Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys

Commission scolaire
Marguerite-Bourgeoys
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”)
reduction project – Energy efficiency measures
October 19, 2012
October 19, 2012
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4L8
Mr. Ayaz Poundja
Material Resources Director
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100 de la Côte-Vertu Blvd.
Saint-Laurent, Quebec H4L 4V1
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Dear Sir:
Subject: Verification Report on a Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Emissions Reduction Project –
Energy efficiency measures
Enclosed herewith is our verification report on a GHG emissions reduction project performed at
1100 de la Côte-Vertu Blvd., Saint-Laurent, Quebec, H4L 4V1.
The quantification report that is subject to our verification is included in Appendix 1.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information you may require.
Yours truly,
Chartered Professional Accountants
Gérald Daly, CA, CISA, CFE
Advisory Partner
Chartered Professional Accountants
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA
Verification Notice on the Declaration
of GHG Emissions Reductions
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4L8
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Mr. Ayaz Poundja
Material Resources Director
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100 de la Côte-Vertu Blvd.
Saint-Laurent, Quebec H4L 4V1
Dear Mr Poundja:
We have been engaged by Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys to perform the verification of
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ GHG emissions reduction project as an independent third
party verifier.
We have verified the accompanying greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions reduction quantification report
entitled Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period 2011 (the “quantification report”). This quantification
report dated October 17, 2012 is included, along with the related GHG assertions, in Appendix 1 of our
report which is intended to be publicly posted on CSA’s GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry. The present
report is the fourth consecutive verification report issued for this project.
Responsibilities
Management is responsible for the relevance, consistency, transparency, conservativeness, completeness,
accuracy and method of presentation of the quantification report. This responsibility includes the design,
implementation and maintenance of internal controls relevant to the preparation of a GHG emissions
reduction quantification report that is free from material misstatements. Our responsibility is to express
an opinion based on our verification.
Standards
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with
guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006). This standard requires that we plan
and perform the verification to obtain either a reasonable assurance or a limited assurance about whether
the emission reductions declaration that is contained in the attached quantification report is fairly stated,
is free of material misstatements, is an appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and the materiality threshold has not been reached or
exceeded.
Chartered Professional Accountants
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
2
Level of assurance
It was agreed with Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ representatives that a reasonable
assurance level of opinion would be issued and we planned and executed our work accordingly.
Consequently, our verification included those procedures we considered necessary in the circumstances
to obtain a reasonable basis for our opinion.
Scope
A reasonable assurance engagement with respect to a GHG statement involves performing procedures
to obtain evidence about the quantification of emissions, and about the other information disclosed as
part of the statement. Our verification procedures were selected based on professional judgment,
including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement in the GHG statement. In making those
risk assessments, we considered internal control relevant to the entity‘s preparation of the GHG
statement. Our engagement also included:
 Assessing physical and technological infrastructure, processes and control over data.
 Evaluating the appropriateness of quantification methods and reporting policies used and the
reasonableness of necessary estimates made by Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys.
 Identifying GHG sources sinks and reservoirs, types of GHG involved and time periods when
emissions occurred.
 Establishing quantitative materiality thresholds and assessing compliance of results to these
thresholds.
 Ensuring ownership of the project by observing that all reductions are obtained directly by the client
on its own premises
The verification team
Before undertaking this assignment we ensured there were no conflicts of interest that could impair our
ability to express an opinion and the conflict of interest review form was completed by all participants to
this assignment (see Appendix 2). We also ensured we had the skills, competencies and appropriate
training to perform this specific assignment.
The work was performed by ISO 14064-3 trained professionals. Training was provided by the Canadian
Standards Association and Environment Canada. This is an energy efficiency measures to reduce GHG
emissions project that all the team members are competent to undertake since, on top of their
professional training, they all have performed many similar projects.
The auditors assigned to this audit work were:
 Roger Fournier, CPA, CA, Lead Verifier
Mr. Fournier is an ISO 14064-3 trained professional. He has issued more than 80 GHG reduction
project verification reports. The majority of which are registered on the GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry.
Mr. Fournier was responsible for the verification work and ensured the production of this report.
 Paul Aucoin, B.Sc., Verifier
Mr. Aucoin assisted the lead verifier in charge.
The verification team has reviewed and understands GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry’s registrations
requirements.
3
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
CSMB manages 115 establisments, mainly schools, in a strongly urbanized territory. The establishments
are located in 13 different municipalities in the west end of the island of Montréal.
The emissions reduction project
The CSMB head office is located at 1100 de la Côte-Vertu Blvd., Saint-Laurent, Quebec, H4L 4V1 and
the geographical coordinates are Lat. 45°31'02''N Long. 73°40'40''W. The project takes place in
96 different buildings.
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s project consists in the implementation of energy efficiency
measures that include the installation of high efficiency boilers for heating systems, installation of
automatic controls, switching furnaces from oil to natural gas and replacement of absorption
refrigerating systems by energy efficient centrifuge coolers. The project has started on January 1, 2003
and the emissions reduction initiatives were completed on December 31, 2011.
The main GHG sources for the project are from energy consumption related to the occupation of
buildings (heating, ventilation, air conditioning). The various gases involved at Commission scolaire
Marguerite-Bourgeoys are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
The expected life time of this project, as per page 8 of the attached quantification report entitled
Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period 2011, is 10 years.
The project was under the responsibility of Mr. Ayaz Poundja, Material Resources Director, who is the
signing authority in this matter and the persons responsible for the data collection and monitoring was
Ms. Kristel De Repentigny, ing., Material Resources Service.
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys has implemented a monitoring system that aims at insuring
that all installed elements of the project that contribute to GHG emissions reduction are in operation
constantly and consistently.
The quantification report
The quantification report was prepared by L2I Financial Solutions, in accordance with ISO 14064-2
“Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission
reductions or removal enhancement (2006)”.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (2007), AMS-II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching
measures for buildings was used as a guide for the quantification methodology. This methodology is
appropriate since it “comprises any energy efficiency and fuel switching measures’’ implemented in
buildings which corresponds to the Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys grouped project
description, proposing a variety of energy efficiency measures.
The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emissions reductions was one of
comparing the GHG emissions generated by the various energy sources included in the baseline with
those resulting from the project scenario being the emissions generated once the energy efficiency
measures were implemented. The quantifier determined the GHG emissions for every source of energy
by using emission factors multiplied by the consumption of every GHG source.
