PDD Aruba Final v1 12

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 1

VERIFIED EMISSION REDUCTIONS PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (VER-PDD)

following Version 03 of CDM-PDD

CONTENTS A. General description of project activity B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period D. Environmental impacts E. Stakeholders’ comments

Annexes Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity Annex 2: Information regarding public funding Annex 3: Baseline information

Annex 4: Monitoring plan Annex 5 Time Line Annex 6 Electricity meter Calibration Certificate

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 2 SECTION A. General description of project activity A.1. Title of the project activity: Wind Park Vader Piet Aruba Version 1.13 07/04/2014 A.2. Description of the project activity: Wind Park Vader Piet Aruba (hereafter referred to as ‘Project’) will be located at the east coast of the island of Aruba. This island is part of the Dutch Caribbean islands and is located very near to the coast of Venezuela. 10 wind energy plants (WEP) will be installed, each with an electric capacity of 3 MW. The projects overall electric capacity will be 30 MW. The wind park is estimated to supply 165 GWh electricity per year to the Water- en Energiebedrijf Aruba N.V. (hereinafter referred to as 'WEB'). The Project is owned and operated by Windpark Vader Piet N.V. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vader Piet’), an Independent Power Producer (IPP), and was commissioned by the end of 2009. A power purchase agreement (PPA) between Vader Piet and WEB is in place. According to the PPA Vader Piet is responsible to supply WEB each year the generated energy amount of the project. WEB is therefore the legal proprietary of the renewable energy produced by the project. As the purpose of the project is to utilize the wind resources of the area in the east coast region of Aruba in order to supply zero emission energy to the grid, the project directly abates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from thermal power plants using fossil fuels currently operated at Aruba. The above mentioned annual electricity yield from wind will supply up to 18% of the islands total average electricity demand. 1 The electricity currently generated by the grid is extremely carbon intensive, with a combined carbon emission factor of 1.1834 tCO2/MWh. The project is therefore expected to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by an estimated 195,255 tCO2e per year during the fixed 10 year crediting period. The project is contributing to sustainable development at the island of Aruba. Specifically, the project:

• Reduces the import of fossil fuels, which will reduce the dependence on foreign sources thereby strengthening the nation’s energy security and self sufficiency.

• Increases employment opportunities in the area where the project is located. • Enhances the local investment environment and therefore improves the local economy. • Diversifies the sources of electricity generation, important for meeting growing energy

demands and the transition away from fossil fuel based electricity generation. • Makes use of renewable wind energy resources for sustainable energy production for the first

time. • Demonstrates replicable clean energy technology. • Reduces GHG emissions, especially CO2, by displacing energy from thermal power plants.

1 http://www.nucapitalsvcs.com/index.php/press-and-media/news/13-nucapital-announces-30-mw-windpark-vader-piet-arubas-first-utility-scale-wind-farm

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 3 A.3. Project participants:

Name of Party involved

(host) indicates a Host Party

Private and/or public entity(ies)

project participants (as applicable)

Kindly indicate if the Party involved wishes to be considered as project

participant (Yes/No)

Aruba Water en Energiebedrijf Aruba N.V. No

Aruba Windpark Vader Piet N.V. No The wind farm will be owned and operated by Windpark Vader Piet N.V., an Independent Power Producer (IPP). The produced wind energy will be sold completely to W.E.B. Aruba, the only public power producer on the island. Aruba: Host country. Aruba has not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Contact for climate project issues in the administration is the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, which serves as National Focal Point for UNFCCC Article 6.2 The proposed project will generate Verified Emission Reductions (VERs). However the methodologies applied are CDM methodologies in order to keep high quality standards. Further contact information of project participants is provided in Annex 1. A.4. Technical description of the project activity: A.4.1. Location of the project activity: The wind park will be located at an uninhabited part of the island just at the north-east coast in the south of Aruba (see A.4.1.4 for more details). A.4.1.1. Host Party(ies): Aruba A.4.1.2. Region/State/Province etc.: Aruba A.4.1.3. City/Town/Community etc.: Vader Piet

2 http://maindb.unfccc.int/public/nfp.pl?mode=wim

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 4 A.4.1.4. Details of physical location, including information allowing the unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): The wind park is located at the area called Vader Piet (12° 28’ 00”N, 69° 52’60”W). This area is located on the east coast of the island, north of Rincon bay. The site is very flat apart from a gentle slope towards the sea. The wind turbines will be located next to the yellow road at the east side of the road. The lowest foundation of a turbine will be 12.5 metres above sea level and the highest 25 m above sea level.

