Commission Scolaire Marguerite

Transcription

Commission Scolaire MargueriteBourgeoys (CSMB)
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”)
reduction project – CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG
Emission reductions project- January 1, 2012 to
December 31, 2013
September 24, 2014
September 24, 2014
Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton LLP
Suite 2000
National Bank Tower
600 De La Gauchetière Street West
Montréal, Quebec H3B 4L8
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
Assistant Manager - Financial Resources
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100, Blvd de la Côte-Vertu
Saint-Laurent (Quebec) H4L 4V1
Telephone: 514-878-2691
Fax: 514-878-2127
www.rcgt.com
Subject: Verification Report on a Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) Emissions Reduction Project –
CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG Emission reductions project- January 1,
2012 to December 31, 2013
Dear Sir:
Enclosed herewith is our verification report on a GHG emissions reduction project performed at several
locations in buildings that belong to the Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys.
The quantification report that is subject to our verification is included in Appendix 2.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for any additional information you may require.
Yours truly,
Chartered Professional Accountants
Mathieu Lendick, CPA auditor, CA
Senior Manager, Engagement leader
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
Gontran Bage, ing., Ph.D.
Manager, Lead GHG Verifier
Verification Report 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
Dear Sir:
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 CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions Project - January 1, 2012 to
December 31, 2013 (the “quantification report”). This quantification report dated September 19, 2014 is
included in Appendix 2 of our report which is intended to be publicly posted on CSA’s GHG
CleanProjectsTM Registry. The present report is the fifth 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.
Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
2
Level of assurance
It was agreed with Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s representatives that a reasonable
assurance level 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 controls relevant to the entity’s preparation of the GHG statement. In order to
meet the verification’s objectives, our engagement also included:
 Assessing physical and technological infrastructures, processes and controls 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.
 Identifying the period within which the reductions occurred.
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 3). 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. This is an energy efficiency and fuel switch project that all the team members are
competent to undertake since, on top of their professional training, they all have performed many similar
projects. This project has been quantified under ISO 14064-2 “Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancement (2006)” using the
CDM II.E/Version 10 Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings methodology which
the following team of professionals is competent to assess.
The auditors assigned to this audit work were:
 Mathieu Lendick, CPA auditor, CA
Mr. Lendick is an ISO 14064-3 trained professional.
Mr. Lendick is the Engagement leader for this verification.
3
 Gontran Bage, ing., Ph.D. - Lead Verifier
Mr. Bage is both an ISO 14064-2 and ISO 14064-3 trained professional. He has performed many GHG
reduction projects quantification and verification reports. He is an engineer and Ph.D. specialized in
sustainable development and chemical engineering.
Mr. Bage was responsible for the verification work and ensured the production of this report.
 Victor Poudelet, ing. jr - Verifier
Mr. Poudelet is an ISO 14064-3 trained professional.
Mr. Poudelet assisted the lead verifier.
The verification team has reviewed and understands GHG CleanProjectsTM Registry’s registrations
requirements. All team members can be reached by contacting Mr. Gontran Bage, Director – GHG Audit
team at 514 393-4849 [email protected].
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, one of the largest School board on the island of Montreal,
manages 115 establishments, mainly schools, in a strongly urbanized territory. The establishments are
located in 13 different municipalities in the west end of the island of Montreal.
The emissions reduction project
The project is located in 98 differents establishments, while the main office is located at 1100, Blvd de la
Côte-Vertu, Saint-Laurent, (Quebec), H4L 4V1 and the geographical coordinates are Lat. 45°31'02'' N
Long. 73°40' 40'' W.
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s project consists in the implementation of energy efficiency
measures that include the installation of high efficiency boilers from heating systems, installation of
automatic controls and the switching of furnaces from light oil to natural gas. The project has started on
January 1, 2003 and the emissions reduction initiatives were completed on December 31, 2013.
The main GHG sources for the project are from the energy consumption related to the occupation of
buildings (heating, ventilation). 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 is 10 years.
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s management has declared its intention to quantify GHG
reductions each year for the remaining duration of the project.
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.
4
The principal contacts for this project are:
Developper:
Stéphane Bergeron, Assistant Director - Financial Resources
Financial administration:
Stéphane Bergeron, Assistant Director - Financial Resources
Data collection and monitoring:
Jocelyn Poisson, Project manager - Material Resource Services
The quantification report
The quantification report was prepared by National Ecocredit, 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), II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures
for buildings was used as a guide for the quantification methodology.
The approach that was used for the quantification of the GHG emission reductions was one of comparing
the intensity factors of the sources of energy used for the project to those used for the baseline scenario.
The quantifier determined the GHG emissions for every source of energy by using appropriate emission
factors multiplied by the consumption of every GHG source.
The emission factors chosen are based on the National Inventory Report 1990-2012 Greenhouse Gas Sources
and Sinks in Canada.
The verification work
Planning
At the planning phase of this verification assignment, the following points were reviewed with Commission
Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s representatives: Major processes of Commission Scolaire MargueriteBourgeoys’s operations, comprehension of the different operation stages with the purpose of assessing
the complexity of the operations, Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s internal control and
finally, emission sources and GHG involved.
Jocelyn Poisson, Project Manager, was interviewed concerning the description of major processes and
controls at Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys as well as concerning the data collection and
monitoring process.
This preliminary review resulted in the assessment of the following risks:
 The inherent risk which is associated with the nature, scale, 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
5
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;
 Entity’s concept of materiality;
 Our assessment of detection risks;
 Other entity specific information.
We have assessed 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:
 Documentation review: Quantification report, sampling of energy bills for natural gas;
 Interviews with key personnel: Jocelyn Poisson;
 Cross-checking of Quantification report’s calculations: Calculating GHG emissions form electricity,
natural gas and light oil taking into account the variation of heating-degree days between the baseline
and the project as well as any modification in the total area of each building.;
 Reconciliation of Quantification report to worksheets: natural gas, building area, heating-degree days
and emissions factors;
 Sampling of GHG emissions based on the materiality and the performance materiality previously
assessed
 Obtention of a declaration of ownership of reductions and removals;
 Description of relevant information systems used for data collection and monitoring: internal system
collecting automatically the monthly consumption of energy from the website of the different energy
providers;
 Testing the conception of monitoring systems.
Conclusion of planning
At the end of the planning phase, information obtained on the project, the data and information
management systems and the quantification report were complete and satisfactory for verification
purposes. The verification team had an appropriate understanding of the project approach as well as the
quantification methodology to assess them.
6
No outstanding issues 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 September 24, 2013 (that version concerned
only the reductions of 2012, we also received a version with the reductions of both 2012 and 2013 on
August 25, 2014). Our initial review of the documentation was undertaken on October 10, 2013 and a
verification plan was prepared. We then toured Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s premises on
January 22, 2014. In doing so, we interviewed Jocelyn Poisson to discuss the operations and to understand
the use of different equipments as well as their maintenance programs. We subsequently received the final
quantification report dated September 19, 2014.
Location of the project
Latitude and longitude of the premises were verified during the on-site visit.
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 (Jocelyn Poisson,
Project manager) was interviewed and the control procedures were assessed. We have ensured that 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 CDM II.E/version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching
measures for buildings, as a methodology by comparing each condition of applicability of the methodology
to the project conditions and by ensuring that each step of the methodology was properly applied using
our “Assessment of quantification standards and methodologies used” form.
We agree with the methodology used for this project.
Assessing the additionnality of the reductions
We have assessed the additionnality of the reductions by using our “Assessment of baseline scenario”
worksheet. The rationale for accepting the additionnality of the reductions is the following: The previous
equipments (furnaces and boilers) would have been able to provide the energy required for heating the
different buildings as the CSMB still has similar equipments in function in other buildings.
7
Findings
Findings were listed, valued and compared to our established materiality levels. All findings exceeding the
materiality level or aggregates of findings with a common effect on the calculation of reductions exceeding
the materiality level were discussed with the client and generated a request for correction to the GHG
quantification report. All other findings were revisited at the conclusion of the verification to determine if
they should be aggregated to generate a request for correction.
During the course of our verification, we obtained all the necessary cooperation and documents required
from Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys’s management.
Restricted usage and confidentiality
This verification report is produced to be used by the management of Commission Scolaire MargueriteBourgeoysand 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.
The quantification report entitled CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions Project
- January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 and dated September 19, 2014 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.
Appendix 1 – Verification statement
Appendix 1 – Verification statement
Report to:
Object and objectives of the verification
We have verified the attached CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions Project January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 project’s quantification report dated September 19, 2014.
The objective of the verification is to assess data, controls and processes supporting the emission reduction
or removal calculations as presented in the attached CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG emission
reductions Project - January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 and corresponding GHG assertions.
The quantification report entitled CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions Project
- January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013 and dated September 19, 2014 is an integral part of this verification
statement and should in no circumstances be separated from it.
Generally, the data supporting the verification is classified as following:

Project data associated with the emission sources are historical;

Baseline scenario data associated with the emission sources are extrapolated from the project
data;

Emission factors, global warming potential and any other constants are hypothetical data taken
from recognized sources.
Criteria
1. The attached quantification report is in compliance 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.
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.
Applicable standard
Our verification was conducted under ISO 14064-3 International Standard, entitled: Specification with
guidance for the validation and verification of greenhouse gas assertions (2006).
Conclusion
No limitation was imposed on our verification work, no findings exceeded our materiality level and our
opinion below is not affected by any reservation.
Reasonable assurance 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’s data control 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
Marguerite-Bourgeoys CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG Emission reductions projectJanuary 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013
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 CSMB energy
efficiency measures for GHG emission reductions Project - January 1, 2012 to December 31,
2013 and dated September 19, 2014 for the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013
are, in all material respect, fairly stated at 7717 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
HFC
PFC
SF6
Total
2012
3851
-8
10
NA
NA
NA
3853
3861
-8
11
NA
NA
NA
3864
2013
Note:
9.
HFC, PFC and SF6 have not been quantified and consequently have not been verified. All
emissions are provided in t CO2 e.
The project start date is accurate and the lifetime estimation of the project is fairly stated.
Mathieu Lendick, CPA, CA
Senior Manager, Engagement leader
Montréal, September 24, 2014
Gontran Bage ing., Ph.D.
Lead Verifier
Appendix 2- Quantification report
Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (CSMB) energy efficiency
measures for GHG Emission reductions Project
Greenhouse Gas Project Report
Period from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2013
Project proponent:
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100, Bd de la Côte-Vertu
Saint-Laurent (Québec)
H4L 4V1
Prepared by:
National Ecocredit
1100, René-Lévesque West Bvd, Suite 1310
Montréal (Québec)
H3B 4N4
September 19th, 2014
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 .................................................................................................... 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 ........................................................................................ 10
2.11.
Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 11
2.11.1.
2.11.1.
2.11.2.
2.11.3.
Project proponent and representative ...................................................... 11
Monitoring and data collection ............................................................... 11
Quantification and reporting responsible entity ...................................... 11
Authorized project contact ...................................................................... 12
2.12.
Project eligibility under the GHG program ...................................................... 12
2.13.
Environmental impact assessment .................................................................... 12
2.14.
Stakeholder consultations and mechanisms for on-going communication ....... 12
2.15.
Detailed Chronological Plan ............................................................................. 13
2.16.
Ownership ......................................................................................................... 13
3.
SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND ASSESMENT OF
ADDITIONALITY ......................................................................................................... 14
4.
IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF GHG SOURCES, SINKS
AND RESERVOIRS ....................................................................................................... 16
CSMB
2012-2013 GHG Report
ii
5.
QUANTIFICATION OF GHG EMISSIONS AND REMOVALS ............ 20
5.1.
Baseline GHG emissions/removals................................................................... 22
5.2.
Project GHG emissions/removals ..................................................................... 24
5.3.
GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements ....................................... 25
5.4.
Emission factors ................................................................................................ 25
5.5.
Global warming potential (GWP) ..................................................................... 26
6.
DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL ................................................... 27
7.
REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS....................................... 29
ANNEX I .......................................................................................................................... 31
ANNEX II ........................................................................................................................ 34
ANNEX III ....................................................................................................................... 37
ANNEX IIII ..................................................................................................................... 38
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Project implementation ....................................................................................... 9
Table 2-2 Expected and Achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e) .................................. 10
Table 2-3 Chronological Plan ........................................................................................... 13
Table 3-1 Barrier Assessment ........................................................................................... 14
Table 3-2 Baseline scenario – baseline year for each cluster ........................................... 15
Table 4-1: SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory ................................................................. 17
Table 4-2 SSR's Project Scenario Inventory ..................................................................... 17
Table 5-1 Building size alteration ..................................................................................... 21
Table 5-2 Emission factors summary ............................................................................... 25
Table 6-1 Monitored data.................................................................................................. 27
Table 7-1 Baseline scenario GHG emissions for 2012-2013 (t CO2e) ............................ 29
Table 7-2 Project scenario GHG emissions for 2012-2013 (t CO2e) ............................... 29
Table 7-3 : GHG emission reductions by Cluster for 2012-2013 (t CO2e) ...................... 30
Table 7-4 GHG emission reductions for 2012-2013 (t CO2e) ......................................... 30
Table 0-1 : Monitored data per cluster .............................................................................. 37
CSMB
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
BS
CDM
CH4
CO2
CO2e
CSA
CSMB
EF
EPA
HCFC
HDD
HVAC:
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)
Hydrochlorofluorocarbon
Heating degree day
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
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
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, année durant laquelle elles ont été mises en place dans 87 établissements
(Groupe 2003-2008). En 2009, 7 établissements supplémentaires ont subi des
améliorations afin de bonifier leur performance énergétique (Groupe 2009). En 2010, 3
établissements supplémentaires ont implanté des mesures d'efficacité énergétique
(Groupe 2010). En 2011, 1 établissement a implanté des mesures d'efficacité énergétique
(Groupe 2011). Les diverses activités (mesures mises en places) forment 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 émettrices de gaz à effet de serre.
Le projet et les réductions d’émission de GES seront enregistrés au Registre des GES
ÉcoProjets®. Ces réductions sont quantifiées selon les principes et lignes directrices de la
norme ISO 14064-2 tel que stipulé par le Registre des GES ÉcoProjets®. La
méthodologie employée est inspirée de la méthodologie AMS-II.E du CDM 1 . Les
réductions d’émission pour les années 2012 et 2013 sont au nombre de :
Réductions d’émission de GES
Groupe
2003-2008
2009
2010
2011
Réductions d’émission totales
2012
(t CO2e)
3474
258
97
24
3853
2013
(t CO2e)
3504
261
78
21
3864
1
CDM, Methodology II.E/ Energy and fuel switching measures for buildings, Version 10, November 2007.
CSMB
5
1. INTRODUCTION
The Commission Scolaire Marguerite Bourgeoys (CSMB) acts as an intermediate
structure between the Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports in Quebec and