The emission factors chosen are based on the National Inventory Report 1990-2010 Greenhouse Gas
Sources and Sinks in Canada.
4
The verification work
Planning
At the planning phase of this verification assignment, the following points were reviewed with
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ representatives: Major processes and equipments used in
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ operations, comprehension of the different operation stages
with the purpose of assessing the complexity of the operation and improvements, Commission scolaire
Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ internal control with the purpose of assessing their risk mitigation capacity and
finally, emission sources and GHG involved.
This preliminary review resulted in the assessment of the following risks:
 The inherent risk which is associated with the complexity of the project and the task being
performed;
 The control risk which concerns the risk that the GHG project controls will not be able to prevent
or detect a material discrepancy; and
 The detection risk which concerns the risk that the verifier will not detect a material discrepancy that
has not been detected or prevented by the GHG project controls.
As a result of the assessment of the inherent and control risks, a materiality level was defined, a
verification program was designed to mitigate the detection risk and a sampling plan was developed
accordingly.
Assessing performance materiality
Materiality is an amount that, if omitted or misstated, will influence the reader of the report in his
decision making. Performance materiality is defined in the Canadian Auditing Standards as an amount,
set by the auditor at less than materiality to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the
aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds the materiality.
We have assessed a materiality level based on the above definitions, using Raymond Chabot Grant
Thornton’s performance materiality determination system. This system considers the following
information:
 User expectations;
 Prior year’s measures of materiality;
 Industry standards;
 The entity’s concept of materiality;
 Our assessment of detection risks;
 Other entity specific information.
We have assessed performance materiality at 5% of declared emission reductions.
The inherent risk and the control risk were assessed at an acceptable level for verification purposes.
The detection risk, considering the verification program that was designed, is assessed at an acceptable
level for verification purposes.
Sampling plan determination
Standard sampling and testing procedures were the following and were not modified during the
verification:
5
 Documentation review;
 Interviews with key personnel;
 Cross-checking of Quantification report’s calculations;
 Reconciliation of Quantification report to worksheets;
 Sampling of 25% of GHG emissions;
 Obtaining a declaration of ownership of reductions and removals;
 Description of relevant information systems used for data collection and monitoring.
Conclusion of planning
No outstanding issue remained unresolved after the preliminary review.
Consequently we could proceed with the verification work.
Execution
A draft of the quantification report was submitted to us on August 31, 2012. Our initial review of the
documentation was undertaken on September 27, 2012 and a verification plan was prepared. We then
toured Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ premises on October 15, 2012. In doing so we
interviewed Ms. Kristel De Repentigny. We subsequently received the final quantification report dated
October 17, 2012.
Information systems
Each monitoring system that may have an effect on the data used for emissions reduction calculations
has been identified. The staff responsible for data input and reporting of these systems was interviewed
and the control procedures were described and assessed. Where deemed necessary, spot checking was
used to ensure the controls had been operating properly throughout the verified period. All reports used
in the calculation were reconciled to the calculations.
Assessing quantification methodology
We have assessed the appropriateness of using the CDM Methodology AMS-II.E Version 10-Energy
and fuel switching measures for buildings.
Findings
Findings were listed, valued and compared to our established materiality levels. No findings or
aggregates of findings exceeded the materiality level. All findings were revisited at the conclusion of the
verification to determine if they should be aggregated to generate a request for correction but there was
no need to do so.
During the course of our verification, we obtained all the necessary cooperation and documents required
from Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ management.
Criteria
1. The attached quantification report is in conformance with the requirements and principles of
ISO 14064-2.
2. The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
3. The baseline scenario is appropriate.
6
4. The supporting data are subject to sufficient controls to be considered fair and accurate and should
not cause any material discrepancy.
5. The calculations supporting the GHG assertion are sufficiently accurate to be considered fair and
should not cause any material discrepancy.
6. There are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the resulting emission
reductions or removals.
7. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated.
8. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded.
Reasonable assurance opinion
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with
guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006).
In our opinion:
1. The quantification report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard: Specification with
guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or
removal enhancements (2006), and the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy,
transparency and conservativeness have been respected.
2. The approach and methodology used for the quantification are appropriate.
3. The baseline scenario is appropriate.
4. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’ data controls management system is appropriate.
5. The quantification report and the GHG assertion are free of material misstatements and are an
appropriate representation of the data and GHG information of Commission scolaire MargueriteBourgeoys.
6. To our knowledge, there are no competing claims to the ownership of the GHG project and the
resulting emission reductions or removals.
7. The quantification report has a low degree of uncertainty and the materiality threshold has not been
reached or exceeded.
8. The GHG emission reductions presented in the quantification report entitled Greenhouse Gas
Project Report Period 2011 and dated October 17, 2012 are, in all material respect, fairly stated at
3,656 tCO2e and are additional to what would have occurred in the baseline scenario. The following
breakdown of those emission reductions by vintage year is fairly stated:
Year
CO2
CH4
N2 O
Total
2011
3,637
1
18
3,656
9. The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated at 10 years.
Restricted usage and confidentiality
This verification report is produced to be used by the management of Commission scolaire MargueriteBourgeoys and parties interested in the above described GHG emissions reduction project. Reliance on
the conclusions of this verification report for any other usage may not be suitable.
7
The quantification report entitled Greenhouse Gas Project Report Period 2011 and dated October 17,
2012 is an integral part of this verification report and should in no circumstances be separated from it.
This verification report and the supporting work files are kept confidential and are available to the client
on request and will not be disclosed to anyone else unless compelled by law. They will be safeguarded
for 10 years after which period they will be safely destroyed.
Chartered Professional Accountants
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA
Lead Verifier
Montréal, October 19, 2012
Appendix 1- Quantification report
Greenhouse Gas Project Report
Period 2011
Project proponent:
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100, Bd de la Côte-Vertu
Saint-Laurent (Québec)
H4L 4V1
Prepared by:
L2I Financial Solutions
2015, Victoria Street, Suite 200
Saint-Lambert (Québec)
J4S 1H1
October 17th, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... iv
SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF ................................................................................................ 5
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 6
2.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 8
2.1.
Project title .......................................................................................................... 8
2.2.
Objectives ........................................................................................................... 8
2.3.
Project lifetime and crediting period................................................................... 8
2.4.
Type of GHG project .......................................................................................... 8
2.5.