Figure A-1: Location of wind farm Vader Piet on Aruba A.4.2. Category (ies) of project activity: The project activity falls into the category of “Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” and within the sectoral scope “Energy industries (renewable- / non-renewable sources) (1)“ (according to the UNFCCC CDM website at http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html). A.4.3. Technology to be employed by the project activity: The Vader Piet wind park involves the installation of 10 Vestas V90-3.0 (60 Hz version) turbines, each of 3 MW capacity with 80 metres hub height and transformer installed in the nacelle and a 34 kV switchgear in the tower base. Inside each wind turbine a condition monitoring system (CMS) will be installed. The total installed capacity will be 30 MW. The capacity factor is estimated to be 63%. This is mainly due to the prevailing North-Easterly trade wind at Aruba. This yields to an estimated average of 18.9 MW.

Wind farm ‘Vader Piet’ ( j t ti it )

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 5 Table A-1: Engineering data of employed technology

Site capacity 30 MW Rated turbine power 3,000 kW Number of turbines 10 Turbine type V 90 - 3.0 Rotor 3 blades Rotor diameter 90 m Hub height 80 m Generator design 1000 VAC (60 Hz) Annual estimated power production 165 GWh Capacity factor 63% Transmission line length 2 km Transmission line voltage 34 kV

The Project will consist of the following main parts:

• 10 wind turbines Vestas V90-3.0, 60 Hz version, 80 meters hub height and transformer installed in the nacelle, 34 kV switchgear in the tower base and a condition monitoring system (CMS) installed in each turbine

• 10 foundation inserts appropriate for V90-3.0/80 • wind turbine spare parts, to be stored at site Vader Piet • 10 wind turbine foundations, steel reinforced concrete plates on rock anchors • 30 MVA 34/60 kV transformers including civil works • 30 MVA, 34 kV switchgears • a housing for the 34/60 kV transformer and billing meter devices • a housing for VESTAS online Businesses (VOB) and spare parts • 60 kV cable, minimum capacity 30 MVA, from Vader Piet to substation San Nicolas including all

required works • access road every single wind turbine • equi-potential earthing connection between wind turbines and substation • glass fiber network connection from wind farm control system to each wind turbine • glass fiber connection from VOB housing to substation San Nicolas • wind farm control and monitoring system (VOB) • telephone line and ADSL connection to the wind farm control and monitoring room (VOB)

The construction of wind farm Vader Piet started on September 15th 2009, official commissioning dated on December 18th 2009.


A.4.4. Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: The chosen crediting period of ten years will be fixed. Table A-2: The estimation of emission reductions over the crediting period3

Years Annual estimation of emission reductions in tonnes of CO2e

10/2011 - 12/2011 48,814 2012 195,255

2013 195,255 2014 195,255 2015 195,255 2016 195,255 2017 195,255 2018 195,255 2019 195,255 2020 195,255

01/2021 - 09/2021 146,441 Total estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 1,952,550

Total number of crediting years 10 Annual average over the crediting period of estimated reductions (tonnes of CO2e) 195,255

A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity: There is no public funding for this project.

3 Deviations of cumulated emission reductions result from omitted decimals.

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 7 SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology B.1. Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the project activity: The following UNFCCC CDM methods and documents are applicable and employed for this PDD:

(a) Approved consolidated baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0002. “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”, EB 67 (version 13.0.0).

(b) “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”, (version 003.0.0).

(c) “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality”, (version 07.0.0).

(d) “Guidelines on common practice”, (version 02.0)

(e) “Guidelines on additionality of first-of-its-kind project activities“, (version 02.0)

More information about the methodology and used tools can be obtained at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/approved.html B.2. Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project activity: This project is a grid-connected renewable power generation project that installs a new power plant at a site where no renewable power plant has been operated prior to the implementation of the project activity (greenfield plant). The tables B-1 and B-2 below explain the applicability of ACM0002 (version 13.0.0) to the proposed project activity: Table B-1: Comparison of proposed project activity with applicability conditions of the methodology

ACM0002 Applicability Proposed project activity

The project activity is the installation, capacity addition, retrofit or replacement of a power plant/unit of one of the following types: hydro power plant/unit (either with a run-of-river reservoir or an accumulation reservoir), wind power plant/unit, geothermal power plant/unit, solar power plant/unit, wave power plant/unit or tidal power plant/unit;

The project activity involves installation of a wind power plant. Hence, applicability condition is met.


In the case of capacity additions, retrofits or replacements (except for capacity addition projects for which the electricity generation of the existing power plant(s) or unit(s) is not affected): the existing plant started commercial operation prior to the start of a minimum historical reference period of five years, used for the calculation of baseline emissions and defined in the baseline emission section, and no capacity addition or retrofit of the plant has been undertaken between the start of this minimum historical reference period and the implementation of the project activity;

The project activity is neither capacity addition, nor retrofit nor replacement. Therefore, this condition is not applicable to the proposed project activity.

