. 1-2 pages) of the: including its purpose. PDD reads: “The project’s purpose is
a) Situation existing prior to the starting date of the construction of a Gas Turbine Power Plant “Kolomenskoe” (here
19


project; in after referred as GTES – “Kolomenskoe” with the use of natural
b) Baseline scenario; and gas as a fuel and intended for the combined production of
c) Project scenario (expected outcome, including a electricity and heat. This project will allow increasing of natural
technical description)? gas combustion efficiency and reducing of CO2 emissions due to
the use of modern equipment and combined heat and electricity
generation”.
- Is the history of the project (incl. its JI component) The history of the project including its JI component is briefly OK
briefly summarized? summarised as follows: “The decision to construct the GTES was
taken in 2006 on the working meeting. Benefits and disadvantages
of construction of the new GTES were discussed. The idea to
attract Kyoto financing was announced at this meeting. After due
discussions and research regarding possibilities to implement this
project as a JI project activity the decision to implement this
project within the framework of the Kyoto protocol was taken. The
project had been started in 2007 and commissioned in May 2009.”
Project participants
- Are project participants and Party(ies) involved in Project participants are listed in Section A.3. Party A – The OK
the project listed? Russian Federation with project participant LLC NaftaSib Energy,
Party B – the Netherlands with project participant Global Carbon
BV.
- Is the data of the project participants presented in The data of the project participants is presented in tabular format. OK
tabular format?
- Is contact information provided in Annex 1 of the Contact information is provided in Annex 1 of the PDD. OK
PDD?
- Is it indicated, if it is the case, if the Party involved The indicated host party is the Russian Federation. OK
is a host Party?
Technical description of the project
Location of the project
20


- Host Party(ies) The Russian Federation. OK
- Region/State/Province etc. Central Federal District. OK
- City/Town/Community etc. City of Moscow. OK
- Detail of the physical location, including Detail of the physical location of the project was provided. CAR 02 OK
information allowing the unique identification of the
CAR 02. Please provide the source of information allowing the
project. (This section should not exceed one page)
unique identification of the project. Please provide the source of
coordinates presented in PDD. Are these coordinates of the plant or
of Moscow city?
Technologies to be employed, or measures, operations or actions to be implemented by the project
- Are the technology(ies) to be employed, or The project envisages installation of three gas turbines, three heat- CL 01 OK
measures, operations or actions to be implemented recovery boilers, and auxiliary equipment. The engine hall contains
by the project, including all relevant technical data three gas turbines SGT-800, in the boiler hall three waste-heat
and the implementation schedule described? boilers KUV 60/150 are installed in order to use exhaust gases
from gas turbines for heating network water to a temperature
1500C. Delivery water is fed to the city network for heating and hot
water supply. The installed power capacity of the plant is 136 MW
and heat capacity is 171 Gcal/h. Main and reserve fuel for the plant
– natural gas.
CL 01. Please clarify, why emission reductions in 2010 and in
2011 differ? Will all the turbines put into operation simultaneously
or sequentially?
Brief explanation of how the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases by sources are to be reduced by the proposed JI project, including why the emission
reductions would not occur in the absence of the proposed project, taking into account national and/or sectoral policies and circumstances
- Is it stated how anthropogenic GHG emission PDD states: “The reduction of CO2 emissions as a result of this CAR 03 OK
reductions are to be achieved? (This section should project implementation will occur through the replacement of
not exceed one page) electricity, generated in the of URES “Centre” mainly at the
thermal power plant via the conventional technologies and
21


consumed by the region from the grid, with the energy generated
by a more efficient method at the GTES Kolomenskoe. The
introduction of the combined technology to generate electricity and
heat with higher efficiency than the stations within a centralized
power system leads to reduction in fossil fuel consumption
comparing to the baseline scenario.”
CAR 03. Please justify that the proposed type of power plant is
more efficient than the power plants of URES “Centre”. Please
take note: the use of term “combined technology” is very
inaccurate as it embraces a lot of types of plants (CHPPs, GTHPP,
CCGT, etc.).
- Is it provided the estimation of emission reductions The estimation of emission reductions over the crediting period (3 CAR 04 OK
over the crediting period? years and 7 months) is provided: 710,127 tonnes of CO2
equivalent.
CAR 04. The length of the crediting period indicated in A.4.3.1
(3.7 years) is incorrect.
Conclusion is pending a response to CL 01.
- Is it provided the estimated annual reduction for the The estimated annual emission reduction for the chosen credit CAR 05 OK
chosen credit period in tCO2e? period is 198,175 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
CAR 05. Annual average of estimated emission reductions
indicated in A.4.3.1 is incorrect.
Conclusion is pending a response to CL 01.
- Are the data from questions above presented in The data from the questions above is presented in tabular format. OK
tabular format? Please refer to Section A.4.3.1.
Estimated amount of emission reductions over the crediting period
- Is the length of the crediting period Indicated? Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 04. OK
22


- Are estimates of total as well as annual and average Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 05. OK
annual emission reductions in tonnes of CO2
equivalent provided?
Project approvals by Parties
19 Have the DFPs of all Parties listed as “Parties CAR 06. The project has no approval of the Parties. CAR 06 OK
involved” in the PDD provided written project
approvals?
19 Does the PDD identify at least the host Party as a The host Party involved is the Russian Federation. OK
“Party involved”?
19 Has the DFP of the host Party issued a written No, pending a response to CAR 02. OK
project approval?
20 Are all the written project approvals by Parties All written approvals by Parties involved are unconditional. OK
involved unconditional?
Authorization of project participants by Parties involved
21 Is each of the legal entities listed as project The authorization of LLC NaftaSib Energy is deemed to be OK
participants in the PDD authorized by a Party received together with the project approval by the host Party.
involved, which is also listed in the PDD, through:
Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 06.
− A written project approval by a Party involved,
explicitly indicating the name of the legal entity? or
− Any other form of project participant
authorization in writing, explicitly indicating the
name of the legal entity?
Baseline setting
22 Does the PDD explicitly indicate which of the It is explicitly indicated that the JI specific approach was applied OK
following approaches is used for identifying the for identifying the baseline.
baseline?
− JI specific approach
− Approved CDM methodology approach
JI specific approach only
23