schools. Its mission is to promote and enhance public education and ensure the quality of
the education, effective management of financial, human and material resources.
Proud of its institutional standing, the CSMB displays an understanding and a
commitment to today’s societal concerns including environmental issues and acts as a
leader to address these with novel solutions. The nature of the services delivered by the
CSMB implies the occupation and operation of buildings of considerable sizes. Total
energy use is significant and translates into large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG)
emissions.
In 2003, the CSMB began implementing a series of energy efficiency measures aiming at
reducing its environmental impact with the dual benefit of reducing their costs for energy
consumption. This report outlines the results of the GHG emissions reduction associated
to these efforts.
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.
A CDM methodology, AMS-II.E version 10 - Energy and fuel switching measures for
buildings2, is selected to offer a guideline to identify the sources, sinks and reservoirs
(SSRs) to be included in the quantification and a guideline for the calculation of emission
reductions. This methodology is deemed to be the most appropriate given that all
applicability conditions apply to the project. In section 3, the selection of the baseline
scenario and the assessment of additionality were performed according to best practices
and the expertise of the quantification team. A barrier analysis is performed and used to
confirm the most plausible scenario and to provide a solid argument on which to base the
additionality assessment.
This GHG report meets the requirements of the CSA’s GHG CleanProjects® 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. The methodology
AMS-II.E version 10 - Energy and fuel switching measures for buildings is certainly
2
CDM, Methodology II.E/ Energy and fuel switching measures for buildings, Version 10, November 2007.
CSMB
6
relevant for this grouped project. It has been developed following the rigorous CDM
procedures which include an internal technical review and a public review period.
 Completeness:
A complete assessment of GHG sources is made and all GHG types are considered in the
applied quantification methodology. CO2, CH4 and N2O are the GHG included in the
quantification. Other GHG (PFC, HFC and SF6) are not relevant to the project
(refrigerants being used in cooling systems are HCFC).. Complete information regarding
project implementation, activities and GHG quantification is given through this GHG
report. All elements to be quantified as prescribed by the methodology are included.
Leakage is neglected since the methodology requires its consideration only if the energy
efficiency technology is equipment transferred from another activity or if the existing
equipment is transferred to another activity.
 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. The heating needs,
measured in heating degree days (taken from major Montreal airport weather station),
apply to both project and baseline scenarios, both hence being functionally equivalent.
 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
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
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
A first phase of implementation began in 2003, a second in 2009, a third in 2010 and
finally a fourth in 2011. These 4 phases are considered as distinct phases of one GHG
project the start date of which is January 1st 2003. In theory, the project ends when the
equipment used for the various measures has reached the end of its useful life or when the
principle of additionality ceases to be respected. It is reasonable to assume that these
conditions will be respected for a minimum of 10 years with a possibility of extension
after review. The project activities described in this report are continuous and the data
used for the quantification will keep being monitored as long as the crediting period is
ongoing.
2.4.
Type of GHG Project
The project falls under the category ‘‘energy efficiency’’ and is characterized as a
grouped project since it accounts for various project activities implemented at different
locations and times. The project activities are mainly energy efficiency measures and fuel
switching. The emission reductions are therefore the result of lower energy consumption
and the use of less GHG-intensive energy sources. All the measures implemented at a
given building are considered to be a single project activity. This grouped project avoids
the release of a large quantity of greenhouse gases (produced by the consumption of
fossil fuels) in the atmosphere. These gases are primarily composed of carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).
2.5.
Location
CSMB’s 98 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.
1100, blvd de la Côte-Vertu
H4L 4V1
Latitude: 45° 31’ 02’’ N
Longitude: 73° 40’ 40’’ W
CSMB
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. All the changes implemented and described in section 2.7 had not been
put in place prior to the project.
2.7.
Description of how the project will achieve GHG emission
reductions or removal enhancements
The project scenario consists in the implementation of four major energy efficiency
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.
Emissions reductions are the result of:
 A reduction in energy use compared to the baseline scenario
 The substitution of a GHG intensive fuel for a source of energy which emits lower
amount of GHG for the same amount of energy produced.
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.
Although they are not unique, the installed technologies are not common for the type and
age of the buildings managed by the CSMB.
A total of 98 buildings of the 115 buildings operated by the CSMB implemented one or
more of the project activities listed in the table below.
Table 2-1 Project implementation
Projects
1) Installation of high efficiency natural gas boilers for heating
system (85% to 95%)
2) Automatic controls for the ventilation, heating and
conditioning systems
3) Heating system energy switch (furnace oil to natural gas)
4) Replacement of refrigerating systems
Number of buildings
70
95
11
7
All the technologies described above are part of a single energy efficiency and fuel
switch project for which the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology
proposed by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
titled: AMS-II.E.version 10 - Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings,
CSMB
9
validated 2 November 20073 is relevant. Project specific conditions such as important
temperature variations from year to year and specific geographically determined emission
factors must be taken into account in the project development and for GHG reductions
calculations. More details are provided further in this document (Section 5).
Although roof and fenestration rehabilitation will have a small overall impact on the total
GHG emission reductions, it is nonetheless worthy to mention the substantial
environmental efforts displayed by the CSMB with this measure.
2.9.
Aggregate GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements
likely to occur from the GHG project
This is the fifth GHG report being published for this project. Emission reductions were
already reported and verified for the years 2003-2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. This report
quantifies the emissions reduction for 2012-2013.
Table 2-2 Expected and Achieved Emission Reductions (t CO2e)
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
TOTAL
Expected Emission
Reductions
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
2045
20 450
Achieved Emission
Reductions
1351
2980
1656
1989
1968
2330
2940
3626
3656
3853
3864
30213
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.
One risk is that the project, for one reason or another, had ceased to respect the principle
of additionality over its course. As a result, the project would cease to be eligible under
3
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings, Internet link:
http://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/FileStorage/CDMWF_AM_LAVBAV8STPGYPWVKGQJLBCNE
C8APNP
CSMB
10
the CSA’s GHG CleanProjects® Registry. To ensure that the principle of additionality
was respected throughout the project, the following was checked:
 The measures responsible for emissions reductions did not become common
practice or mandatory via new regulation.
 The new equipment did not malfunction to be temporarily substituted with
equipment with a poorer environmental performance (or equivalent to what was
previously in place).
Emission reductions are not only the results of technological improvements. They are
also closely related to management methods. Attention must be paid to energy use
practices and management in order to achieve emissions reduction.
2.11. Roles and Responsibilities
2.11.1. Project proponent and representative
Stéphane Bergeron