In case of hydro power plants, one of the following conditions must apply:

o The project activity is implemented in an existing single or multiple reservoirs, with no change in the volume of any of the reservoirs; or

o The project activity is implemented in an existing single or multiple reservoirs, where the volume of any of reservoirs is increased and the power density of each reservoir, as per the definitions given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4 W/m2 after the implementation of the project activity; or

o The project activity results in new single or multiple reservoirs and the power density of each reservoir, as per the definitions given in the Project Emissions section, is greater than 4 W/m2 after the implementation of the project activity.

The project activity involves installation of a wind power plant. Therefore, this condition is not applicable to the proposed project activity.

In case of hydro power plants using multiple reservoirs where the power density of any of reservoirs is lower than 4 W/m2 after the implementation of the project activity all of the conditions must apply:

o The power density calculated for



the entire project activity using equation 5 is greater W/m2;

o All reservoirs and hydro power plants are located at the same river and were designed to function as an integrated project that collectively constitutes the generation capacity combined power plant;

o The water flow between the multiple reservoirs is not used by any other hydropower which is not a part of the project activity;

o The total installed capacity of the power units, which are driven using water from reservoirs with a power density lower than 4 W/m2, is lower than 15 MW;

o The total installed capacity of the power units, which are driven using water from reservoirs with a power density lower than 4 W/m2, is less than 10% of the total installed capacity of the project activity from multiple reservoirs.

Table B-2: Comparison of proposed project activity with inapplicability conditions of the methodology

ACM0002 Inapplicability Proposed project activity

Project activities that involve switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources at the site of the project activity, since in this case the baseline may be the continued use of fossil fuels at the site;

The project activity involves installation of a wind power plant. No fuel switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is involved by the project activity. Therefore, this condition is not applicable to the proposed project activity.

Biomass fired power plants;


A hydro power plant that results in the creation of a new single reservoir or in the increase in an existing single reservoir where the power density of the reservoir is less than 4 W/m2.



Wind turbines(10 x 3.0 MW)

Existing fossil fuelfired power plants

CO2 emissions

Electricity supply

Electricity supply

Own consumption(elec.)

Project BoundaryAruba National Grid (N.V. Elmar)

Wind turbines(10 x 3.0 MW)

Existing fossil fuelfired power plants

CO2 emissionsCO2 emissions

Electricity supply

Electricity supply

Own consumption(elec.)

Project BoundaryAruba National Grid (N.V. Elmar)

Furthermore:

• This project does not fall into the category of a “small-scale project”. With a total installed wind turbine capacity of 30 MW, the 15 MW maximum output capacity is exceeded as defined by 1/CMP.2, paragraph 28.

• The geographic and system boundaries for the relevant electricity grid can be clearly identified and information on the characteristics of the grid is available.

On the basis of the above reasons, the applicability criteria of the methodology stated in ACM0002 (version 13.0.0) are met. B.3. Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary: Project boundary The proposed project boundary of the project is as follows:

Figure B-1: Project Boundary Table B-3: Emissions sources included in or excluded from the project boundary Source Gas Included? Justification / Explanation

Bas

eli

ne CO2 emissions from

electricity generation in fossil fuel fired

CO2 Included According to ACM0002 only CO2 emissions from the grid electricity generation should be accounted for.


CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. According to ACM0002.

power plants that are displaced due to the project activity.

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. According to ACM0002.

CO2 Excluded

CH4 Excluded

Proj

ect a

ctiv

ity

On-site fuel consumption due to the project activity: wind electricity production

N2O Excluded

As the project is a wind farm no greenhouse gas emissions from the project have to be considered according to ACM0002.

The project owner ensures that environmental friendly equipment will be used only.

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 12 B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario: Identification of the baseline scenario The project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant, therefore the baseline scenario is the following according to the stipulations of applied ACM0002 (version 13.0.0): Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in the combined margin (CM) calculations described in the "Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system". Hence, a step-wise procedure to identify the baseline scenario does not need to be applied at this stage. In conclusion of the analysis in section B.5. below the baseline scenario is determined as the continuation of the current situation, i.e. electricity supply based on fossil fuel sources. For details please refer to section B.5./step 2. Electricity delivered to national electricity distribution company on the island of Aruba (N.V. Elmar, hereafter referred to as 'Grid') by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by operation of grid-connected power plants and in addition by new power generation sources, as reflected in the combined margin (CM) calculations described in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”. As the only energy related resource of Aruba is oil based4 it is unlikely that the generation mix will change. Apart from oil refining there are no further sources for retrieving major sources for alternative ways of energy supply. Therefore, if the proposed project activity would fail, the generation mix reflected in the grid emission factor would continue to prevail. B.5.

• Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered VER project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality):

• Serious considerations of carbon revenues Additionality The following steps are used to demonstrate the additionality of the project according to the latest version of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” agreed by the Executive Board (version 07.0.0). A time line describing the history of the project is included in annex 5. It is important to note that VER’s were taken into account for the investment decision and in the planning stage of the project. The decision for the inclusion of VER credits was made on July 10th 2008 during negotiations between project developer, equipment suppliers and lender of capital. The funding of the project was closed in December 2008.5 Step 0: Demonstration whether the proposed project activity is the first-of-its-kind

4 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/22491.htm 5 http://www.nucapitalsvcs.com/index.php/press-and-media/news/13-nucapital-announces-30-mw-windpark-vader-piet-arubas-first-utility-scale-wind-farm

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 13 The project includes measures listed in the definitions section of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0) – Switch of technology with or without change of energy source including energy efficiency improvement as well as use of renewable energies – and therefore, the “Guidelines on additionality of first-of-its-kind project activities“ (version 02.0) are applicable.

I. Definitions

1. Applicable geographical area As per the “Guidelines on additionality of first-of-its-kind project activities” (version 02.0) the applicable geographical area covers the island of Aruba (i.e. the entire Host Country). Although the applied technology of the project activity (i.e. wind power generation) is not country specific, the applicable geographical area does not need to be extended to other countries. The reason for this is the fact, that the power grid of Aruba is closed without any connection line to adjacent countries. Hence, as there is no interdependency between the applied technology of the project activity and any similar or comparable technologies outside of Aruba, this determination of the applicable geographical area can be considered reasonable.

2. Measure The project activity includes the following measure for emission reductions: Switch of technology with or without change of energy source including energy efficiency improvement as well as use of renewable energies.

3. Output The output of the project activity is solely electricity generated and supplied to the power grid of Aruba.

4. Different technologies The Wind farm Vader Piet will be the first wind farm on Aruba, there is no commercially operated wind project on Aruba so far. WEB is the only power producing company on Aruba6, the installed capacity in 2008 was 244 MW by thermal power plants. Gross power generation on Aruba was around 904 GWh in 2008, solely supplied by installed fossil fuel power plants, this means a 100%. There is neither wind nor solar nor any other renewable power generation facility installed by now on Aruba. It is obvious that wind energy is no prevailing practice on Aruba, since the market is dominated by thermal power plants. With regard to the type of technology it can be noted, that the proposed project activity differs by the energy source for power production from all other existing installations within the applicable region, i.e. wind power generation (the project activity) and thermal power generation (existing installations). Therefore, the project activity can be clearly considered a different technology in the context of "first-of-its-kind".

II. Identification of a first-of-its-kind project activity With regard to the applicability criteria stated in the “Guidelines on additionality of first-of-its-kind project activities” (version 02.0), the proposed project activity includes the following:

6 For more information about the company please refer to http://www.webaruba.com.


(a) The project is the first in the applicable geographical area that applies a technology that is different from technologies that are implemented by any other project, which are able to deliver the same output and have started commercial operation in the applicable geographical area before the project design document (CDM-PDD) is published for global stakeholder consultation or before the start date of the proposed project activity, whichever is earlier.

As depicted in the definitions section above, the project activity is the only activity including wind power generation within the applicable geographical area. Therefore, this criterion is met.

(b) The project implements one or more of the measures.

As depicted in the definitions section above, the project activity includes the following measure: Switch of technology with or without change of energy source including energy efficiency improvement as well as use of renewable energies. Therefore, this criterion is met.

(c) The project participants selected a crediting period for the project activity that is “a maximum of

10 years with no option of renewal”.

The crediting period of the proposed project activity is chosen as fixed with a length of 10 years. Therefore, this criterion is met.

As all of the applicability criteria of this step are met by the project activity, the project is concluded to be first of its kind. Therefore, subsequent steps as per the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0) do not need to be applied for additionality demonstration. Figure 1 in section 3 of the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0) provides an overview of applicable steps to demonstrate additionality.

III. Additionality of the first-of-its-kind project activity As the proposed project activity is found to be first of its kind according to sub-step II. above, the project is considered additional. Step 1: Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and regulations As per the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0), based on the outcome of step 0. above, this step is not applied. Step 2: Investment analysis As per the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0), based on the outcome of step 0. above, this step is not applied. Step 3: Barrier analysis As per the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0), based on the outcome of step 0. above, this step is not applied. Step 4: Common practice analysis

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 15 As per the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (version 07.0.0), based on the outcome of step 0. above, this step is not applied. Therefore, as a result of the above analysis a conclusion can be made that the proposed project activity meets all criteria of the applied methodology and related tools, in particular, to be first-of-its-kind in the applicable geographical area, and hence is considered additional. Serious Considerations of Carbon Revenues The wind farm had been considered since the beginning of the 21st century. While carbon credits had been discussed, this was not followed up because the management of WEB Aruba at that time was under the impression that only CDM trading schemes existed at that time. As Aruba, as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was an Annex 1 country and as the Parliament of Aruba never verified the Kyoto protocol it was thought that a CDM trading scheme was not possible. As subsequent analyses in the 2000’s continued to show electricity generation with wind would not be economic in the usual financial environments. Chronology of events is summarized below.