23 Does the PDD provide a detailed theoretical A detailed theoretical description of the baseline is provided in OK
description in a complete and transparent manner? Section B.1 in a complete and transparent manner.
23 Does the PDD provide justification that the baseline The baseline is established basically: CAR 07 OK
is established: CAR 08 OK
(a) By listing and describing plausible alternatives available for the
(a) By listing and describing plausible future CAR 09 OK
project owner LLC NaftaSib Energy and selecting the most
scenarios on the basis of conservative assumptions CAR 10 OK
plausible one. Alternative scenarios were listed and described as
and selecting the most plausible one?
follows:
(b) Taking into account relevant national and/or
sectoral policies and circumstance? Alternative scenario 1: Continuation of the existing practice, i.e.
− Are key factors that affect a baseline taken into supply of the heat energy from the nearest boilers of DHS, OHS
account? and electricity from the URES “Centre”;
(c) In a transparent manner with regard to the Alternative scenario 2: The proposed project not developed as a JI
choice of approaches, assumptions, methodologies, project;
parameters, date sources and key factors? Alternative scenario 3: Construction of the new boiler house for
(d) Taking into account of uncertainties and using heat energy generation, electricity supplied from the URES
conservative assumptions? “Centre”.
(e) In such a way that ERUs cannot be earned for In the corrected version additional scenarios were added:
decreases in activity levels outside the project or due Alternative scenario 4: Construction of gas turbine unit and
to force majeure? autonomous heat boiler for heat supply;
(f) By drawing on the list of standard variables Alternative scenario 5: Construction of combined cycle gas turbine
contained in appendix B to “Guidance on criteria for power plant (CCGT);
baseline setting and monitoring”, as appropriate? Alternative scenario 6: Construction of the common steam turbine
(CHP).
Based on alternatives analysis including results of the investment
analysis of Alternative scenario 2, with taking into account the key
factors: sectoral reform policies and legislation, economic situation
in energy generation industry, capacity balance predictions, a
conclusion is made that Alternative scenario 1 is the most realistic
24


and feasible.
(b) By taking into account key factors that affect a baseline, such
as sectoral reform policies and legislation, socio-economic
development, population growth dynamics, structural changes in
economy.
(c) Generally in a transparent manner with regard to the choice of
approaches, assumptions, methodologies, parameters, data sources
and key factors.
(d) Taking into account of uncertainties and using conservative
assumptions was not applied.
(e) In such a way that ERUs cannot be earned for decreases in
activity levels outside the project or due to force majeure.
(f) By drawing of the list of standard variables contained in
appendix B to Guidance on criteria for baseline and monitoring.
CAR 07. The indication of the Russian Federation in the Table
B.1.1 is incorrect.
CAR 08. The list of plausible alternatives is incomplete.
Alternative scenarios should include installation of common steam
turbine, gas turbine with autonomous heat boiler and construction
of combined cycle gas turbine power plant (CCGT) with steam
turbine. Please take note: alternative scenario 3 has no sense as in
the alternative 1 it is justified that heat generation is excessive in
the area.
CAR 09. Areas of concern as to the tables in Section B.1 with the
key data and information used to establish the baseline are as
25


follows:
(i) please provide the values of data applied, QA/QC procedures
(to be) applied for EGPJ,y, HGPJ,y, EFCO2,I,y, EGm,y;
(ii) please provide the correct title for the parameter NCVt.c.e. in
PDD (Section B.1 and E.1) and in the spreadsheet
“20110224_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe GTPP_v1_en”. Take note:
this is not the “conversion factor”;
(iii) please provide the full reference for the source of data for
the EFCO2,i,y including the exact page and table (the same
pertains to the tables in Section D);
(iv) please justify that the source of net calorific value of coal
equivalent is Federal Service of State Statistics (RosStat);
(v) please include in the list of key data the conversion factor 4,187
and the average efficiency of boilers of central heating
workshop.
CAR 10. Please provide calculation of the grid emission factor for
the URES “Centre”. Please take note: the used default emission
factor for heavy fuel oil is inaccurate and default emission factor
for coal is incorrect; the information concerning the commissioning
period of the plants listed in the Table 2.6 is incorrect.
24 If selected elements or combinations of approved N/A N/A
CDM methodologies or methodological tools for
baseline setting are used, are the selected elements
or combinations together with the elements
supplementary developed by the project participants
in line with 23 above?
25 If a multi-project emission factor is used, does the N/A N/A
26


PDD provide appropriate justification?
Approved CDM methodology approach only_Paragraphs 26(a) – 26(d)_Not applicable
Additionality
28 Does the PDD indicate which of the following It is explicitly indicated that the “Tool for the demonstration and OK
approaches for demonstrating additionality is used? assessment of additionality” (the most recent version 05.2) was
(a) Provision of traceable and transparent used for demonstrating additionality.
information showing the baseline was identified on
the basis of conservative assumptions, that the
project scenario is not part of the identified baseline
scenario and that the project will lead to emission
reductions or enhancements of removals;
(b) Provision of traceable and transparent
information that an AIE has already positively
determined that a comparable project (to be)
implemented under comparable circumstances has
additionality;
(c) Application of the most recent version of the
“Tool for the demonstration and assessment of
additionality. (allowing for a two-month grace
period) or any other method for proving
additionality approved by the CDM Executive
Board”.
29 (a) Does the PDD provide a justification of the The approach is based on prove that the project activity would not OK
applicability of the approach with a clear and have occurred anyway due to low financial indicator IRR and that
transparent description? this project is not a common practice.
29 (b) Are additionality proofs provided? To demonstrate the additionality of the project four steps were CAR 11 OK
implemented: CAR 12 OK
Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity CAR 13 OK
27


consistent with current laws and regulations; CAR 14 OK
Step 2: Investment analysis (including the sensitivity analysis); CAR 15 OK
Step 3: Barrier analysis; CAR 16 OK
Step 4: Common practice analysis. CAR 17 OK
Plausible alternatives to the project were identified in Section B.1. CL 02 OK
The investment analysis was based on calculation of IRR for the
Project, taking into account investment costs, operation costs,
depreciation and other parameters referring to expenses.
Benchmark analysis (with IRR as a benchmark 17.5%) was
applied. Investment analysis includes the sensitivity analysis that
shows whether the conclusion regarding the financial/economic
attractiveness is robust to reasonable variations in the critical
assumptions.
The common practice analysis has reasonably shown that the
project activity is not the common practice in Russian energy
sector.
CAR 11. Financial indicators used to set the benchmark are
measured in percents for different currencies (euros, dollars),
however investment analysis was done in Russian rubles. Please
make all the indicators in comparable measurement units.
CAR 12. Please justify the conservativeness of the used value for
Russian interest rate (7.5%) though the range in the source is 2.25
– 7.5 %.
CAR 13. Please provide the reference to the source of formula
used for real risk-free rate calculation. Please take note: the
formula considers inflation though the investment analysis was
made in constant prices. Please provide consistency in the
28