Location .............................................................................................................. 8
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation................................................................... 9
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission reductions or
removal enhancements ....................................................................................... 9
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of activity ............. 9
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements likely to occur
from the GHG project....................................................................................... 10
2.10.
Identification of risks ........................................................................................ 11
2.11.
Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 11
2.11.1.
2.11.2.
2.11.3.
2.11.4.
Project proponent and representative ...................................................... 11
Monitoring and data collection ............................................................... 12
Quantification and reporting responsible entity ...................................... 12
Authorized project contact ...................................................................... 12
2.12.
Project eligibility under the GHG program ...................................................... 13
2.13.
Environmental impact assessment .................................................................... 13
2.14.
Stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-going communication ....... 13
2.15.
Detailed chronological plan .............................................................................. 13
3.
SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESMENT OF
ADDITIONALITY ......................................................................................................... 14
4.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS
AND RESERVOIRS ....................................................................................................... 15
5.
QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS ............ 16
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
ii
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals................................................................... 17
5.2.
Project GHG emissions/removals ..................................................................... 19
5.3.
GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements ....................................... 20
5.4.
Emission factors ................................................................................................ 20
6.
DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................... 21
7.
REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS....................................... 23
ANNEX I .......................................................................................................................... 25
ANNEX II ........................................................................................................................ 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Project implementation ....................................................................................... 9
Table 2-2 Expected and Achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e) .................................. 11
Table 3-1 Baseline scenario – baseline year for each cluster ........................................... 14
Table 4-1 SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory .................................................................. 15
Table 4-2 SSR’s Project Inventory ................................................................................... 15
Table 5-1 Building size alteration ..................................................................................... 17
Table 5-2 Emission factors summary ............................................................................... 20
Table 6-1 Monitored data.................................................................................................. 21
Table 7-1 Baseline scenario GHG emissions in 2011 (t CO2e) ....................................... 23
Table 7-2 Project scenario GHG emissions in 2011 (t CO2e) .......................................... 24
Table 7-3 GHG emission reductions in 2011 (t CO2e) .................................................... 24
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
BS:
CDM:
CH4:
CO2:
CO2e:
CSA:
CSMB:
EF:
EPA :
HDD:
GHG:
ISO:
IPCC:
kWh :
N2O:
PS:
SSR :
t:
VER :
Baseline Scenario (GHG Emission Source)
Clean Development Mechanism
Methane
Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide equivalent (usually expressed in metric tons)
Canadian Standards Association
Commission scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys
Emission Factor
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Heating degree day
Greenhouse gases
International Organization for Standardization
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kilowatt hour
Nitrous oxide
Project Scenario (GHG emission source)
Source, Sink and Reservoir
Ton (metric)
Verified Emission Reduction
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
iv
SOMMAIRE EXÉCUTIF
(Please note that the remainder of the document is in English)
La Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys a depuis 2003 implanté des mesures
d’efficacité énergétique dans plusieurs des édifices qui lui appartiennent. Ces mesures ont
pour objectifs de minimiser la consommation d’énergie, les impacts environnementaux et
coûts monétaires qui y sont associés.
Ces mesures ont graduellement été implantées depuis 2003. En 2003, 87 établissements
ont vu des mesures d’efficacité d’énergie implantées (Groupe 2003-2008). L’année 2002
sert alors de référence et l’évolution de la consommation est comparée à cette année de
base. En 2009, six autres édifices ont subi des améliorations afin de bonifier leur
performance au niveau de l’efficacité énergétique (Groupe 2009). Pour ces derniers,
l’année du scénario de référence est l’année 2008. En 2010, 3 établissements ont
implantés des mesures (Groupe 2010) et leur scénario de référence est l’année 2009. Les
impacts des diverses activités de projet sont groupés et sont le résultat d’un projet global
de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet (GES). Ces réductions sont obtenues grâce à
diverses mesures :
 Installation de chaudières au gaz à haute efficacité pour le système de chauffage;
 Installation de contrôles automatisés pour les systèmes de ventilation, de
chauffage et de climatisation;
 Changement de carburant du mazout au gaz naturel pour le système de chauffage;
 Remplacement des systèmes de réfrigération.
Ces mesures permettent la réduction d’émissions de GES de deux façons :
- La diminution de la consommation totale d’énergie
- L’utilisation de sources d’énergie moins émettrice de gaz à effet de serre
Le projet et les réductions d’émission de GES seront enregistrés au GHG
CleanProjectsTM Registry. Ces réductions sont obtenues et leur quantification effectuée
suivant les principes et lignes directrices de la norme ISO 14064 tel que stipulé par le
GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry. La méthodologie employée est inspirée de la
méthodologie AMS-II.E du CDM1.
Les réductions d’émission pour l’année 2011 sont au nombre de :
Réductions d’émission de GES pour l’année 2011
Années des mesures
Année de référence
Réductions d’émission
implantées
(t CO2e)
Groupe 2003-2008
2002
3 325
Groupe 2009
2008
228
Groupe 2010
2009
103
TOTAL
3 656
1
CDM, Methodology II.E/ Energy and fuel switching measures for buildings, Version 10, November 2007.
GHG Report
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The Commission Scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys (CSMB) has a role in providing the
population access to quality and diversified educational services. The nature of the
services implies the occupation and operation of considerable size buildings (schools in
most cases). The energy needs in these buildings are significant and the sum of all of
them may represent large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) associated with this
energy utilization. As a responsible citizen, the CSMB makes efforts to struggle climate
changes. A GHG emissions reduction project is implemented and presented in this
document.
The GHG project is first described with statements of its objectives, nature, location, lifetime
and main characteristics. The most appropriate baseline scenario is identified and the GHG
sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) for the baseline and the project scenarios are inventoried.
GHG emissions are then quantified using an outlined methodology. The achieved emission
reductions calculated as the difference between the baseline and project emissions are
reported in the final section.
The methodology developed for this quantification is based on the CDM Methodology
AMS-II.E named Energy and fuel switching measures for buildings2. This GHG report is
presented in a format that meets the requirements of CSA’s GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry and the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles:
 Relevance:
All relevant GHG sources are meticulously selected and presented in section 4. A precise
methodology is used along with project specific parameters values.
 Completeness:
A complete assessment of GHG sources is made and all GHG types are considered in the
applied quantification methodology. Complete information regarding project
implementation, activities and GHG quantification is given through this GHG report.
 Consistency:
Chosen quantification methodology is appropriate for CSMB’s specific project.