• March 11 2008: After request from WEB Aruba N.V. Deloitte advises that carbon trading could benefit the project

• June 17 , 2008: WEB and Vader Piet N.V. agree that carbon credits will be property of WEB as these can be beneficial to the achievement of the project

• June 18 2008: TFS carbon traders are approached for assistance of selling WEB VER Emission rights

• July 10 2008 parties agree on the benefits for carbon credits for the project (referred to as CDM), including possible pricing and outlining the that WEB will retain the emission rights in order to co finance the project, this is made part of an LOI is signed between WEB and Vader Piet NV

• August 22, 2008: Contract for construction of wind farm and subsequent power generation and delivery to WEB is signed between WEB and Vader Piet N.V.

• September 17 2008: Proposal TFS for carbon trade brokerage • October 16 2008: RFP PDD Kema • October 27 2008: Proposal PDD Kema • June 5 2009: RFP validation PDD TUV • June 23 2009: RFP validation PDD DNV • July 2 2009: Proposal validation PDD DNV • September 15 2009: Start of the construction of the wind farm, this considered as the start of the

project activity • September 22 2009: proposal validation PDD TUV • September 23 2009: RFP validation PDD G Lloyd • October 7 2009: Proposal validation G Lloyd • December 18, 2009: Finalization of the construction of the wind farm • March 19 2010: First submission of documents to Gold Standard


• October 8 first 2010,Stakeholder feedback round • November 29, 2011 second Stakeholder feedback round

On March 11 2008, at the request of WEB Aruba for finding financing opportunities, Deloitte pointed out the possibility of carbon trade through a VER scheme, this option was taken into consideration by the management of WEB Aruba. In negotiations with the future builder and operator of the wind farm on June 17, 2008 the issue of carbon credits and their benefits were discussed, parties agreed that the rights to the carbon credits would go to WEB Aruba. This agreement would thus allocate the benefits of carbon revenues to WEB Aruba, as such the management of WEB Aruba approved to go ahead with the efforts to achieve carbon revenues. On July 10 2008 parties agree on the benefits for carbon credits for the project (referred to as CDM), including possible pricing and outlining that WEB will retain the emission rights in order to co finance the project, this is made part of an LOI is signed between WEB and Vader Piet NV

Subsequent to the agreement of the allocation of the carbon revenues to WEB Aruba and the approval of the management of WEB Aruba to go ahead with the efforts to achieve carbon revenues a search was started for consultants/brokers for the credits, as such on June 18 2008 TFS brokers in London were approached for advice. On August 22 2008 the contract for the construction and generation and supply of power to WEB Aruba was signed by WEB Aruba and the IPP. As evident from above WEB Aruba was aware of the benefits of carbon trading before the signing of the contract with the IPP. As WEB decided that it would try to sell the carbon credits under Gold Standard a lot of effort was undertaken to contract parties that would develop the PDD and parties that were certified by Gold Standard to validate the PDD, this proved to be quite difficult as most certified parties that were approached had no staff or time available. In October 28, 2008 KEMA submitted a proposal for the PDD and was awarded the contracted for the drafting of the PDD. In September 2009 the construction of the wind farm started, this considered as the start of the project activity. As evident from above WEB Aruba was aware of the benefits of carbon trading before the start of the project activity. Parallel with the construction of the farm activities were undertaken to further the carbon credit project, this included the hiring of Germanischer Lloyd in September 2009 for the validation of the PDD, the preparation of the GS passport and the PDD. On December 18 2009, the construction of the wind farm was finalized, on December 21 the project was registered with the Gold Standard. On March 19, 2010 the first documents were submitted to the Gold Standard On October 8, 2010 and November 22, 2011 stakeholder feedback sessions were held. It is evident from the above stated chronology of events that PP is aware of the carbon credits more than a year before the start of the project activity and after the start of the project activity serious efforts have continuously taken place to secure carbon revenues.