approach for benchmark setting and for investment calculations.
CAR 14. For the determination of the investment analysis
presented in Section B.2 please justify with reference to the source
of information, the input data used in investment analysis (average
natural gas tariff, electricity price, heat price, property tax, scrap
price).
CAR 15. Please justify the conservativeness of the assumption of
the maximum technical capacity of the plant in investments and
emissions calculation. Please be aware: the GTPP in the periods of
low heating system water demands (in the absence of heating
period) has poorer technical characteristics and doesn’t have many
advantages in comparison with common combined heat and power
stations produced power for URES “Centre”.
CAR 16. Please provide the reference to the source of information
for the used value of company related risk premium (4%).
CAR 17. Capacity of “Lutch” CHPP indicated in the Table B.2.4 is
incorrect.
CL 02. Please clarify, why in the cash flow value calculation
property tax value is positive?
29 (c) Is the additionality demonstrated appropriately as a With the unresolved CAR 11 – CAR 17 and CL 02 the OK
result? additionality of the project is not demonstrated.
30 If the approach 28 (c) is chosen, are all N/A N/A
explanations, descriptions and analyses made in
accordance with the selected tool or method?
Approved CDM methodology approach only_ Paragraphs 31(a) – 31(e)_Not applicable
Project boundary (applicable except for JI LULUCF projects
29


32 (a) Does the project boundary defined in the PDD The project boundary defined in the PDD encompasses the OK
encompass all anthropogenic emissions anthropogenic emissions by sources of GHGs in the baseline
by sources of GHGs that are: scenario (refer to Section B.3): that are CO2 from electricity
(i) Under the control of the project participants? generation by the URES “Centre” and from natural gas combustion
(ii) Reasonably attributable to the project? at DHS and QHS.
(iii) Significant?
Sources of project emissions: CO2 from on-site natural gas
combustion.
Sources of leakage were also assessed and reasonably were not
taken into consideration.
32 (b) Is the project boundary defined on the basis of a Project boundary is defined on the basis of case-by-case OK
case-by-case assessment with regard to the criteria assessment of different emission sources in the baseline scenario.
referred to in 32 (a) above?
32 (c) Are the delineation of the project boundary and the The delineation of the project boundaries are presented on Figure CAR 18 OK
gases and sources included appropriately described B.3.1 and Figure B.3.2. CL 03 OK
and justified in the PDD by using a figure or flow CAR 18. The indication of Russian Federation Unified Energy
chart as appropriate? System on the Figure B.3.1 is incorrect.
CL 03. Please clarify who are the “other electricity consumers”
indicated on the Figures B.3.1 and B.3.2? Are any consumers that
receive electricity directly without the use of electricity grid of
URES “Centre”?
32 (d) Are all gases and sources included explicitly stated, All the included gases and sources are explicitly stated, and the OK
and the exclusions of any sources related to the exclusions of any sources related to the baseline or the project are
baseline or the project are appropriately justified? appropriately justified in Section B.3 and in the Table B.3.1.
Approved CDM methodology approach only_Paragraph 33_ Not applicable
Crediting period
34 (a) Does the PDD state the starting date of the project The starting date of the project is indicated as: 18/07/2007. CL 04 OK
30


as the date on which the implementation or CL 04. Please clarify what kind of implementation or construction
construction or real action of the project will begin or real action of the project began at this date?
or began?
34 (a) Is the starting date after the beginning of 2000? Yes, it is. OK
34 (b) Does the PDD state the expected operational The expected operational lifetime of the project is 20 years/240 OK
lifetime of the project in years and months? months.
34 (c) Does the PDD state the length of the crediting The length of crediting period is defined as 3 years and 7 OK
period in years and months? months/43 months) 26/05/2009 – 31/12/2012.
34 (c) Is the starting date of the crediting period on or after Starting date of crediting period is on the date when the first OK
the date of the first emission reductions or emission reductions are generated by the project.
enhancements of net removals generated by the
project?
34 (d) Does the PDD state that the crediting period for The start of crediting period is 26/05/2009 – 31/12/2012. OK
issuance of ERUs starts only after the beginning of
2008 and does not extend beyond the operational
lifetime of the project?
34 (d) If the crediting period extends beyond 2012, does N/A N/A
the PDD state that the extension is subject to the
host Party approval?
Are the estimates of emission reductions or
enhancements of net removals presented separately
for those until 2012 and those after 2012?
Monitoring plan
35 Does the PDD explicitly indicate which of the PDD explicitly indicates that for description and justification of the OK
following approaches is used? monitoring plan a JI specific approach was used.
− JI specific approach
− Approved CDM methodology approach
31


36 (a) Does the monitoring plan describe: The monitoring plan describes: OK
− All relevant factors and key characteristics that - the relevant factors that will be monitored:
will be monitored? (1) Annual natural gas consumption;
− The period in which they will be monitored? (2) Net calorific value of natural gas;
− All decisive factors for the control and reporting (3) Emission factor for natural gas;
of project performance? (4) Annual electricity supply;
(5) Baseline emission factor for the electricity generated at the
URES “Centre”.
(6) Annual heat supply;
(7) Emission factor for natural gas;
- the periods in which they will be monitored: annually (annual
electricity supply, annual heat supply, emission factor for natural
gas), continuously (annual natural gas consumption), monthly (net
calorific value of natural gas);
- all decisive factors for the control and reporting of project
performance: ecological reporting, quality control (QC) and quality
assurance (QA) procedures; the operational and management
structure that will be applied in implementing the monitoring plan.
36 (b) Does the monitoring plan specify the indicators, Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 06. OK
constants and variables used that are reliable, valid
and provide transparent picture of the emission
reductions or enhancements of net removals to be
monitored?
36 (b) If default values are used: Default values: net calorific value of coal equivalent, the boiler OK
− Are accuracy and reasonableness carefully house efficiency for all DHS and QHS, emission factors for
balanced in their selection? different fuels are taken from RosStat, CDM Tools and 2006 IPCC
− Do the default values originate from recognized Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
sources? Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 05 and CAR 06.
− Are the default values supported by statistical
32


analyses providing reasonable confidence levels?
− Are the default values presented in a transparent
manner?
36 (b) (i) For those values that are to be provided by the Baseline emission factor for the electricity generated at URES CAR 19 OK
project participants, does the monitoring plan “Centre” was calculated with the use of CDM “Tool to calculate
clearly indicate how the values are to be selected the emission factor for an electricity system” (version 02) with
and justified? some deviations.
CAR 19. Please indicate and justify conservativeness of deviations
from the applied CDM “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
electricity system” (version 02).
Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 05.
36 (b) (ii) For other values, Refer to 36 (b). OK
− Does the monitoring plan clearly indicate the
precise references from which these values are
taken?
− Is the conservativeness of the values provided
justified?
36 (b) (iii) For all data sources, does the monitoring plan CAR 20. Please specify the procedures to be followed if the CAR 20 OK
specify the procedures to be followed if expected expected data are unavailable, for instance in case of gas flow
data are unavailable? meter failure or the unavailability of bi-annual data of APG
composition.
36 (b) (iv) Are International System Unit (SI units) used? CAR 21. In the Tables D.1.1.1 and D.1.1.3 data units for annual CAR 21 OK
heat supply and net calorific value of natural gas are measured in CAR 22 OK
Gcal/year and kcal/m3. Please use only the International System
Units (SI units) in monitoring plan.
CAR 22. With regard to the comment on NCV NG,y in D.1.1.1
please define the method of calculating weighted average value of
33