Directeur adjoint au Service des ressources financières
Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys
1100, Bd de la Côte-Vertu
H4L 4V1
[email protected]
Tél. : 514 855-4500
2.11.1. Monitoring and data collection
CSMB is responsible for the project implementation and emission reductions. M. Poisson
is responsible for the data monitoring and the communication between CSMB and
National Ecocredit.
Jocelyn Poisson
Chargé de projet et technicien en mécanique du bâtiment
Service des Ressources Matérielles
Secteur des Immobilisations (611)
1150, rue Galt
Verdun (Québec) H4G 2P9
[email protected]
Tél. : 514 855-4500 ext. 4530
2.11.2. Quantification and reporting responsible entity
National Ecocredit 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.
Camille Orthlieb works at National Ecocredit as a carbon credits advisor. She has an
environmental engineering master degree from Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
CSMB
11
Lausanne, Switzerland. Before joining National Ecocredit, she worked with an
engineering company, specialized on building energy efficiency.
Camille Orthlieb
Carbon credits advisor
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
Tel. 514 871 5335 ext. 305
2.11.3. Authorized project contact
Karine Desjardins has the signing authority for National Ecocredit. She is authorized by
the project proponent to perform requests and administrative tasks regarding the project
registration.
Karine Desjardins
VP-Sales, Marketing and Structured Transactions
National Ecocredit
[email protected]
Tel. 514 871 5335
2.12. Project eligibility under the GHG program
There is no specific Federal or Quebec law or regulation that stipulates the obligation to
install more efficient technologies in existing buildings when they have the possibility to
repair or change their old technologies. In other words, the CSMB was not required to
change its inefficient heating technologies or install the other energy efficient projects
described in this report. The project implementation was voluntary.
The project is eligible under the GHG CleanProjects® 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
Environmental impacts generated by the project activities are relatively low. The impacts
are mainly GHG emissions from the fossil fuel and electricity consumption. The nature of
the project does not require an environmental impact assessment.
2.14. Stakeholder consultations
communication
and
mechanisms
for
on-going
Jocelyn Poisson is a project manager at CSMB and is responsible for the communications
with the quantifier, the verifier and the CSMB’s board. In addition to the information
request from the quantification team sent out to M. Poisson, National Ecocredit
periodically informs her on the project’s evolution. National Ecocredit’s team remains
available to address any concerns and questions that may arise during the project period.
Any updates are communicated to the CSMB’s board as a means to keep them involved
and informed. None of the communications with stakeholders has generated results
warranting a mention in this report.
CSMB
12
2.15. Detailed Chronological Plan
The first projects activities were implemented in 2003. The project start date is
established as January 1st 2003 and will be ongoing until it ceases to respect the principle
of additionality or the equipment used as part of the energy efficiency measures have
reached the end of their useful life. Since 2003, new activities are added to the overall
project every year. This is the fifth GHG report: the first report was published for the
years 2003-2008, the second for year 2009, the third for year 2010 and the fourth for the
year 2011. The current report publishes the results for 2012 and 2013. Emission
reductions of the subsequent years will be reported on a yearly basis.
Table 2-3 Chronological Plan
Before Project
Implementation
During Project
After Project
2.16.
Date
2002
January 1st 2003
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
-
Steps in Process
Data monitoring started to create
baseline scenario
Project start date
1st GHG report covering 2003-2008
2nd GHG report covering 2009
3nd GHG report covering 2010
4th GHG report covering 2011
5th GHG report covering 2012-2013
-
Ownership
The CSMB is a school board and has the legal responsibility of managing the buildings it
operates for within the budget allocated by the government of Quebec. The board is
responsible for the maintenance and repair of all mechanical, electrical and architectural
systems of its buildings. It also handles requests from the services and facilities for
buildings and ground maintenance. Furthermore, it manages all school projects required
to meets the needs expressed by the institution and its services for activities in the field of
construction. The board also coordinates activities related to the use and rental of
temporary and permanent space in the buildings of the School Board. It ensures user
comfort through sound management of energy. The board is hence the owner of the
carbon credits that will be generated in the context of this project.
CSMB
13
3. SELECTION OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO AND
ASSESMENT OF ADDITIONALITY
The baseline scenario is selected among alternative scenarios representing what would
have happened without the project. The alternative scenario that is most likely to occur is
selected as the baseline scenario. In this case, the project is voluntary. It aims to lower the
energy consumption and the GHG emissions. The scenario that is most likely to occur in
the absence of this project is to keep using the equipment that is in place prior to the
project activities initiation (status quo) and the GHG emissions that are associated with
the consumption of energy in that case.
A barrier test is used to help identify barriers to any of the identified plausible baseline
scenarios. A barrier test is a common technique used to help justify the most realistic
baseline scenario; identified as the option which faces least significant.
Table 3-1 Barrier Assessment
Potential
Barrier
Financial /
Economic
Financial /
Capital
Investment
Existing systems:
No efficiency
measure
No barrier.
Energy costs are
likely to keep
increasing though.
No barrier
Technology
Operation
No barrier
Regulation
Barrier
No barrier
Alternative 1:
Replacement of
boilers with high
efficiency ones
No barrier;
should result in
monetary savings on
the long run
Moderate to high
initial investment
(depending on the size
of equipment).
Significant investment
barrier as it requires
important amount of
cash available
New equipment
requires training and
personnel adaptation
No regulation enforces
nor prevents such
measure
Alternative 2:
Installation of
automated controls
for HVAC systems
No barrier;
should result in
monetary savings on
the long run
Moderate initial
investment
Effectiveness depends
on the proper
operation of the
system. Technology
must be fully
understood and
mastered.
nor prevents such
measure
Alternative 3:
Fuel Switch from
Fuel Oil to Natural
Gas (where
applicable)
Potential savings
depend on energy
prices fluctuations.
Moderate to high
initial investment
(depending on the size
of equipment).
Significant investment
barrier as it requires
important amount of
cash available
New equipment
requires training and
personnel adaptation
nor prevents such
measure
As illustrated by the above barriers test, the scenario that faces the least significant
barriers is to keep using the existing systems. Status quo in terms of heating and energy
CSMB
14
consuming systems is therefore selected as the baseline scenario.
Project activities were not all implemented simultaneously. Therefore, a specific baseline
performance is computed for each group of buildings that were modified in the same
year. In the absence of the project, energy performance would have remained somewhat
similar to the performance observed during the year preceding the implementation of
energy efficiency measures. As such, baseline energy intensity in terms of “energy units /
heating degree day” is identified for each group of buildings (referred to as a “cluster”)
and the baseline energy needs for each year is obtained by the multiplication of the
baseline energy intensity with the actual number of heating degree-days for a given year.
In the following table, the baseline year is presented for each cluster.
Table 3-2 Baseline scenario – baseline year for each cluster
Clusters
Baseline years
2003-2008
2002
2009
2008
2010
2009
2011
2010
CSMB
15
4. IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
SOURCES, SINKS AND RESERVOIRS
OF
GHG
To determine the sources, sinks and reservoirs relevant to the project and baseline
scenario, a systematic approach was used to meet the requirements of ISO 14064-2. In
order to insure good practices relating to the criteria and procedures for the determination
of relevant SSRs (Sources Sinks and Reservoirs), the following documents were
consulted:
 CSA (2006), ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with
guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements4;