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 17 B.6. Emission reductions:

B.6.1. Explanation of methodological choices: According to ACM0002 the following three elements are distinguished to calculate the emission reductions:

1. Project emissions 2. Baseline emissions 3. Leakage

The emission reductions are the difference between the baseline emissions and the project emissions for a given year. In order to calculate the difference, the baseline and project emissions have to be determined first. 1. Project Emissions For most renewable power generation project activities, PEy = 0. However, some project activities may involve project emissions that can be significant. These emissions shall be accounted for as project emissions by using the following equation:

yHPyGPyFFy PEPEPEPE ,,, ++= (1) Where: PEy Project emissions in year y (tCO2e/yr) PEFF,y Project emissions from fossil fuel combustion in year y (tCO2/yr) PEGP,y Project emissions from the operation of geothermal power plants due to the release of

non-condensable gases in year y (tCO2e/yr) PEHP,y Project emissions from water reservoirs of hydro power plants in year y (tCO2e/yr) As the proposed project activity does not include fossil fuel combustion, geothermal power generation or hydro based power generation, none of these emissions will occur. Hence, project emissions will be zero. 2. Baseline Emissions Baseline emissions include only CO2 emissions from electricity generation in fossil fuel fired power plants that are displaced due to the project activity. The methodology assumes that all project electricity generation above baseline levels would have been generated by existing grid-connected power plants and the addition of new grid-connected power plants. The baseline emissions are to be calculated as follows:

yCMgridyPJy EFEGBE ,,, ×= (2) Where: BEy Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) EGPJ,y Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result

of the implementation of the project activity in year y (MWh/yr) EFgrid,CM,y Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y

calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an


electricity system” (tCO2/MWh) Calculation of EGPJ,y The calculation of EGPJ,y is different for (a) greenfield plants, (b) retrofits and replacements, and (c) capacity additions. Option (a): Greenfield renewable energy power plants

The proposed project activity consists in the installation of a new grid-connected wind farm which will deliver renewable generated electricity to the grid. Therefore, option (a) – Greenfield renewable energy power plants – can be used to calculate the electricity generation.

Option (b): Retrofit or replacement of an existing renewable energy power plant The proposed project activity does not include the retrofit or replacement of an existing grid-connected renewable power plant. Therefore, this option cannot be used.

Option (c): Capacity addition to an existing renewable energy power plant The proposed project activity does not include capacity additions to an existing grid-connected renewable power plant. Therefore, this option cannot be used.

If the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation of the project activity, then:

facility,yPJ,y EGEG = (3) Where: EGPJ,y Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result

of the implementation of the project activity in year y (MWh/yr) EGfacility,y Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year

y (MWh/yr) Calculation of EFgrid,CM,y According to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“, the grid emission factor used for determination of emission reductions is calculated as following: Step 1. Identify the relevant electricity systems While the electricity grid of Aruba is operated by N.V. Elmar, power production is solely conducted by W.E.B. Aruba N.V. The island possesses a closed power grid, there is no transmission line and no connected electricity system. The only power generation facilities outside the grid of Aruba belong to a local oil refinery. It involves HFO/LFO boilers to meet the captive energy demand of the refinery. However, the interconnection between refinery and the grid of Aruba is kept as backup and no load occurs during normal operation. As per the requirements of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” there is no connected electricity system and hence, the determination of the grid emission factor

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 19 will refer to the overall island’s grid as it matches the largest grid definition according to step 1 of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“. Step 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional) There is no off-grid power generation facility that needs to be considered at Aruba Island. Therefore, this step is not to be applied. Step 3. Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM) The “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“ provides four methods to determine the operating margin (OM) emission factor:

(a) Simple OM, or (b) Simple adjusted OM, or (c) Dispatch data analysis OM, or (d) Average OM.

Analysis on each method is described as below: Method (a) Simple OM The simple OM method can only be used when low-cost/must run resources constitute less than 50% of total amount grid generating output. Among the total electricity generation in 2004-2008 of Aruba’s grid where the proposed project will be connected, the low-cost/must run resources7 clearly constitute less than 50% of total amount grid generating output. The detailed information can be seen in Table B-4: Table B-4: Annual electricity generation of the grid of Aruba 2004-2008

HFO Diesel Wind/Solar HFO Diesel MWh %

2004 184,0 30,2 0 837.523 10.532 106.108 12,5 0%

2005 184,0 30,2 0 900.125 15.427 101.353 11,1 0%

2006 207,4 30,2 0 896.265 10.626 100.049 11,0 0%

2007 199,9 28,2 0 914.324 12.983 104.311 11,2 0%

2008 215,8 28,2 0 899.239 5.227 93.961 10,4 0%

Proportion of power of low-cost/must run

capacities

Own consumptionInstalled capacity (MW) Generated electricity (MWh)

Method (b) Simple adjusted OM The simple adjusted OM requires the annual load duration curve of the grid. As detailed data of dispatch are not publicly available, it is difficult to adopt Method (b) for the calculation of the baseline emission factor of operating margin (EF

OM,y).

7 According to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“, low operating cost and must run resources typically include hydro, geothermal, wind, low-cost biomass, nuclear and solar generation.