NCVNG,y. Please take note: the annual natural gas consumption is
defined from monitoring.
36 (b) (v) Does the monitoring plan note any parameters, Refer to PDD Section D.1.1.3. OK
coefficients, variables, etc. that are used to calculate
baseline emissions or net removals but are obtained
through monitoring?
36 (b) (v) Is the use of parameters, coefficients, variables, etc. Yes, they are consistent. OK
consistent between the baseline and monitoring
plan?
36 (c) Does the monitoring plan draw on the list of Yes. OK
standard variables contained in appendix B of
“Guidance on criteria for baseline setting and
monitoring”?
36 (d) Does the monitoring plan explicitly and clearly Description of the monitoring plan in Section D.1 explicitly and OK
distinguish: clearly distinguishes:
(i) Data and parameters that are not monitored (i) Refer to 36 (b).
throughout the crediting period, but are determined (ii) N/A.
only once (and thus remain fixed throughout the (iii) Refer to 36 (a): parameters marked (1) - (7).
crediting period), and that are available already at
the stage of determination?
(ii) Data and parameters that are not monitored
throughout the crediting period, but are determined
only once (and thus remain fixed throughout the
crediting period), but that are not already available
at the stage of determination?
(iii) Data and parameters that are monitored
throughout the crediting period?
36 (e) Does the monitoring plan describe the methods The monitoring plan describes the methods employed for data OK
34


employed for data monitoring (including its monitoring (fuel flow meters, electricity and heat meters) and data
frequency) and recording? collection frequency (continuously – annual natural gas
consumption, monthly – net calorific value of natural gas, annually
– emission factor for natural gas, annual electricity supply, annual
heat supply, emission factor for natural gas).
Recording of data is stored electronically.
36 (f) Does the monitoring plan elaborate all algorithms Formulae are indicated and numbered in Sections D.1.1.2, and CAR 23 OK
and formulae used for the estimation/calculation of D.1.1.4. CAR 24 OK
baseline emissions/removals and project CAR 23. In formula (2) dimensions of variables are not
emissions/removals or direct monitoring of emission compatible.
reductions from the project, leakage, as appropriate?
CAR 24. In formula (5) the dimension of the boiler house
efficiency for all DHS and QHS (percents) is incorrect. Please take
note: the reference 15 doesn’t work.
36 (f) (i) Is the underlying rationale for the Yes, it is. OK
algorithms/formulae explained?
36 (f) (ii) Are consistent variables, equation formats, Please refer to 36 (f). OK
subscripts etc. used?
36 (f) (iii) Are all equations numbered? Yes, they are numbered. OK
36 (f) (iv) Are all variables, with units indicated defined? Yes, all variables with indicated units are defined. OK
36 (f) (v) Is the conservativeness of the algorithms/procedures N/A N/A
justified?
36 (f) (v) To the extent possible, are methods to quantitatively N/A N/A
account for uncertainty in key parameters included?
36 (f) (vi) Is consistency between the elaboration of the N/A N/A
baseline scenario and the procedure for calculating
the emissions or net removals of the baseline
35


ensured?
36 (f) (vii) Are any parts of the algorithms or formulae that are N/A N/A
not self-evident explained?
36 (f) (vii) Is it justified that the procedure is consistent with N/A N/A
standard technical procedures in the relevant sector?
36 (f) (vii) Are references provided as necessary? Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 09, CAR 13 and CAR OK
16.
36 (f) (vii) Are implicit and explicit key assumptions explained Yes, they are explained in transparent manner. OK
in a transparent manner?
36 (f) (vii) Is it clearly stated which assumptions and N/A N/A
procedures have significant uncertainty associated
with them, and how such uncertainty is to be
addressed?
36 (f) (vii) Is the uncertainty of key parameters described and, The uncertainty level of measured parameters is provided; please OK
where possible, is an uncertainty range at 95% refer to D.2. It is in the range at 95% confidence level.
confidence level for key parameters for the
calculation of emission reductions or enhancements
of net removals provided?
36 (g) Does the monitoring plan identify a national or CAR 25. Reference to the pertinent applicable national law “On CAR 25 OK
international monitoring standard if such standard uniformity of measurements” N 102-ФЗ dated 26/06/2008 is not
has to be and/or is applied to certain aspects of the made.
project?
Does the monitoring plan provide a reference as to
where a detailed description of the standard can be
found?
36 (h) Does the monitoring plan document statistical N/A N/A
techniques, if used for monitoring, and that they are
used in a conservative manner?
36


36 (i) Does the monitoring plan present the quality QC/QA procedures are specified in PDD Section D.2. They OK
assurance and control procedures for the monitoring include basic information about the calibration procedures for gas
process, including, as appropriate, information on flow meter, electric meter, heat meter, certificates from the fuel
calibration and on how records on data and/or supplier.
method validity and accuracy are kept and made
available upon request?
36 (j) Does the monitoring plan clearly identify the The operational and management structure that the project OK
responsibilities and the authority regarding the participant(s) will implement in order to monitor emission
monitoring activities? reduction generated by the project is described in PDD Section
D.3. Responsibilities and the authority regarding the monitoring
activities are indicated.
36 (k) Does the monitoring plan, on the whole, reflect Monitoring techniques are in line with current operation routines. OK
good monitoring practices appropriate to the project
type?
If it is a JI LULUCF project, is the good practice
guidance developed by IPCC applied?
36 (l) Does the monitoring plan provide, in tabular form, a The monitoring plan provides, in tabular form, a complete OK
complete compilation of the data that need to be compilation of the data that need to be collected.
collected for its application, including data that are
measured or sampled and data that are collected
from other sources but not including data that are
calculated with equations?
36 (m) Does the monitoring plan indicate that the data Yes, it is indicated in Section D.1. OK
monitored and required for verification are to be
kept for two years after the last transfer of ERUs for
the project?
37 If selected elements or combinations of approved N/A N/A
CDM methodologies or methodological tools are
37