CDM, II.E version 10 – Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
buildings 5 , Table 1: “Summary of gases and sources included in the project
boundary and justification/explanation where gases and sources are not included”.
To proceed with the identification and selection of elements, we used the decision tree
from the standard ISO 14064-26 that provides a procedure to assist project proponents
consider GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs.
The SSRs for the baseline and the project scenario are identified in the table below and it
is stated whether they are included or excluded from the quantification.
The selection of the SSRs was guided by the CDM methodology previously stated,
however, in view of the lack of specific guidelines, it was mostly based on the
quantification’s team knowledge and expertise. As aforementioned, the methodology
stipulates that the energy baseline is the energy use of the existing equipment that is
replaced. It follows that the sources of GHG are all the energy sources used by the
equipment.
Fuel combustion represents the most important sources of GHG emissions involved in this
project. CO2, CH4 and N2O are three types of GHG commonly resulting from combustion,
CO2 usually being a more abundant product of the reaction. No source of PFC, HFC and SF6
has been identified. They therefore are excluded from the quantification to ease the
understanding. Although the methodology does not require the quantification of methane
and nitrous oxide, these were included in the calculation for a more complete emissions
profile.
4
CSA (2006), ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, Figure A.2,
Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38381
5
CDM (2007) CDM methodology II.E/Version 10:Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
C8APNP
6
CSA (2006), ISO 14064-2 Greenhouse gases — Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or removal enhancements, Figure A.2,
Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38381
CSMB
16
SSR - Baseline
Table 4-1: SSR’s Baseline Scenario Inventory
Included Controlled/ GHG
Explanation
/excluded Related /
Affected
BS1. Fuel
extraction and
processing
Excluded
Related
-
BS2. Electricity
Generation
Included
Related
CO2,
CH4,
N2O
BS3 Electricity
Consumption
Included
Controlled
CO2,
CH4,
N2O
BS4. Fossil fuel
combustion
Included
Controlled
CO2,
CH4,
N2O
BS5. Maintenance
Excluded
Controlled
-
BS11. Cooling
fluids
Excluded
Related
-
SSR - Project
This emission source is assumed to be
negligible compared to the combustion.
This source of emission may be significant,
depending on the production means. This
emission source, although not so important
because of hydropower origin, is easily
tracked and is therefore include for
enhanced accuracy.
This source of emissions is taken into
consideration by including emissions from
electricity generation for the amount of
electricity consumed
An important source of greenhouse gases.
Emissions from maintenance activities
result from fossil fuel combustion in
vehicles used for transporting maintenance
personnel to and from project site. These
emissions are assumed to be negligible
Fugitive emissions from use in cooling
systems are conservatively ignored from
baseline scenario.
Table 4-2 SSR's Project Scenario Inventory
Included Controlled/ GHG
Explanation
/excluded Related /
Affected
PS1. Fuel
extraction and
processing
Excluded
Related
-
PS2. Electricity
Generation
Included
Related
CO2,
CH4,
N2O
This source of emission may be significant,
depending on the production means.
This source of emissions is taken into
consideration by including emissions from
electricity generation for the amount of
electricity consumed
This emission source is assumed to be
negligible compared to the combustion.
PS3 Electricity
Consumption
Included
Controlled
CO2,
CH4,
N2O
PS4. Fossil fuel
combustion
Included
Controlled
CO2,
CH4,
N2O
An important source of greenhouse gases.
PS5. Maintenance
Excluded
Controlled
-
Emissions from maintenance activities
result from fossil fuel combustion in
vehicles used for transporting maintenance
CSMB
17
personnel to and from project site. These
emissions are assumed to be negligible
PS6. Equipment
manufacturing
PS7.
Transportation of
equipment to the
site
PS8.
Decommissioning
of equipment
PS9.
Transportation of
decommissioned
equipment to
landfill or recycling
center
PS10. Recycling of
components of
decommissioned
equipment
PS11. Cooling
fluids
CSMB
Excluded
Related
-
This one time source of emission is
assumed to be negligible when distributed
over the useful life of the equipment.
Excluded
Related
-
Excluded
Related
-
Excluded
Related
-
Excluded
Related
-
-
Refrigerant used in the new cooling
systems is chlorodifluoromethane (R-22), a
HCFC that is not subject to a reporting
obligation as per ISO 14064. Furthermore,
fugitive emissions from use in cooling
systems are likely to be reduced with the
use of more technologically advanced
systems. Reductions are excluded due to
lack of accuracy and to remain conservative
Excluded
Related
18
Figure 1: Project Elements
CSMB
19
5. QUANTIFICATION
REMOVALS
OF
GHG
EMISSIONS
AND
This project is based on a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) methodology proposed
by the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) titled:
AMS-II.E.version 10 - Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for buildings,
validated 2 November 20077.
The methodology stipulates that “The aggregate energy savings of a single project may
not exceed the equivalent of 60 GWh per year”. This condition is respected because the
total energy savings per year are 19 GWh in 2012 and 10 GWh in 20138.
The quantification is done in accordance with the selected methodology, which stipulates
that: ‘‘each energy form in the emission baseline is multiplied by an emission coefficient.
[…] IPCC default values for emission coefficients may be used.’’
Hence, the quantification method consists essentially of multiplying appropriate emission
factors to the total consumption of different types of energy namely electricity and natural
gas. Doing so is pretty straight forward in the project scenario. One just needs the actual