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 20 Method (c) Dispatch data analysis OM Dispatch data analysis OM should be the first methodological choice if dispatch data are available, because the method can truly reflect the substitutable relationship between the amount of electricity output from power plants of the baseline grid and from the proposed project activity and the emission reductions generated. However, Method (c) cannot be adopted for the proposed project because of unavailability of the dispatch data of the Aruba grid. Method (d) Average OM Method (d) can only be used when low-cost/must run resources constitute more than 50% of total amount of grid output. According to the calculation of Table B-4, the proposed project does not apply to the method, so it is not suitable for the proposed project. Thus, method (a) ex ante simple OM can be used to calculate the baseline emission factor of operating margin (EF

OM,y) for the proposed project. This option does not require monitoring the emission factor

during the crediting period. Step 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method In accordance with the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“, ex ante simple OM emission factor (EF

grid,OMsimple,y) is calculated as the generation-weighted average CO2 emissions per

unit net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not

including low-cost / must-run power plants / units.8 It may be calculated:

• Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit (option A), or

• Based on data on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the

fuel types and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system (option B). Because detailed information on each power plant serving the grid of Aruba is publicly unavailable for the considered period, option B will be used to calculate the operating margin emission factor. Where option B is used, the ex ante simple OM emission factor is calculated based on the net electricity supplied to the grid by all power plants serving the system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, and based on the fuel type(s) and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system, as follows:

y

iyiCOyiyi

yOMsimplegrid EG

EFNCVFCEF

∑ ××=

)( ,,2,,

,, (4)

Where: 8 using a 3-year term based on the most recent data available at time of submission of PDD to the DOE

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 21 EFgrid,OMsimple,y Simple operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) FCi,y Amount of fuel type i consumed in the project electricity system in year y

(mass or volume unit) NCVi,y Net calorific value (energy content) of fuel type i in year y

(GJ / mass or volume unit) EFCO2,i,y CO2 emission factor of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ) EGy Net electricity generated and delivered to the grid by all power sources serving the

system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units, in year y (MWh) i All fuel types combusted in power sources in the project electricity system in year y y Either the three most recent years for which data is available at the time of submission of

the PDD to the DOE for validation (ex ante option) or the applicable year during monitoring (ex post option), following the guidance on data vintage in step 2.

For this approach (simple OM) to calculate the operating margin, the subscript m refers to the power plants / units delivering electricity to the grid, not including low-cost/must-run power plants / units, and including electricity imports to the grid. Electricity imports should be treated as one power plant m. Step 5. Calculate the build margin (BM) emission factor In terms of advance calculation of the build margin emission factor, option 1 from the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” – ex-ante calculation of the build margin emission factor – is chosen. This option does not require monitoring the emission factor during the crediting period. As per the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“ (version 03.0.0, pages 20-22), the sample group m (SETsample) that should be used to calculate the build margin is to be determined by the following procedure:

(a) Identify the 5 most recent power units, excluding CDM The set of 5 most recent commissioned power units (SET5-units) has been identified, refer to Excel appendix of this PDD.

(b) Identify the units that comprise at least 20% of the system generation, excluding CDM The set of power units comprising a minimum of 20% of system generation (SET≥20%) has been identified, refer to Excel appendix of this PDD.

(c) Select the set of power units that comprises the larger annual generation While option (a) above comprises around 138 GWh of annual power generation, option (b) results in 180 GWh. Therefore, option (b) – SET≥20% – is selected as an outcome of this step.

(d) Is there at least one power unit older than 10 years in the set? None of the power units included in SET≥20% is older than 10 years. In particular, all units selected were installed between 2006 and 2008, refer to Excel appendix of this PDD.

(e) Exclude power units older than 10 years and include power units registered in the CDM As per the result of step (d) above, this step is not applied.

(f) Does the set comprise at least 20% of generation? As per the result of step (d) above, this step is not applied.


(g) Include power units older than 10 years until the set comprises 20% of generation. As per the result of step (d) above, this step is not applied.

As a result of the above analysis, option (b) - SET≥20% - is chosen as sample group for calculation of the build margin. The CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) should be determined as per the guidance in Step 4 (a) for the simple OM, using options A1, A2 or A3, using for y the most recent historical year for which electricity generation data is available, and using for m the power units included in the build margin. According to the guidance of step 4 (a) – option A – of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“, the CO2 emission factor of each power unit m (EFEL,m,y) can be determined by one of the following options: Option A1: based on data on fuel consumption and electricity generation of power unit m,

if all data are available Option A2: based on data on fuel types, efficiency and electricity generation of power unit m,

if data on fuel consumption are not available Option A3: set zero per default, if no data on fuel consumption and type are available As either data on fuel consumption as well as on electricity generation are available for the relevant sample group, option A1 is chosen to determine EFEL,m,y. The following formula is used for calculation of EFEL,m,y.