used for establishing the monitoring plan, are the
selected elements or combination, together with
elements supplementary developed by the project
participants in line with 36 above?
Approved CDM methodology approach only_Paragraphs 38(a) – 38(d)_Not applicable
Applicable to both JI specific approach and approved CDM methodology approach
39 If the monitoring plan indicates overlapping N/A N/A
monitoring periods during the crediting period:
(a) Is the underlying project composed of clearly
identifiable components for which emission
reductions or enhancements of removals can be
calculated independently?
(b) Can monitoring be performed independently for
each of these components (i.e. the data/parameters
monitored for one component are not dependent
on/effect data/parameters to be monitored for
another component)?
(c) Does the monitoring plan ensure that
monitoring is performed for all components and that
in these cases all the requirements of the JI
guidelines and further guidance by the JISC
regarding monitoring are met?
(d) Does the monitoring plan explicitly provide for
overlapping monitoring periods of clearly defined
project components, justify its need and state how
the conditions mentioned in (a)-(c) are met?
Leakage
40 (a) Does the PDD appropriately describe an assessment All the sources of leakage were reasonably neglected. OK
38


of the potential leakage of the project and
appropriately explain which sources of leakage are
to be calculated and which can be neglected?
40 (b) Does the PDD provide a procedure for an ex ante Yes. Please refer to the Section B.3 OK
estimate of leakage?
Approved CDM methodology approach only_Paragraph 41_Not applicable
Estimation of emission reductions or enhancements of net removals
42 Does the PDD indicate which of the following PDD assess emissions in the baseline scenario and in the project OK
approaches it chooses? scenario. Hence, approach (a) is chosen.
(a) Assessment of emissions or net removals in the
baseline scenario and in the project scenario
(b) Direct assessment of emission reductions
43 If the approach (a) in 42 is chosen, does the PDD PDD provides ex ante estimates of: CAR 26 OK
provide ex ante estimates of: CAR 27 OK
(a) Emissions for the project scenario (within the project
(a) Emissions or net removals for the project CAR 28 OK
boundary): 1,528,536 tCO2e;
scenario (within the project boundary)?
(b) Leakage, as applicable? (b) Leakage are considered to be zero;
(c) Emissions or net removals for the baseline (c) Emissions for the baseline scenario: 2,238,663 tCO2e;
scenario (within the project boundary)? (d) Emission reductions adjusted by leakage: 710,127 tCO2e;
(d) Emission reductions or enhancements of net
In the corrected version of PDD ex ante estimates:
removals adjusted by leakage?
(a) Emissions for the project scenario (within the project
boundary): 1,311,962 tCO2e;
(b) Leakage are considered to be zero;
(c) Emissions for the baseline scenario: 1,919,738 tCO2e;
(d) Emission reductions adjusted by leakage: 607,776 tCO2e;
CAR 26. Please take into account the plant “internal needs in
heat” in emission reduction calculations.
39


CAR 27. Calculation of fuel consumption (gas) for the project line
in 2011 and 2012 is incorrect.
CAR 28. Please provide the source of data on fuel consumption
(gas) for the project line in 2009 and 2010.
44 If the approach (b) in 42 is chosen, does the PDD N/A N/A
provide ex ante estimates of:
(a) Emission reductions or enhancements of net
removals (within the project boundary)?
(b) Leakage, as applicable?
(c) Emission reductions or enhancements of net
removals adjusted by leakage?
45 For both approaches in 42 (a) Estimates in 43 are given on the periodic basis, from the OK
(a) Are the estimates in 43 or 44 given: beginning until the end of the crediting period, in tones of CO2
(i) On a periodic basis? equivalent.
(ii) At least from the beginning until the end of (b) The formulae used in PDD are basically consistent throughout
the crediting period? PDD (for the formulae refer to Section E). Refer to CAR 26 -28.
(iii) On a source-by-source/sink-by-sink (c) Key factors influencing the baseline emissions and the activity
basis? level of the project and the emissions are taken into account, as
(iv) For each GHG? appropriate.
(v) In tones of CO2 equivalent, using global (d) Data sources used for calculating the estimates are basically
warming potentials defined by decision 2/CP.3 or clearly identified, reliable and transparent. Refer to CAR 09,13,16.
as subsequently revised in accordance with Article (e) Emission factors (including default emission factors) selected
5 of the Kyoto Protocol? by carefully balancing accuracy.
(b) Are the formula used for calculating the (f) Estimation in 43 is based on the most plausible scenarios in a
estimates in 43 or 44 consistent throughout the transparent manner.
PDD? (g) Estimates in 43 are consistent throughout the PDD.
(c) For calculating estimates in 43 or 44, are key (h) The annual average of estimated emission reductions
factors influencing the baseline emissions or calculated virtually by dividing the total estimated emission
40


removals and the activity level of the project and the reductions over the crediting period by the total months of the
emissions or net removals as well as risks associated crediting period and multiplying by twelve.
with the project taken into account, as appropriate?
Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 26 – 28, 09, 13 and 16.
(d) Are data sources used for calculating the
estimates in 43 or 44 clearly identified, reliable and
transparent?
(e) Are emission factors (including default emission
factors) if used for calculating the estimates in 43 or
44 selected by carefully balancing accuracy and
reasonableness, and appropriately justified of the
choice?
(f) Is the estimation in 43 or 44 based on
conservative assumptions and the most plausible
scenarios in a transparent manner?
(g) Are the estimates in 43 or 44 consistent
throughout the PDD?
(h) Is the annual average of estimated emission
reductions or enhancements of net removals
calculated by dividing the total estimated emission
reductions or enhancements of net removals over
the crediting period by the total months of the
crediting period and multiplying by twelve?
46 If the calculation of the baseline emissions or Illustrative ex-ante estimation of baseline emissions is presented on OK
net removals is to be performed ex post, does the the spreadsheet made available to AIE.
PDD include an illustrative ex ante emissions or net Conclusion is pending a response to CAR 06.
removals calculation?
Approved CDM methodology approach only_Paragraphs 47(a) – 47(b)_Not applicable
Environmental impacts
48 (a) Does the PDD list and attach documentation on the According to the Federal Law “On the Environmental Expertise” OK
41


analysis of the environmental impacts of the project, and to the Law on Amendments to the Construction Code
including transboundary impacts, in accordance environmental impact assessment was included into the section
with procedures as determined by the host Party? “Environmental protection” of Design Documentation. The whole
Design Documentation including the environmental part is subject
to the formal state expertise.
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project activity has
received positive conclusion from the state expertise #77-1-4-
0038-08 dd. 29.01.2008. For GTPP operation a permission #60569
dd. 25.05.2009 from the Moscow interregional territorial
administration of technological and ecological supervision on
emission of harmful (polluting substances in atmosphere air was
received.
Transboundary impacts are irrelevant for the project due to the
tremendous distance to the nearest border.
Please provide the state expertise conclusion to AIE.
48 (b) If the analysis in 48 (a) indicates that the Russian legislation does not use the term “significant OK
environmental impacts are considered significant by environmental impacts”. The company is permitted to operate on
the project participants or the host Party, does the the basis on permission of air emission issued by the state authority
PDD provide conclusion and all references to Rostekhnadzor.
supporting documentation of an environmental
impact assessment undertaken in accordance with
the procedures as required by the host Party?
Stakeholder consultation
49 If stakeholder consultation was undertaken in Stakeholder consultation is not required by the Russian legislation. OK
accordance with the procedure as required by the Hence public hearings were not organized and no pertinent
host Party, does the PDD provide: comments were received during the preparation of EIA.
(a) A list of stakeholders from whom comments on
the projects have been received, if any?
42