consumption of those energy sources (taken from energy suppliers bills) and to multiply
by the appropriate emission factors (taken from the latest Canadian National Inventory
Report).
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). Gases
quantified in this project are limited to CO2, CH4 and N2O given the nature of the
measures which are related to energy consumption.
Buildings included in the quantification
Only the energy consumption data for the buildings where energy efficiency measures
were implemented is used for the quantification. This approach is deemed most
7
CDM, (2007). CDM methodology II.E/Version 10: Energy efficiency and fuel switching measures for
C8APNP
8
Energy savings computation is developed in Annex 4.
CSMB
20
appropriate to expose the environmental benefit of the measures over the years. In the
spirit of the conservative principle of the ISO 14064-2, all buildings where energy
measures were implemented were considered even those where a fuel switch from
electricity to natural gas was implemented. This measure raises net GHG emissions, since
the consumption of electricity (in Quebec) is far less GHG emitting than that of natural
gas. It remains that overall GHG emission reduction balance is positive.
Building size
Some buildings have been expanded over the course of the project. To allow to compare
energy consumption for these buildings over the course of the project, the energy
consumption was corrected for the additional area. Between 2002 and 2008, four
buildings changed in size, in 2011, eight more changed in size and in 2012, one changed
in size as it is shown below.
Table 5-1 Building size alteration
Building #
Year of building alteration
Size alteration (m2)
056
065
068
071
072
154
053
055
057
064
070
250
263
272
091
154
189
463
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2012
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2008
2008
2005
2007
6 517 to 7 183
2 792 to 3 740
3 283 to 3 344
6 434 to 8 401
3 702 to 5 632
5 145 to 7 985
2 288 to 2 988
3 172 to 4 083
2 771 to 4 345
3 372 to 4 618
2 170 to 6 023
5 697 to 6 965
4 052 to 5 058
2 978 to 4 033
24 029 to 29 225
3 910 to 5 145
24 851 to 25 750
11 435 to 12 094
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 conditions by benchmarking the energy consumption per heating
degree days (e.g. Ratio of GJ/HDD). Depending of its end use, each type of energy is
more or less affected by the weather conditions; some type of energy are almost solely
consumed for heating needs and, as such, are closely affected by the number of HDD. On
the other hand, some energy type may be used no matter the climate conditions (e.g. for
hot water or for cooking). Therefore, the normalization procedure is performed only on
CSMB
21
the portion of the energy consumption that is assumed to be dependable of the climate
conditions. The normalization equations are outlined in the following subsections.
The impact of the variation of cooling degree days (CDD) is negligible on the total GHG
emission because cooling needs are met with electrical air conditioning systems.
Consumption of electricity in Quebec is responsible for almost no GHG emissions due to
its production with hydro power. Normalization with CDD is not performed for
simplification and has marginal impact on GHG emission reductions quantification
results.
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
The baseline energy consumption is estimated relative to the energy performance (in
terms of energy/HDD) of the baseline year and to the actual heating needs (in HDD) of
the year being considered. The baseline year is selected to be 2002 for the first cluster of
87 buildings that were modified between 2003 and 2008. The selection of the energy
performance of 2002 as the baseline energy performance for project activities
implemented over the following five years is done for simplification as opposed to
selecting a new baseline year for all measures newly implemented each year. This
approach should not have major impact on GHG emission reductions estimates due to the
normalization procedure.
As for subsequent changes (2009 and later), baseline energy performance is established
as the energy performance of the year prior to the changes for the buildings being
modified (2008 in the case of the cluster 2009, 2009 for the 2010 cluster and 2010 for the
2011 cluster).
BSy = BSElec + BSNG+ BSOil
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 =
CSMB
Normalized quantity of electricity consumed for the baseline scenario
(kWh);
22
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,i * RSi) * [Peccluster+ Pevcluster * (DJp/DJbs)]
BSQN= ∑(CNG,bs, i* RSi) * [Pnccluster+ Pnvcluster * (DJp/DJbs)]
BSQO= ∑(CO,bs, i* RSi) * [Poccluster+ Povcluster * (DJp/DJbs)]
Peccluster=
Pevcluster=
Pnccluster=
Pnvcluster=
Poccluster=
Povcluster=
CElec,bs =
CNG,bs =
CO,bs =
DJbs =
DJp =
RSi =
Portion of electricity consumption not varying with the weather conditions
for a cluster (no unit)
Portion of electricity consumption varying with the weather conditions for
a cluster (no unit)
Portion of natural gas consumption not varying with the weather
conditions for a cluster (no unit)
Portion of natural gas consumption varying with the weather conditions
for a cluster (no unit)
Portion of oil consumption not varying with the weather conditions for a
cluster (no unit)
Portion of oil consumption varying with the weather conditions for a
cluster (no unit)
Actual total electricity consumption in the baseline year (kWh) for building “i”
Actual total natural gas consumption in the baseline year (kWh) for building “i”
Actual fuel oil consumption in the baseline year (kWh) for building “i”
Degree days of the baseline year9
Degree days of the project year10
Ratio of areas in year “y”/ baseline year for building “i”
RSiThe degree-days are taken from P-E-Trudeau international airport weather station.
9
Natural Resources Canada, Data for Montreal, Internet link, accessed February 13, 2014 :
http://climate.weather.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html
CSMB
23
Below are the values for the portion of each energy type that vary or that are constant
with the HDD. These values are taken from a Natural Resources Canada database and are