Established baseline scenario, as explained in section 3, is consistent with the project
level of activity related to the heating needs of the buildings.
 Accuracy:
Calculation uncertainties are kept as small as possible.
 Transparency:
Project related information is transparently communicated through this document so that
the intended user knows what the important data are, how they are collected and how the
project actually leads to GHG emissions reduction. Data monitoring and GHG emission
2
CDM, Methodology II.E/ Energy and fuel switching measures for buildings, Version 10, November 2007.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
6
reductions calculation are clearly detailed in order to provide the reader sufficient
information to allow the user to confidently make decisions.
 Conservativeness:
GHG emission reductions are not overestimated. When accuracy is jeopardized because
of assumptions, conservative choices are made to make sure that GHG reductions are not
overestimated.
This report will be made available for public consultation. It is intended to serve as a
transparent reference document to support the prospection of potential verified emission
reductions (VER) buyers.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
7
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1.
Project title
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (CSMB) energy efficiency measures for
GHG Emission reductions Project.
2.2.
Objectives
The objective of the project is to minimize the GHG emissions due to energy
consumption by the CSMB in the buildings they manage.
2.3.
Project lifetime and crediting period
Buildings modified between 2003 and 2008 are accounted together and so are buildings
modified in 2009 in subsequent years. All groups of buildings undergoing energy
efficiency measures are components of the same grouped project. The grouped project
has therefore a claiming period starting on January 1st 2003 and the project activities are
planned to be ongoing for at least a crediting period of 10 years.
2.4.
Type of GHG project
CSMB’s energy efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions project was contracted
with regards to its verification under ISO 14064-2 as an Energy Efficiency Improvement
type of project.
The project scenario consists in the implementation of four major energy efficient
measures:
 Installation of high efficiency gas boilers for heating system
 Installation of automatic controls for the ventilation, heating and conditioning
systems;
 Switching furnace oil (light fuel oil) heating system to natural gas;
 Replacement of the absorption refrigerating systems by a centrifuge cooler model
equipped with variable frequency drive that consumes 8 times less energy.
2.5.
Location
CSMB’s 96 buildings included in this project are located on the island of Montreal. A
detailed list of their street addresses and postal codes are given in Annex II.
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100, bd de la Côte-Vertu
Saint-Laurent (Québec)
H4L 4V1
Latitude: 45° 31’ 02’’ N
Longitude: 73° 40’ 40’’ W
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
8
2.6.
Conditions prior to project initiation
The conditions in place before the project implementation were status quo on energy
efficiency technologies, on energy switch and on high efficiency natural gas boilers for
heating system.
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission
reductions or removal enhancements
The project contributes to GHG emission reductions since it makes it possible to consume
less energy than it would otherwise in the baseline scenario (status quo). Considering
that the natural gas used for central heating produces more GHG emissions than the
hydro electricity produced in Quebec, the significant GHG reductions projects in this
report are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
The installation of high efficiency boilers, since 2003;
Automatic controls for the ventilation, heating and conditioning systems;
Heating system energy switch (furnace oil to natural gas);
Replacement of refrigerating systems.
A total of 96 buildings of the 115 buildings under the CSMB management implemented
one or more of those project activities. No more measures were accounted for in further
buildings in 2011. Here is a view of how many buildings, since 2003, have the above
energy efficient measures.
1)
2)
3)
4)
Table 2-1 Project implementation
Projects
Number of buildings
Installation of high efficiency natural
68
gas boilers for heating system
(85% to 95%)
Automatic controls for the ventilation,
95
heating and conditioning systems
Heating system energy switch (furnace
11
oil to natural gas)
Replacement of refrigerating systems
7
Roof and fenestration rehabilitation will have a small overall impact on the total GHG
emission reductions. However it is important to mention the substantial environmental
efforts carried by CSMB through that activity.
The project achieves GHG emission reductions by installing energy efficient technologies
and thus consuming less energy (natural gas, light oil and electricity) then what would
have happened with the baseline scenario: status quo on energy efficiency projects.
2.8.
Project technologies, products, services and expected level of
activity
The technologies and products employed by the CSMB are not unique but they are
among the most recent and effective available at the time of their implementation.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
9
Although they are not unique, the installed technologies are not common for the type and
age of the buildings managed by the CSMB.
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements
likely to occur from the GHG project
This is the fourth GHG report being published for this project. Emission reductions were
already reported and verified for the years 2003-2008, 2009, and 2010. This is the report
for 2011.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
10
Table 2-2 Expected and Achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e)
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
TOTAL
Expected Emission
Reductions
(t CO2e)
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
20 450
Achieved Emission
Reductions
(t CO2e)
1351
2980
1656
1989
1968
2330
2940
3626
3656
22496
2.10. Identification of risks
This emission reductions report was written according to ISO 14064-2 Specifications
Requirements for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission
reductions and removal enhancements assertions. In order to minimize risks, the
methodology and GHG emission factors were selected based on their completeness and
their international recognition. No serious potential risks that could alter this GHG
emission reductions project were identified.
In order to follow the conservative principle of ISO 14064-2, we integrated all the energy
efficiency changes by CSMB, even the switch from electricity to natural gas. This
measure raises the Net GHG emissions, since the electricity emission factor is lower than
the one from natural gas combustion. But the overall GHG emission reductions balance
is positive. CSMB’s energy efficiency projects have a positive impact on GHG emission
reductions as it will be demonstrated in the sections through this report. We included this
bias (conversion from electricity to natural gas), because we have to quantify the overall
GHG emissions following ISO-14064-2 standard.
Another bias that could affect the overall GHG emission reductions was integrated in the
quantification formulas: the building dimensions. Attention must be paid to this issue and
quantification must be adapted consequently.
2.11. Roles and Responsibilities
2.11.1. Project proponent and representative
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
Mr. René Georges Clermont
Energy and technology assistant director
1100, bd de la Côte-Vertu
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
11
Saint-Laurent, (Québec)
H4L 4V1
Tél: (514) 855-4500, extension 4530
www.CSMB.qc.ca
2.11.2. Monitoring and data collection
CSMB is responsible for the project implementation, emission reductions and data
monitoring.
2.11.3. Quantification and reporting responsible entity
L2I Financial Solutions is a firm specialized in non-traditional corporate financing. An
expertise has been developed in the quantification of GHG emissions. Services are
offered for GHG inventory, GHG emissions reduction project implementation, GHG
markets advising, regulatory requirements and much more.
Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel works at L2I as a carbon credits advisor. She has a mechanical
engineering degree from Université de Sherbrooke and EPF-École d’ingénieurs de
Sceaux in France. She also is about to complete an engineering master degree in
renewable energies and a second one in environment with specialisation in sustainable
development. She is responsible for the update of the quantification:
Joséanne Bélanger-Gravel
Carbon credits advisor
L2I Financial Solutions
[email protected]
Mr. David Beaudoin works at L2I as director of environment and climate change services.
He holds a Bachelor's Degree in Biotechnological Engineering from the University of
Sherbrooke. During his career, Mr. Beaudoin has occupied several positions such as
Process Engineering Consultant, Project Manager in R&D and research assistant for
different environmental firms. He performs reviews of the monitored data and the GHG
emission reductions calculation.
David Beaudoin, B.Eng, EP(GHG)
Director, Environment & Climate change
L2I Financial Solutions
[email protected]
450-923-9381 ext.31
2.11.4. Authorized project contact
Christine Lagacé is shareholder and vice-president of financial relations at L2I Financial
Solutions and has the signing authority for L2I. She is authorized by the project
proponent to perform requests and administrative tasks regarding the project registration.
Christine Lagacé, Adm.A.
Vice-president, Financial relations
L2I Financial Solutions
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
12
[email protected]
2.12. Project eligibility under the GHG program
The project is eligible under the GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry. It is implemented
following the ISO 14064-2 guidelines and principles, is not attempted to be registered
under another GHG program and does not create any other environmental credit.
2.13. Environmental impact assessment
The nature of the project does not involve a required environmental impact assessment as
the impact on the environment is limited to the GHG emissions.
2.14. Stakeholder consultations
communication
and
mechanisms
for
on-going
Mr. René Georges Clermont, energy and technology assistant director at CSMB is
responsible for the communications with the quantifier, the verifier and the CSMB’s
board.
2.15. Detailed chronological plan
The first projects activities were implemented in 2003. Since then, new activities are added to
the overall project every year. This is the fourth GHG report being published for this
project. The first GHG report was published for the years 2003-2008, the second for year
2009, the third for year 2010, and this is the fourth report, reporting results for year 2011.
Emission reductions of the subsequent years are planned to be reported on a yearly basis.
Emission reductions attributable to each project activity can be claimed for a maximum of ten
years.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
13
3. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND
ASSESMENT OF ADDITIONALITY
The baseline scenario was selected among alternative scenarios representing what would
have happened without this project. If this grouped project had not been implemented,
the consumption of natural gas, light oil and electricity would have been equivalent to
what existed in 2002 for buildings modified between 2003 and 2008 (2003-2008 cluster),
equivalent to what existed in 2008 for buildings modified in 2009 (2009 cluster), and
equivalent to what existed in 2009 for buildings modified in 2010 (2010 cluster).
Baseline potential scenarios:
Status quo or keeping the current inefficient natural gas boilers and furnace oil
1.
heating system, not installing automatic controls for the ventilation, heating and
conditioning systems, no replacement of the refrigerating systems;
2.
Another scenario would be to install high efficiency boilers, but no change for the
other measures mentioned above;
The project scenario.
3.
The first option was considered realistic since, before the project started the inefficient
natural gas and light oil boilers were working and no maintenance work was necessary.
The second scenario was evaluated to be different from the first one in terms of
efficiency, but there is still some energy loss without the automatic controls and the
refrigerating systems in place. Furthermore, this scenario has financial barrier compared
to the status quo. Finally, financial barriers are significant for the third scenario and thus,
this scenario is rejected as baseline and is proposed as project scenario.
In summary, baseline scenario:
•
Using the inefficient boilers (natural gas and light oil) in place until their end-oflife utility;
•
No implementation of automatic controls for the ventilation, heating and
conditioning systems;
•
No implementation energy efficient refrigerating systems.
Baseline scenario is therefore based on 2002 energy consumption for the 87 buildings
that were modified between 2003 and 2008. In the following table, the baseline year is
presented for each cluster.
Table 3-1 Baseline scenario – baseline year for each cluster
Clusters
Baseline years
2003-2008
2002
2009
2008
2010
2009
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
14
4. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
SOURCES, SINKS AND RESERVOIRS
OF
GHG
The SSRs for the baseline and the project scenario are identified in the tables below and it
is stated whether they are included or excluded from the quantification.
Table 4-1 SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory
SSR - Baseline
Included /
excluded
GHG
Explanation
Excluded
Controlled
/ Related /
Affected
Related
Fuel extraction, processing,
and transport
---
Electricity production
Included
Related
CO2
CH4
N2O
This emission source is assumed to be
negligible compared to the
combustion.
May be a significant source of
greenhouse gases depending on the
production means.
Fossil fuel combustion
(natural gas and light fuel
oil)
Included
Controlled
CO2
CH4
N2O
SSR - Project
Included /
excluded
Fuel extraction, processing,
and transport
An important source of greenhouse
gases.
Table 4-2 SSR’s Project Inventory
GHG
Explanation
Excluded
Controlled
/ Related /
Affected
Related
---
Developing and installation
of new technologies
Excluded
Related
---
Electricity production
Included
Related
CO2
CH4
N2O
This emission source is assumed to be
negligible compared to the
combustion.
Installed equipments and technologies
do not require significant amount of
energy and do not create significant
emissions.
May be a significant source of
greenhouse gases depending on the
production means.
Fossil fuel combustion
(natural gas and light fuel
oil)
Included
Controlled
CO2
CH4
N2O
An important source of greenhouse
gases.
Decommissioning of
equipments
Excluded
---
---
Decommissioning of equipments
activities for the project are assumed
to be negligible.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
15
5. QUANTIFICATION
REMOVALS
OF
GHG
EMISSIONS
AND
The Canada National Inventory Report from Environment Canada was used as the main
reference document to obtain GHG Emission factors for CSMB project. They were used
in the calculations for the following reasons:



Choosing the emission factors from the Canada National Inventory remain the
most appropriate choice for the project since CSMB buildings are in Canada.
Emission factors reflect the Canadian energy consumption; and the province of
Quebec electricity generation emission factor;
The Canada National Inventory Report contains well researched and established
emission factors for different types of fossil fuel.
The major greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, as per IPCC 2006
guidelines, are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), perfluorocarbon (PFC) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).