(b) The nature of the comments?
(c) A description on whether and how the
comments have been addressed?
Determination regarding small-scale projects (additional elements for assessment)_Paragraphs 50 - 57_Not applicable
Determination regarding land use, land-use change and forestry projects _Paragraphs 58 – 64(d)_Not applicable
Determination regarding programmes of activities_Paragraphs 66 – 73_Not applicable
Table 2 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests

Draft report clarifications and corrective action Ref. to Summary of project participant response Determination team conclusion
requests by validation team checklist
question
in table 1
CAR 01. The term “combined cycle“ in the project title is A.1 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
used incorrectly. The plant provides a combined production
The title was changed. Old title was due to Correction is accepted by AIE. The title
of electricity and heat. Terminologically, this is a gas
mistranslation the project. Please see PDD. of Determination Protocol is changed in
turbine cogeneration power plant but not the combined
accordance with new version.
cycle which by definition is the combination of Brayton
cycle (gas turbine) and Renkin cycle (steam turbine). In the CAR is closed based on due corrections
project, a simple gas turbine cycle is used. made to PDD.
43

CAR 02. Please provide the source of information allowing A.4.1.4 Conclusion on Response 1
the unique identification of the project. Please provide the Response 1 of 17/03/2011
CAR is closed based on due corrections
source of coordinates presented in PDD. Are these The changes were made in the PDD. The source made to PDD.
coordinates of the plant or of Moscow city? was added to Section A1.4.2 - A1.4.4., p4-5. The
plant’s coordinates are indicated the PDD. Please indicate the right numbers of
Section in your response.
Response 2 of 11/04/2011
Conclusion on Response 2
The changes were made, refer to section A.4.1.2
A.4.1.4. CAR is closed based on due corrections
made to PDD.
CAR 03. Please justify that the proposed type of power A.4.3 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
plant is more efficient than the power plants of URES
The changes were made in PDD, section A.4.3. The changes made in section A.4.3 are
“Centre”. Please take note: the use of term “combined
The introduction of the cogeneration to generate not sufficient as it is not clear why
technology” is very inaccurate as it embraces a lot of types
electricity and heat leads to reduction in fossil fuel exactly this type of CHPP is better than
of plants (CHPPs, GTHPP, CCGT, etc.).
consumption comparing to the baseline scenario. other cogeneration plants of URES
Centre.
CAR is not closed.
The changes were made in the PDD, section A.4.3.
made to PDD.
CAR 04. The length of the crediting period indicated in A.4.3.1 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
A.4.3.1 (3.7 years) is incorrect.
According to the CAR is closed based on due corrections
http://ji.unfccc.int/Ref/Documents/DVM.pdf The made to PDD.
length of the crediting period is 3 years 7 month or
3, 58 The commissioning of the project was in 26
May 2009.
44

CAR 05. Annual average of estimated emission reductions A.4.3.1 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
indicated in A.4.3.1 is incorrect.
According to the...The annual average of estimated CAR is closed based on due corrections
emission reductions is calculated by dividing the made to PDD.
total estimated emission reductions over the
crediting period by the total months of the crediting
period and multiplying by twelve.
http://ji.unfccc.int/Ref/Documents/DVM.pdf
The annual average of emission reductions was

corrected and indicated in PDD, section A.4.3.1.
The value is 170 214 tCO2 per year.
CAR 06. The project has no approval of the Parties. 19 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
According to the Russian legislation, the letter of Response is accepted by AIE.
approval will be issued by the Russian Government
CAR is closed.
based on an expert statement issued by the AIE.
Once the Approval is received, both the PDD and
the determination report will be updated and the
determination will become final.
Host country letter of approval was obtained on
12.03.2012.
CAR 07. The indication of the Russian Federation in the 23 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
Table B.1.1 is incorrect.
The changes were made. Please see section B1, CAR is closed based on due corrections
Table B.1.1. made to PDD.
45

CAR 08. The list of plausible alternatives is incomplete. 23 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
Alternative scenarios should include installation of common The changes were made in PDD, section B1. CAR is closed based on due corrections
steam turbine, gas turbine with autonomous heat boiler and made to PDD.
construction of combined cycle gas turbine power plant Response 2 of 11/04/2011 Please decipher abbreviation “PO” used
(CCGT) with steam turbine. Please take note: alternative The abbreviation “PO” was deciphered in the PDD, in PDD.
scenario 3 has no sense as in the alternative 1 it is justified p12. Conclusion on Response 2
that heat generation is excessive in the area. CAR is closed based on due corrections
made to PDD.
46

CAR 09. Areas of concern as to the tables in Section B.1 23 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
with the key data and information used to establish the
baseline are as follows: (i) The change was made. Please see section B1, Responses to i, ii, iii, iv were accepted by
in the tabular form “The key data and information AIE.
(i) please provide the values of data applied, QA/QC
used to establish the baseline”. The indicated source of data to be used
procedures (to be) applied for EGPJ,y, HGPJ,y, EFCO2,I,y,
EGm,y; (ii) The change was made in the PDD (Section B1 for “Conversion factor” evaluation, in
and E1) and in the spreadsheet. the table of Section B1, is incorrect (the
(ii) please provide the correct title for the parameter NCV t.c.e.
20110317_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe GTPP_v2_en tool doesn’t contain any data on
in PDD (Section B.1 and E.1) and in the spreadsheet
conversion factor). Please indicate the
“20110224_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe GTPP_v1_en”. Take (iii) The change was made in the PDD and in the right source.
note: this is not the “conversion factor”; table section D. source of the EFCO2,i,y - 2006 IPCC
(iii) please provide the full reference for the source of data Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas CAR is not closed.
for the EFCO2,i,y including the exact page and table (the same Inventories Volume 2 chapter 2, Table 2.2 p2.16- Conclusion on Response 2
pertains to the tables in Section D); 2.17
(iv) The net electricity generation and fossil fuels CAR is closed based on due corrections
(iv) please justify that the source of net calorific value of
coal equivalent is Federal Service of State Statistics consumed in the project electricity system are made to PDD.
(RosStat); received from Rosstat RF. The amount of fossil
(v) please include in the list of key data the conversion fuels are expressed in tone of coal equivalent with
factor 4,187 and the average efficiency of boilers of central net calorific value is equal to 7,000 kcal/kg c.e. or
heating workshop. 29.33 GJ/t c.e.
(v) The indicated values were added to PDD.
Please see list of key data.
The change was made in the PDD. Please see
source of “Conversion factor” in the table form. In
the calculations used 4,187 according to the round-
off method..
47