given here for each baseline year selected for the specified clusters of buildings.
Cluster 20032008
Cluster
2009
Cluster
2010
Cluster 2011
Pev
0,12
0,15
0,10
0,06
Pnv
Pov
0,84
0,85
0,77
0,65
0,81
0,60
0,80
0,62
Pec
Pnc
Poc
Cluster 20032008
0,88
0,16
0,15
Cluster
2009
0,85
0,23
0,35
Cluster
2010
Cluster 2011
0,90
0,94
0,19
0,20
0,40
0,38
CElec,bs= ∑
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)] * CElec,y
PSNG,y = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * CNG,y
PSOil,y = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * CO,y
CElec,y =
CNG,y =
CO,y =
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)
CSMB
24
Degree days of the project year “y”11
DJy =
CElec,y= ∑
CNG,y= ∑
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
These following equations illustrate the GHG emissions reduction quantification. These
calculations were done for each building with energy efficiency or fuel switch projects.
Each of these building has their own baseline year, i.e. the year before the
implementation of the projects.
TPERy = ∑
z=
Number of clusters
TPERcy = BSy– PSy
Total Project Emission Reductions in year “y” for a cluster “c” (t CO2e)
TPERcy =
The GHG emissions calculations are presented in the Annex I.
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
2725 g/L
Source
National Inventory Report 2012, Greenhouse Gas
Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 3, Table A13-6
Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.194,
Marketable Natural Gas
Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.195,
Institutional
11
Environnement Canada, Données pour l’Aéroport Trudeau :
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/prods_servs/cdn_climate_summary_e.html
CSMB
25
CH4
N2O
5.5.
0.026 g/L
0.031 g/L
Sources and Sinks in Canada, Part 2, p.196, Light
fuel oil, Institutional
Global warming potential (GWP)
GWP
CH4
N20
CSMB
Value
21
310
Source
Source and Sinks in Canada, Part 3, Table A12-3
26
6. DATA MONITORING AND CONTROL
The monitoring requirements listed in the standard 5.10 of ISO 14 064 part 2 12 were
applied. Data control system and procedures are very limited since they mostly come
from the energy suppliers data acquisition and storage system. These systems are deemed
sufficiently safe and reliable and allow for transparent communication of the relevant
data. These are easily verifiable.
Data values are inputs in the quantification model and are therefore critical for accuracy
of the GHG reductions estimation. Both calculations and data values are internally
reviewed by the quantification team from National Ecocredit.
Data source for all energy consumption are the energy bills. These are entered in Helios,
a database management software. The CSMB accounting Department is responsible for
data collection and input into Helios. Mr. Jocelyn Poisson is responsible for the energy
bill’s approval. She is also in charge of following up the overall energy consumption of
the 115 CSMB buildings. Data are kept in a central server at the head office. A complete
data back-up is processed weekly and data is systemically entered 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
Electricity meter monitors the power usage.
Monthly reading of the meter is achieved and
invoices reflect the usage of that period.
Cross-check between consecutive years
inventories. Data are collected and entered into
Helios software.
These data are judged sufficiently accurate so
that no further quality control than invoice
double check is performed.
Data / Parameters
Data unit
Description
Natural Gas
m3
Natural gas consumption from CSMB
buildings
Gaz Métro energy bills per building
Description of measurement methods Collect data directly on energy bills and enter
them into Helios software.
12
International Standards ISO 14064-2 :2006(F), section 5.10, p.13.
CSMB
27
Data / Parameters
Data unit
Description
Light fuel oil
Liter
Light fuel oil consumption from CSMB
buildings
Energy bills per building
Description of measurement methods An oil reservoir is filled when required. The
volume of each fill is measured by volumetric
flow meter upon delivery. Invoices reflect the
delivered oil quantity. Entire year invoices are
compiled and assumed to adequately reflect the
actual usage in that year. Data are collected and
entered into Helios software.
Figure 2 Data Flow Chart
CSMB
28
7. REPORTING AND VERIFICATION DETAILS
The project plan and report is prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 standard and the
GHG CleanProjects® 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. National Ecocredit 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. Emission reductions will be verified by
an independent third party to a reasonable level of assurance.
Emission reductions are reported here for years 2012-2013 and this is fifth GHG report.
Baseline emissions and project emissions are shown for each cluster in the two following
tables. The last table shows the total emission reductions.
Table 7-1 Baseline scenario GHG emissions for 2012-2013 (t CO2e)
2003-2008
Cluster
2009
Cluster
2010
Cluster
2011
Cluster
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
TOTAL
CO2
102
12706
804
1
619
0
0
328
0
0
141
0
14701
2012
CH4 N2O
0
1
5
73
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
80
Total
103
12784
806
1
622
0
0
329
0
0
141
0
14786
CO2
104
13894
973
1
667
0
0
355
0
0
152
0
16146
2013
CH4 N2O
0
1
5
80
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
89
Total
105
13979
976
1
670
0
0
357
0
0
152
0
16240
CO2
103
11343
34
2
402
0
1
273
0
2013
CH4 N2O
1
2
5
66
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
Total
106
11414
36
4
406
0
3
276
0
Table 7-2 Project scenario GHG emissions for 2012-2013 (t CO2e)
2003-2008
Cluster
2009
Cluster
2010
Cluster
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
CSMB
CO2
101
9928
122
2
357
0
1
226
0
2012
CH4 N2O
1
2
5
58
1
1
1
1
1
3
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
Total
104
9991
124
4
361
0
3
229
0
29
Electricity
Natural Gas
Fuel Oil
2011
Cluster
TOTAL
1
112
0
10850
1
1
0
13
1
1
0
70
3
114
0
10933
1
126
0
12285
1
1
0
13
1
1
0
78
3
128
0
12376
Table 7-3 : GHG emission reductions by Cluster for 2012-2013 (t CO2e)