Among them, gases involved in this project are CO2, CH4 and N2O, based essentially on
natural gas combustion, light fuel oil and electricity consumption.
Baseline consumption data
An important premise was made for the establishment of the baseline data, since it is not
possible to find the exact energy consumption in the case of a hypothetical scenario that
what would have occurred without the project. The estimated data for the baseline
quantification was taken from 2002 energy consumption for the first cluster of 87
buildings that were modified between 2003 and 2008. As for subsequent changes (2009
and later), for a more realistic comparison, the baseline will be the consumption of the
year prior to the changes for the buildings being modified (2008 in the case of the cluster
2009 and 2009 for the 2010 cluster).
Buildings included in the quantification
The energy consumption data used for the quantification comes only from the CSMB’s
buildings with energy efficiency measures; a first cluster of 87 buildings for
improvements between 2003 and 2008, a second cluster of 6 buildings for 2009
improvements and a third cluster of 3 buildings improved in 2010. A total of 96 buildings
are therefore taken into account. This was conservative in order to see the effect of the
measures on the energy consumption over the years. It’s important to mention that we
took all the buildings that had a modification that could affect the energy consumption,
even the switch from electricity to natural gas. This measure raises the Net GHG
emissions, since the use of electricity (in Quebec) is responsible for much less GHG
emissions than natural gas combustion. But the overall GHG emission reductions balance
is positive. This contributes to the conservative principle of ISO 14064-2.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
16
Building size
Another bias intergraded in the quantification is the buildings alteration over the years.
We have to compare the energy consumption for the same building size. Between 2002
and 2008, four buildings changed in size and in 2011, eight more changed as it is shown
below:
Table 5-1 Building size alteration
Building #
053
055
057
064
070
250
263
272
091
154
189
463
Year of building alteration
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2008
2008
2005
2007
Size alteration (m2)
From 2 288 to 2 988
From 3 172 to 4 083
From 2 771 to 4 345
From 3 372 to 4 618
From 2 170 to 5 991
From 5 697 to 6 965
From 4 052 to 5 058
From 2 978 to 4 033
From 24 029 to 29 225
From 3 910 to 5 145
From 24 851 to 25 750
From 11 435 to 12 435
Normalizing energy consumption data
The weather is a factor that can greatly influence the energy consumption of a building. It
is therefore important to isolate the influence of this factor when comparing a building’s
energy consumption over many years. Heating degree days (HDD) reflect the need for
heating due to weather conditions. The process of “normalization” thus aims at isolating
the effect of weather by scaling the energy consumption compared to the amount of HDD
for a normal year, as defined by Natural Resources Canada, for the region under
discussion3. Actual bills give the actual energy consumption of a building for a given
year; normalized bills give the energy the same building would have consumed had this
year been “normal” as defined per Natural Resources Canada for the location of the said
building. For previous quantifications, the normalisation has been performed with
proportions of 30% and 70% where 70% of the energy consumption is normalised. In this
report, the normalisation has been performed with proportions of 40% and 60% where 60%
of the energy consumption is normalised.
Total emission reductions
The following equations for the baseline GHG emissions, the project GHG emissions,
and the emission reductions are applied for each cluster. The total emission reductions are
the sum of the reductions of each cluster.
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals
BSy = BSElec + BSNG + BSOil
3
Natural Resources Canada, Internet link : http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/beaufort/mean_monthly_e.php
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
17
BSy =
BSElec,=
BSNG=
BSOil =
Baseline Scenario emissions for year “y” (t CO2e);
Baseline Scenario total emissions associated with electricity use (t CO2e)
Baseline Scenario total emissions associated with natural gas (t CO2e)
Baseline Scenario total emissions associated with fuel oil combustion (t CO2e)
BSElec = [EECO2 + (EECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EEN2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQE * RS
BSNG = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQNG * RS
BSOil = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQO * RS
BSQE =
Normalized quantity of electricity consumed for the baseline scenario
(kWh);
BSQN =
Normalized quantity of natural gas consumed for the baseline scenario
(m3);
BSQO =
Normalized quantity of light fuel oil (no. 2) consumed for the baseline
scenario (Liters);
EECO2, EE CH4, EEN2O = GHG emission factors for electricity
ENCO2, ENCH4, ENN2O = GHG emission factors for natural gas combustion
EOCO2, EOCH4, EON2O = GHG Emission factors for fuel oil combustion
GWPCH4 =
Global Warning Potential of methane (21)
GWPN2O =
Global Warning Potential of nitrous oxide (310)
RS =
Ratio of areas in year “y”/ baseline year
RS = Ay / Abs
Abs =
Ay =
Area of building “i” in baseline year (m2)
Area of building “i” in year “y” (m2)
BSQE = CElec,bs * [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJbs)]
BSQN = CNG,bs * [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJbs)]
BSQO = CO,bs * [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJbs)]
For previous quantifications, 0.3 and 0.7 have been used instead of 0.4 and 0.6
CElec,bs =
CNG,bs =
CO,bs =
DJbs =
DJr =
Actual total electricity consumption in the baseline year (kWh)
Actual total natural gas consumption in the baseline year (kWh)
Actual fuel oil consumption in the baseline year (kWh)
Degree days of the baseline year4
Degree days reference: 30 years average 1971-2000 (4575) 5
The degree-days are taken from P-E-Trudeau international airport weather station.
CElec,bs = ∑
4
Environnement Canada, Données pour l’Aéroport Trudeau :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html
5
Environnement Canada, Climate normals and averages 1971-2000 :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
18
CNG,bs = ∑
CO,bs = ∑
CElec,bsi =
CNG,bsi =
CO,bsi =
n=
5.2.