CAR 10. Please provide calculation of the grid emission 23 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
factor for the URES “Centre”. Please take note: the used
Default emission factors for Oil and coal were Calculation of BM emission factor
default emission factor for heavy fuel oil is inaccurate and
corrected. The file with the calculation of emission presented in “20110317_EF_GTPP_
default emission factor for coal is incorrect; the information
factor for the URES “Centre” was provided to BV. v1_en.xl” is not transparent (the
concerning the commissioning period of the plants listed in
Please see attached file 20110317_EF_GTPP_ spreadsheet doesn’t contain way of
the Table 2.6 is incorrect.
v1_en.xl calculation, but only final result figure).
CAR is not closed.
Response 2 of 11/04/2011 Conclusion on Response 2
Calculation of BM emission factor was provided to
BV. Please see attached file 20110411_EF_GTPP_
made to PDD.
v2_en.xl
48

CAR 11. Financial indicators used to set the benchmark are 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
measured in percents for different currencies (euros,
The changes were made to the financial model. Investment analysis was recalculated
dollars), however investment analysis was done in Russian
Please see file 20110317_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe from rubles to euro. However,
rubles. Please make all the indicators in comparable
GTPP_v2_en” benchmark was calculated with the use
measurement units.
of data measured in different units
(Russian interest rate – % of USD, risk
Response 2 of 11/04/2011 free rate - % of euro, euro inflation - %
Please see file 20110411_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe in euro, refinancing rate of the CB of RF
GTPP_v3_en” For calculation benchmark we used - % in rubles). Hence, calculated value of
“Country risk premium” according to the benchmark is irrelevant.
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pc/archives/c
CAR is not closed.
tryprem06.xls.
The value of Country Risk Premium was cleared
of current risk premium for a mature equity market CAR is closed based on due corrections
of USA. This value is used as dimensionless made to PDD.
quantity, %.
49

CAR 12. Please justify the conservativeness of the used 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
value for Russian interest rate (7.5%) though the range in
The mentioned range of 2,25-7,5% simply CAR is closed based on due justification
the source is 2.25 – 7.5 %.
represents the range of coupon yields applied to the made to the spreadsheet.
underlying bond in various years during the
payment schedule. By no means it means that the
whole amount of debt represented by these bonds
can be borrowed at 2,25% or any arbitrary number
in the range indicated above. The bond rate is
represented by its coupon and it is clearly indicated
that the value of this coupon is 7,5%. Moreover,
coupon values lower than 7,5% are applied only
during the initial years of the bond’s duration and
starting 2007 only 7,5% is applied as demonstrated
by the payment schedule.
CAR 13. Please provide the reference to the source of 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
formula used for real risk-free rate calculation. Please take
note: the formula considers inflation though the investment Source: CAR is closed based on due
analysis was made in constant prices. Please provide http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Процентная_ставка justifications made to the spreadsheet.
consistency in the approach for benchmark setting and for According to the calculation the used formula
investment calculations. excludes inflation. (Real interest
rate=(1+Nominal Interest Rate)/(1+Inflation)-
1) Therefore the financing model was cleared of
inflation and IA was made in constant price.
50

CAR 14. For the determination of the investment analysis 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
presented in Section B.2 please justify with reference to the Please see the data from PO. The letter was CAR is closed based on presented
source of information, the input data used in investment presented to BV. Please see 23_The letter of justification.
analysis (average natural gas tariff, electricity price, heat investment data.
price, property tax, scrap price).
CAR 15. Please justify the conservativeness of the 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
assumption of the maximum technical capacity of the plant Considering ERs estimation for 2011-2012 we used The used values of 2009 and 2010 years
in investments and emissions calculation. Please be aware: the expected balance of production and supply of were justified by 6-TP statistical forms
the GTPP in the periods of low heating system water electricity and heat energy for 2011 from PO. provided during the site-visit.
demands (in the absence of heating period) has poorer Following the conservative approach this
technical characteristics and doesn’t have many advantages parameters were used also for the next years. For 2011-2012 justification heat and
in comparison with common combined heat and power Please see 11_Electricity balance.pdf The electricity generation is accepted by AIE.
stations produced power for URES “Centre”. calculation of the investments was made on the CAR is closed.
assumption of maximum workload of GTES for
conservative reasons
CAR 16. Please provide the reference to the source of 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
information for the used value of company related risk Please see the data from PO. The letter was CAR is closed based on presented
premium (4%). presented to BV. Please see 23_The letter of justification.
investment data.
CAR 17. Capacity of “Lutch” CHPP indicated in the Table 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
B.2.4 is incorrect.
Capacity of “Lutch” CHPP – 60MW. Source: CAR is closed based on presented
http://www.oducentr.ru/odu/rdu/frameset.html justification.
51

CAR 18. The indication of Russian Federation Unified 32 (c) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
Energy System on the Figure B.3.1 is incorrect.
The change was made on PDD, please see Figure Please avoid use of term “baseline
B.3.1 - B.3.2 boundary” as it is incorrect. Only project
has boundaries, in the absence of the
project there exists some situation that is
Response 2 of 11/04/2011 called “baseline”.
The change was made in PDD. Please see Figure CAR is not closed.
B.3.1
made to PDD.
52

CAR 19. Please indicate and justify conservativeness of 36 (b) (i) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
deviations from the applied CDM “Tool to calculate the
emission factor for an electricity system” (version 02). The deviation is indicated in the PDD. Deviation from the applied CDM “Tool
to calculate the emission factor for an
CHPs produce electricity predominantly in the
electricity system” (version 02) is
prescribed heat supply mode. Therefore they can be
reasonable and accepted by AIE.
excluded from OM and BM calculation. However
the reports (according to form 6-TP) do not contain Please include the description of
any information about fired fuel amount for deviation from the response to PDD
cogeneration or simple cycles and it is impossible Annex 2.
to exclude from calculation the fired fuel amount
CAR is not closed.
and electricity generation with cogeneration cycle.
Therefore, the parameters of cogeneration energy Conclusion on Response 1
units were taken into account in OM and BM
calculation. It is deviation from the Tool but it is
made to PDD.
conservative because the cogeneration cycles is
more efficient than a simple (or combine) cycle.
The above mentioned was included in the PDD.
Please refer to p.41.
53