2012
2003-2008
Cluster
2009 Cluster
2010 Cluster
2011 Cluster
Total
2013
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
CO2
CH4
N2O
Total
3461
-2
15
3474
3491
-2
15
3504
261
101
28
3851
-2
-2
-2
-8
-1
-2
-2
10
258
97
24
3853
264
81
25
3861
-2
-2
-2
-8
-1
-1
-2
11
261
78
21
3864
Table 7-4 GHG emission reductions for 2012-2013 (t CO2e)
CO2
Baseline
emissions
Project
emissions
Emission
reductions
2012
CH4
N2O
Total
CO2
2013
CH4
N2O
Total
14701
5
80
14786
16146
5
89
16240
10850
13
70
10933
12285
13
78
12376
3851
-8
10
3853
3861
-8
11
3864
CSMB
30
ANNEX I
Calculation examples for cluster 2011 in 2012
BASELINE EMISSIONS:
RS = Ay / Abs
RS = 7 549/ 7 549
RS = 1
BSQE = CElec,bs * [0.94 + 0.06 * (DJr/DJbs)]
BSQE = 472 680 * [0.94 + 0.06 * (4 575/3 868.9)]
BSQE = 472 810 kWh
BSElec = [EECO2 + (EECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EEN2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQE * RS
BSElec = [2 + 0.0002 * 21 + 0.0001 * 310] * 472810 * 1
BSElec = 0.95 tCO2e
= 0 tCO2e (ROUNDED DOWN)
BSQN= CNG,bs* [0.2 + 0.8 * (DJr/DJbs)]
BSQN = 74 865 * [0.4 + 0.6 * (4 575 / 3868.9)]
BSQN = 75 143 m3
BSNG = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQNG * RS
BSNG = [1878 + 0.037 * 21 + 0.035 * 310] * 75 143 * 1
BSNG = 141.12 tCO2e = 141 tCO2e (ROUNDED DOWN)
CSMB
31
BSQO= CO,bs* [0.4 + 0.6 * (DJr/DJbs)]
BSQO = 0 * [0.4 + 0.6 * ( 4 575/ 3868.9)]
BSQO = 0 L
BSOil = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * BSQO * RS
BSOil = [2 725 + 0.026 * 21 + 0.031 * 310] * 0 * 1
BSOil = 0 tCO2e
(ROUNDED DOWN)
BSy = BSElec + BSNG+ BSOil
BSy =0 + 141 +0
BSy = 141 tCO2e
PROJECT EMISSIONS:
PSElec,y = [EECO2 + (EECH4 * GWPCH4) + (EEN2O *GWPN2O)] * CElec,y
PSElec, y = [2 + 0.0002 * 21 + 0.0001 * 310] * 432 960
PSElec, y = 1+1+1= 3 tCO2e
(ROUNDED UP)
PSNG,y = [ENCO2 + (ENCH4 * GWPCH4) + (ENN2O *GWPN2O)] * CNG,y
PSNG,y = [1878 + 0.037 * 21 + 0.035 * 310] * 59247
PSNG,y = 112+1+1 = 114 tCO2e
(ROUNDED UP)
PSOil,y = [EOCO2 + (EOCH4 * GWPCH4) + (EON2O *GWPN2O)] * CO,y
PSOil,y = [2 725 + 0.026 * 21 + 0.031 * 310] * 0
PSOil,y = 0 tCO2e
(ROUNDED UP)
CSMB
32
PSy = PSElec + PSNG+ PSOil
PSy = 3 + 114 + 0
PSy = 117 tCO2e
TPERcy = BSy– PSy
TPERcy = 141 - 117
TPERcy = 24 tCO2e
CSMB
33
ANNEX II
List of the buildings included in the grouped project
CSMB
34
CSMB
35
CSMB
36
ANNEX III
Monitored data per Cluster
Table 0-1 : Monitored data per cluster
Cluster
Year
Electricity
Bi-Energy
Natural Gas Light Fuel Oil Area m2
kWh
kWh
m3
L
2002
43 206 787
6 152 724
6 795 222
301 668
517 116
Cluster
2012
44 589 901
5 857 260
5 286 453
44 557
542 361
2003-2008
2013
45 654 891
5 734 560
6 039 725
12 228
547 933
2008
832 446
0
329 730
0
15 805
Cluster 2009
2012
914 207
0
189 831
0
17 379
2013
807 580
0
213 886
0
17 379
2009
422 222
0
192 737
0
11 059
Cluster 2010
2012
382 183
0
119 990
0
11 059
2013
401 980
0
144 886
0
11 059
2010
472 680
0
74 865
0
7 549
Cluster 2011
2012
432 960
0
59 247
0
7 549
2013
372 840
0
66 714
0
7 549
CSMB
37
ANNEX IIII
Computation of energy savings per year.
Cluster
Cluster
2003-2008
Cluster
2009
Cluster
2010
Cluster
2011
Year
Electricity kWh
2002
2012
2013
2008
2012
2013
2009
2012
2013
2010
2012
2013
Energy saving in 2012
Energy saving in 2013
43 206 787,34
44 589 900,92
45 654 891,09
832 445,65
914 207,24
807 580,40
422 222,00
382 183,07
401 979,97
472 680,00
432 960,00
372 840,00
Bi-Energy
Total electricity Natural Gas
Total NG in
Light Fuel
Total Light oil
kWh
kWh
m3
kWh
Oil L
fuel in kWh
6 152 723,75 49 359 511,09 6 795 222,06 69 964 455,73 301 667,70 3 241 251,88
5 857 260,00 50 447 160,92 5 286 453,31 54 429 984,07
44 556,62
478 736,07
5 734 560,00 51 389 451,09 6 039 724,88 62 185 762,36
12 228,11
131 384,19
0,00
832 445,65
329 729,78
3 394 939,04
0,00
0,00
0,00
914 207,24
189 831,22
1 954 526,00
0,00
0,00
0,00
807 580,40
213 886,15
2 202 198,55
0,00
0,00
0,00
422 222,00
192 737,00
1 984 444,24
0,00
0,00
0,00
382 183,07
119 990,26
1 235 434,66
0,00
0,00
0,00
401 979,97
144 885,82
1 491 762,52
0,00
0,00
0,00
472 680,00
74 865,24
770 821,88
0,00
0,00
0,00
432 960,00
59 246,84
610 012,86
0,00
0,00
0,00
372 840,00
66 714,46
686 900,43
0,00
0,00
total kWh
122 565 218,70
105 355 881,06
113 706 597,65
4 227 384,69
2 868 733,24
3 009 778,94
2 406 666,24
1 617 617,74
1 893 742,49
1 243 501,88
1 042 972,86
1 059 740,43
19,56 GWh
10,77 GWh
Source of energy conversion parameters: http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnrgynfmtn/sttstc/nrgycnvrsntbl/nrgycnvrsntbl-eng.html#s4
CSMB
38
Energy
savings GWh
17,21
8,86
1,36
1,22
0,79
0,51
0,20
0,18
Appendix 3 – 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:
Report identification:
Verification report on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHG”) reduction
project – CSMB energy efficiency measures for GHG Emission reductions
project- January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013
Date of report:
September 24, 2014
Professional:
Gontran Bage
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.
24 septembre 2014
Signature
Date
Client name:
Date of report:
September 24, 2014
Professional:
Victor Poudelet
Yes
No
Details
Independence
verification.
Ethical conduct
Fair presentation
intended users.
24 septembre 2014
Signature
Date
Client name:
Date of report:
September 24, 2014
Professional:
Mathieu Lendick
Yes
No
Details
Independence
verification.
Ethical conduct
Fair presentation
intended users.
24 septembre 2014
Signature
Date
Client name:
Date of report:
September 24, 2014
Professional:
Gérald Daly
Yes
No
Details
Independence
verification.
Ethical conduct
Fair presentation
intended users.
24 septembre 2014
Signature
Date

Commission Scolaire Marguerite

Transcription

Similar documents

rhizomatous tall fescue - Greenhorizons Sod Farms

Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys

Van Houtte Coffee Services

BLJC 2011 Sustainability Report Final_3

Centre de Santé et de Services sociaux du Nord de Lanaudière

Electromagnetic Compatibility of Integrated circuits IC-EMC

Contents of Galaxies: The Interstellar Medium

Briefing - Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership

Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Standards

Terasen Gas 2005 GHG VCR Progress Report