Actual electricity consumption in the baseline year at building “i” (kWh)
Actual natural gas consumption in the baseline year at building “i” (kWh)
Actual fuel oil consumption in the baseline year at building “i” (kWh)
Number of buildings with efficiency measures implanted for this cluster
Project GHG emissions/removals
PSy = PSElec + PSNG+ PSOil
PSy=
PSElec, =
PSNG=
PSOil=
Project Scenario emissions for year “y” (t CO2e);
Project Scenario total emissions associated with electricity use (t CO2e)
Project Scenario total emissions associated with natural gas combustion (t CO2e)
Project Scenario emissions associated with fuel oil combustion (t CO2e)
PSElec,y = [EECO2 + (EECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EEN2O *GWPN2O)] * PSQEy
PSNG,y = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * PSQNGy
PSOil,y = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * PSQOy
Normalized quantity of electricity consumed in year “y” (kWh);
Normalized quantity of natural gas consumed in year “y” (m3);
Normalized quantity of light fuel oil (no. 2) consumed in year “y”
(Liters);
PSQEy =
PSQNy =
PSQOy =
PSQEiy = CElec,y * [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJy)]
PSQNy = CNG,y * [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJy)]
PSQOy = CO,y * [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJy)]
For previous quantifications, 0.3 and 0.7 have been used instead of 0.4 and 0.6
CElec,y =
CNG,y =
CO,y =
DJy =
Actual total electricity consumption in year “y” (kWh)
Actual total natural gas consumption in year “y” (kWh)
Actual total fuel oil consumption in year “y” (kWh)
Degree days of the project year “y”6
CElec,y= ∑
CNG,y = ∑
6
Environnement Canada, Données pour l’Aéroport Trudeau :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
19
CO,y = ∑
Actual electricity consumption in the year “y” at building “i” (kWh)
Actual natural gas consumption in the year “y”at building “i” (kWh)
Actual fuel oil consumption in the year “y”at building “i” (kWh)
Number of buildings with efficiency measures implanted for this cluster
CElec,yi =
CNG,yi =
CO,yi =
n=
5.3.
GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements
TPERy = ∑
z=
Number of clusters
TPERcy = BSy– PSy
Total Project Emission Reductions in year “y” for a cluster “c” (t CO2e)
TPERcy =
5.4.
Emission factors
Table 5-2 Emission factors summary
Factor
EE
EN
EO
Gas
CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2
Value
2
0.0002
0.0001
1878
Unit
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/kWh
g/m3
CH4
N2O
0.037 g/m3
0.035 g/m3
CO2
CH4
N2O
2725 g/L
0.026 g/L
0.031 g/L
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
Source
National Inventory Report 1990-2010, Greenhouse
Gas Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 3, Table
A13-6
National Inventory Report 1990-2010, Greenhouse
Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.194,
Marketable Natural Gas
National Inventory Report 1990-2010, Greenhouse
Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.195,
Institutional
National Inventory Report 1990-2010, Greenhouse
Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.196,
Light fuel oil, Institutional
20
6. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL
The monitoring requirements listed in the standard 5.10 of ISO 14 064 part 27 are already
applied in the CSMB grouped project and readily available.
The project monitored data is used in the quantification of the CSMB GHG emission
reductions. Energy units are basically used: KWh for electricity, litre for light fuel oil
(furnace oil) and m3 for natural gas. The data are being monitored directly from the
energy bills.
All the energy consumption data for the establishment of the CSMB are collected from
the energy bills and entered in a management database application called Helios. The
CSMB accounting Department is responsible for the data collection and input to Helios.
Mr René-Georges Clermont is responsible for the energy bill’s approval. He is also in
charge of following up the overall energy consumption of the 115 CSMB buildings. The
data are kept in a central server at the head office. There is a complete data back-up
processed weekly and data is systemically input into the database daily.
Table 6-1 Monitored data
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
Source of data to be used :
Description of measurement
methods and procedures to be
applied :
QA/QC procedures to be applied :
Electricity
kWh
Electricity consumption from CSMB Buildings
Hydro-Québec energy bills per building
Collect data directly on energy bills and enter them
into Helios software.
These data are judged sufficiently accurate so that
no further quality control than invoice double
check is performed.
International Standards ISO 14064-2 :2006(F), section 5.10, p.13.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
7
21
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
Source of data to be used :
Description of measurement
methods and procedures to be
applied :
QA/QC procedures to be applied
Natural Gas
m3
Natural gas consumption from CSMB buildings
Gas Métro energy bills per building
Collect data directly on energy bills and enter them
into Helios software.
Data / Parameters
Data unit :
Description :
Source of data to be used :
Description of measurement
methods and procedures to be
applied :
QA/QC procedures to be applied
Light fuel oil
Litre
Light fuel oil consumption from CSMB buildings
Energy bills per building
Collect data directly on energy bills and enter them
into Helios software.
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
These data are judged sufficiently accurate so that
no further quality control than invoice double
check is performed.
These data are judged sufficiently accurate so that
no further quality control than invoice double
check is performed.
22
7. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS
The project plan and report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard and the
GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry requirements. The methodology that is used, the choice
of region specific emission factors and a rigorous monitoring plan allow for a reasonably
low level of uncertainty. L2I Solutions is confident that the emission reductions are not
overestimated and that the numbers of emission reductions that are reported here are real
and reflect the actual impacts of the project.
The GHG report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjectsTM
Registry requirements. Emission reductions will be verified by an independent third party
to a reasonable level of assurance. Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton will be the verifying
firm for this reporting period and will verify in conformance with ISO 14064-3.
Emission reductions are reported here for the year 2011 and this is fourth GHG report to
be done. The previous reports are done for years 2003-2008, 2009, and 2010.
Baseline emissions and project emissions are shown for each cluster in the two following
tables. The last table lists the total emission reductions for this project.