CAR 20. Please specify the procedures to be followed if the 36 (b) (iii) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
expected data are unavailable, for instance in case of gas All procedures to obtain unavailable data in CAR is closed based on due corrections
flow meter, heat flow meter failure, etc.
cases of emergency situation at the enterprise made to PDD.
for instance gas flow meter, heat meter and
electricity meter are defective or failed are
indicated in contracts. Please see part of
contract; 18_Method of calculation heat at the
emergency situation
19_Method of calculation NG at the

emergency situation
20_Method of calculation electricity at the

emergency situation.
CAR 21. In the Tables D.1.1.1 and D.1.1.3 data units for 36 (b) (iv) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
annual heat supply and net calorific value of natural gas are
measured in Gcal/year and kcal/m3. Please use only the PDD was corrected, please see Tables D.1.1.1 and CAR is closed based on due corrections
International System Units (SI units) in monitoring plan. D.1.1.3 made to PDD.
54

CAR 22. With regard to the comment on NCVNG,y in 36 (b) (iv) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
D.1.1.1 please define the method of calculating weighted
The calculation annual NCVNG,y is presented In the presented formula there exists fuel
average value of NCVNG,y. Please take note: the annual
natural gas consumption is defined from monitoring.
below.
NCVNG , y 
 NCVNG, y  FC NG,y . consumption per month, however in
 FC NG,y D.1.1.1 parameter FCNG,y is titled
“annual natural gas consumption”. Please
Annual value is calculated at the GTES and provide consistency.
inserted into the report (statistic form 6TP)
CAR is not closed.
The change was made on PDD, section D.1.1.1.
made to PDD.
CAR 23. In formula (2) dimensions of variables are not 36 (f) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
compatible.
The change was made in PDD, section D.1.1.2 CAR is closed based on due corrections
please see formula 2. made to PDD.
CAR 24. In formula (5) the dimension of the boiler house 36 (f) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
efficiency for all DHS and QHS (percents) is incorrect.
The change was made in PDD, please see equation CAR is closed based on due corrections
Please take note: the reference 15 doesn’t work.
5. The reference is correct made to PDD.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodolo
gies/tools/am-tool-09-v1.pdf and is made as a
hyperlink in the PDD.
CAR 25. Reference to the pertinent applicable national law 36 (g) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
“On uniformity of measurements” N 102-ФЗ dated
26/06/2008 is not made. The change was made to PDD, section D3 CAR is closed based on due corrections
made to PDD.
55

CAR 26. Please take into account the plant “internal needs 43 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
in heat” in emission reduction calculations.
The heat for ERs calculation was taken from CAR is closed based on provided
statistic form 6TP. Please see 7_6-TP_2009, 8_6- justifications.
TP_2010. The number indicates heat supplied
outside the plant. “internal needs in heat” is
counted in ERs calculations.
CAR 27. Calculation of fuel consumption (gas) for the 43 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
project line in 2011 and 2012 is incorrect.
The model was changed. Please see CAR is closed based on due corrections
20110317_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe GTPP_v2_en”. made to PDD.
CAR 28. Please provide the source of data on fuel 43 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
consumption (gas) for the project line in 2009 and 2010. Please see statistic form 6 TP from PO 7_6- CAR is closed based on due corrections
TP_2009, 8_6-TP_2010. Also please see made to PDD.
20110317_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe
GTPP_v2_en”.
CL 01. Please clarify, why emission reductions in 2010 and A.4.2 Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
in 2011 differ? Will all the turbines put into operation Production of electricity for the 2010 is based on CL is closed based on due clarifications
simultaneously or sequentially? actual data from PO (statistical form 6-TP). made to PDD.
Nevertheless considering ERs estimation for 2011
we can use the expected balance of production and
supply of electricity and heat energy for 2011 from
PO. Please see 11_Electricity balance.pdf.
Following the conservative approach this situation
was prolonged for the following years
56

CL 02. Please clarify, why in the cash flow value 29 (b) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
calculation property tax value is positive?
The change was made in financing model. Please CL is closed based on due corrections
see 20110317_ERU_CF_Kolomenskoe made to the spreadsheet.
GTPP_v2_en.
CL 03. Please clarify who are the “other electricity 32 (c) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
consumers” indicated on the Figures B.3.1 and B.3.2? Are
The change was made on PDD; please see Figure CL is closed based on due corrections
any consumers that receive electricity directly without the
B.3.1 - B.3.2. Electricity will be received from grid made to the PDD.
use of electricity grid of URES “Centre”?
of URES “Centre”
CL 04. Please clarify what kind of implementation or 34 (a) Response 1 of 17/03/2011 Conclusion on Response 1
construction or real action of the project began at this date? Starting date of the project is 18/07/2007. In CL is closed based on due clarifications
this date construction of the GTES had been made to PDD.
started. Please see 17_Order for
construction#07050181_18072007
57

SGT800 Verification Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SGT800 Verification Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SGT800 Verification Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CERTIFICATION

REPORT No. RUSSIA-DET/0120/201 1

BU EAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION

BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

Date of first issue: Organizational unit:

15/04/2011 Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS

Report No.: Subject Group: NO

Flavio Gomes – Operational Manager

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

Table of Contents Page

3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ 8

4 DETERMINATION CONCLU SIONS .............................................................. 9

5 SUMMARY AND REPORT O F HOW DUE ACCOUNT W AS T AKEN

6 DETERMINATION OPINIO N .......................................................................... 17

DETERMINATION PROTOCOL ......................................................................................... 21

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

This report summarizes the findings of the determination of the project,

The determination is not meant to provide any consulting towards the

1.3 Determination team

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

This determination report was reviewed by:

In order to ensure transparency, a determination protocol was customized

The completed determination protocol is enclosed in Appendix A to this

2.1 Review of Documents

To address Bureau Veritas Certification corrective action and clarification

The first deliverable of the d ocument review was the Determination

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

The determination findings presented in this Determination Report Version

2.2 Follow-up Interviews

2.3 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

Corrective Action Request (CAR) is issued, where:

The determination team may also issue Clarification Request (CL), if

To guarantee the transparency of the verification process, the concerns

The project’s purpose is construction of a Gas Turbine Power Plant

Prior to the project implementation electricity to meet residential needs of

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

The baseline scenario represents Business as Usual (BAU) practice. In

The project includes the construction and operation of the GTES

Electricity and heat at the GTES “Kolomenskoe” will be generated using

History of the project

The Clarification and Corrective Action Requests are stated, where

Report No: RUSSIA-det/0120/2011 Rev.02

Determination Report on JI project

The number between brackets at the end of each section corresponds to

4.1 Project approvals by Parties involved (19 -20)

A written project approval by Party B should be provided to the AIE and

4.2 Authorization of project participants by Parties involved