Table 7-1 Baseline scenario GHG emissions in 2011 (t CO2e)
CO2
2003-2008
Cluster
Electricity
Total GHG
0
2
110
13924
6
80
14010
897
0
3
900
2
0
0
2
566
0
3
569
Fuel Oil
0
0
0
0
Electricity
1
0
0
1
372
0
2
374
0
0
0
0
15870
6
90
15966
Natural Gas
Electricity
Natural Gas
2010 Cluster
N2O
108
Fuel Oil
2009 Cluster
CH4
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
TOTAL
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
23
Table 7-2 Project scenario GHG emissions in 2011 (t CO2e)
CO2
2003-2008
Cluster
CH4
Electricity
0
2
110
11334
5
65
11404
180
0
1
181
1
0
0
1
340
0
2
342
Fuel Oil
0
0
0
0
Electricity
1
0
0
1
269
0
2
271
0
0
0
0
12 233
5
72
12 310
Natural Gas
Electricity
Natural Gas
2010 Cluster
Total GHG
108
Fuel Oil
2009 Cluster
N2O
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
TOTAL
Table 7-3 GHG emission reductions in 2011 (t CO2e)
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total GHG
Baseline emissions
15870
6
90
15966
Project emissions
12 233
5
72
12 310
3637
1
18
3656
Emission
reductions
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
24
ANNEX I
Calculation examples for cluster 2003-2008
Baseline scenario calculation – cluster 2003-2008
=
BSy
15020.4 =
=[
BSElec
110 =[
BSNG
=[
14010 =[
=[
BSOil
900 =[
GHG Report
BSElec
+
110 +
EECO2
+
(
+
0.000002 (
ENCO2
+
(
+
0.001878 (
EOCO2
+
(
+
0.002725 (
BSNG
+
14010.488 +
EECH4
*
2E-10 *
ENCH4
*
3.7E-08 *
EOCH4
*
2.6E-08 *
BSOil
900.294178
)
+
GWPCH4
(
)
+
21 (
)
+
GWPCH4
(
)
+
21 (
)
+
GWPCH4
(
)
+
21 (
EEN2O
*
1E-10 *
ENN2O
*
3.5E-08 *
EON2O
*
3.1E-08 *
GWPN2O
)]
*
)]
310 *
GWPN2O
)]
*
)]
310 *
GWPN2O
)]
*
)]
310 *
25
BSQE
*
52170537
*
BSQNG
*
7182210
BSQO
318848
RS
1.0323
RS
*
*
*
1.0323
RS
1.0323
RS
=
1.0323 =
BSQE
=
52170537 =
BSQN
=
7182210 =
BSQO
=
318848 =
Ay
533835
CElec,bs
/
/
Abs
517116
*[
0.4 +
49359511 *[
0.4 +
CNG,bs
*[
0.4 +
6795222 *[
0.4 +
Co,bs
*[
0.4 +
301668 *[
0.4 +
CElec,bs
=
49359511
CNG,bs
=
6795222
CO,bs
=
301668
*
0.6 (
*
0.6 (
*
0.6 (
*
0.6 (
*
0.6 (
*
0.6 (
DJr
/
4575 /
DJr
/
4575 /
DJr
/
4575 /
DJbs
)]
4178.4 )]
DJbs
)]
4178.4 )]
DJbs
)]
4178.4 )]
Project calculation – cluster 2003-2008
PSy
=
11695 =
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
PSElec
+
110 +
PSNG
+
11404,5287 +
PSOil
180,706922
26
PSElec
=[
110 =[
PSNG
=[
11405 =[
PSOil
=[
181 =[
EECO2
+(
0,000002 + (
ENCO2
+(
0,001878 + (
EOCO2
+(
EECH4
*
GWPCH4
2E-10 *
ENCH4
*
GWPCH4
3,7E-08 *
EOCH4
*
GWPCH4
)+
(
EEN2O
*
)+
21 (
1E-10 *
)+
(
ENN2O
*
)+
21 (
3,5E-08 *
)+
(
EON2O
*
)+
21 (
3,1E-08 *
)]
*
)]
310 *
GWPN2O
)]
*
)]
310 *
GWPN2O
)]
*
)]
310 *
GWPN2O
0,002725 + (
2,6E-08 *
=
PSQE
53862626 =
CElec,y
*[
49626551 *[
0,4 +
0,4 +
0,6 * ( DJr
0,6 * (
/
4575 /
DJbs
)]
4005,2 )]
=
PSQN
6035333 =
CNG,y
*[
5560679 *[
0,4 +
0,4 +
0,6 * ( DJr
0,6 * (
/
4575 /
DJbs
)]
4005,2 )]
=
PSQO
66068 =
Co,y
0,4 +
0,4 +
0,6 * ( DJr
0,6 * (
/
4575 /
DJbs
)]
4005,2 )]
*[
60872 *[
CElec,y
=
49626551
CNG,y
=
5560679
CO,y
=
60872
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
27
PSQE
53862626
PSQNG
6035333
PSQO
66068
Emission reductions calculation for cluster 2003-2008
TPERcy = BSy– PSy
3 326 = 15 020.4-11 694.9
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
28
ANNEX II
List of the buildings included in the grouped project
GHG Report
29
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
30
CSMB
2011 GHG Report
31
Appendix 2 – Conflict of interest review checklist
Conflict of interest review checklist
The verifier and the verification team must ensure that they are truly independent from the project,
project proponent(s), quantifier, and/or other agents related to the project. The verifier shall avoid any
actual or potential conflicts of interest with the project proponent and the intended users of the GHG
information.
Client name:
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
Report identification:
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”) reduction
project – Energy efficiency measures
Date of report:
October 19, 2012
Professional:
Roger Fournier, CPA, CA, Lead Verifier
I confirm the following:
Yes
No
Details
Independence
I remained independent of the activity being verified,
and free from bias and conflict of interest.
I maintained objectivity throughout the verification to
ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based
on objective evidence generated during the
verification.
Ethical conduct
I have demonstrated ethical conduct through trust,
integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the
verification process.
Fair presentation
I have reflected truthfully and accurately verification
activities, findings, conclusions and reports.
I have reported significant obstacles encountered
during the verification process, as well as unresolved,
diverging opinions among verifiers, the responsible
party and the client.
Due professional care
I have exercised due professional care and judgment
in accordance with the importance of the task
performed and the confidence placed by clients and
intended users.
I have the necessary skills and competences to
undertake the verification.
October 19, 2012
Signature
Date
Conflict of interest review checklist
The verifier and the verification team must ensure that they are truly independent from the project,
project proponent(s), quantifier, and/or other agents related to the project. The verifier shall avoid any
actual or potential conflicts of interest with the project proponent and the intended users of the GHG
information.
Client name:
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
Report identification:
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”) reduction
project – Energy efficiency measures
Date of report:
October 19, 2012
Professional:
Paul Aucoin, B.Sc., Verifier
I confirm the following:
Yes
No
Details
Independence
I remained independent of the activity being verified,
and free from bias and conflict of interest.
I maintained objectivity throughout the verification to
ensure that the findings and conclusions will be based
on objective evidence generated during the
verification.
Ethical conduct
I have demonstrated ethical conduct through trust,
integrity, confidentiality and discretion throughout the
verification process.
Fair presentation
I have reflected truthfully and accurately verification
activities, findings, conclusions and reports.
I have reported significant obstacles encountered
during the verification process, as well as unresolved,
diverging opinions among verifiers, the responsible
party and the client.
Due professional care
I have exercised due professional care and judgment
in accordance with the importance of the task
performed and the confidence placed by clients and
intended users.
I have the necessary skills and competences to
undertake the verification.
October 19, 2012
Signature
Date