ym

iyiCOyiymi

ymEL EG

EFNCVFCEF

,

,,2,,,

,,

∑ ××= (5)

Where: EFEL,m,y CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) FCi,m,y Amount of fuel type i consumed by power unit m in year y (Mass or volume unit) NCVi,y Net calorific value (energy content) of fuel type i in year y (GJ/mass or volume unit) EFCO2,i,y CO2 emission of fuel type i in year y (tCO2/GJ) EGm,y Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh) m Power units included in the build margin (i.e. SET≥20%) y Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available (i.e. 2008) Therefore, in accordance with the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“, the build margin emissions factor (EF

grid,BM,y) is the generation-weighted average emission factor

(tCO2/MWh) of all power units m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available, calculated as follows:


∑∑ ×

=

mym

mymELym

yBMgrid EG

EFEGEF

,

,,,

,, (6)

Where: EFgrid,BM,y Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) EGm,y Net quantity of electricity generated and delivered to the grid by power unit m in year y

(MWh) EFEL,m,y CO2 emission factor of power unit m in year y (tCO2/MWh) m Power units included in the build margin y Most recent historical year for which power generation data is available For detailed calculations please refer to the Excel appendix of this PDD. Step 6. Calculate the combined margin emissions factor The combined margin emissions factor is calculated as per option (a) – Weighted average CM – according to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“:

BMyBMgridOMyOMgridyCMgrid wEFwEFEF ×+×= ,,,,,, (7) Where: EFgrid,BM,y Build margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) EFgrid,OM,y Operating margin CO2 emission factor in year y (tCO2/MWh) wOM Weighting of operating margin emissions factor (%) wBM Weighting of build margin emissions factor (%) 3. Leakage No leakage emissions are considered. The main emissions potentially giving rise to leakage in the context of electric sector projects are emissions arising due to activities such as power plant construction and upstream emissions from fossil fuel use (e.g. extraction, processing, transport). These emission sources are neglected. 4. Emission Reductions Emission reductions are calculated as follows:

yyy PEBEER −= (8) Where: ERy Emissions reductions in year y (tCO2e/yr) BEy Baseline emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr) PEy Project emissions during the year y (tCO2e/yr)


B.6.2. Data and parameters that are available at validation: Data / Parameter: EFgrid,OM,y Data unit: tCO2/MWh Description: Operating margin emission factor of Aruba national grid Source of data used: Calculated as simple OM ex-ante based on the net electricity supplied to the

grid by all power plants serving the system, not including low-cost / must-run power plants / units

Value applied: 1.3384 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Calculated according to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (version 003.0.0)

Any comment: - Data / Parameter: EFgrid,BM,y Data unit: tCO2/MWh Description: Build margin emission factor of Aruba national grid Source of data used: Calculated as the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of

all power units included in the build margin m during the most recent year y for which power generation data is available

Value applied: 0.7182 Justification of the choice of data or description of measurement methods and procedures actually applied :

Calculated according to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (version 003.0.0)

Any comment: -


B.6.3. Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions: 1. Project Emissions As the proposed project activity does not involve fossil fuel combustion, geothermal or hydro based power generation according to ACM0002 no project emissions occur. Thus, PEy = 0. 2. Baseline Emissions The Power Purchase Agreement guarantees 165 GWh of annual power generation that will be sent to the grid. Following B.6.1. – calculation of EFgrid,CM,y – the following values result for determination of the grid emission factor:

MWhtCOEF yOMgrid /3384.1 2,, = (9)

MWhtCOEF yBMgrid /7182.0 2,, = (10) According to the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system“, the default weighting factors to use for project activities including wind power generation should be chosen as 0.75 for operating margin and 0.25 for build margin. Therefore, the grid emission factor of Aruba is calculated as following:

MWhtCOMWhtCOMWhtCOEF yCMgrid /1834.125.0/7182.075.0/3384.1 222,, =×+×= (11) Using the estimated annual power generation sent to the grid and the determined grid emissions factor of Aruba, baseline emissions are calculated as:

yrtCOMWhtCO MWh , BEy /255,195/1834.1000165 22 =×= (12) Achieved emission reductions will be calculated based on measured power generation and net supply to the grid during the crediting period. 3. Leakage According to ACM0002 no leakage emissions have to be considered. 4. Emission Reductions No leakage occurs, so the emission reductions by the project activity (ERy) during a given year y can be calculated as the difference between baseline emissions (BEy) and project emissions (PEy).

yrtCOyrtCO ERy /255,1950/255,195 22 =−= (13)


B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions:

Year

Estimation of project activity

emissions [tonnes of CO2 e]

Estimation of baseline

emissions [tonnes of CO2 e]

Estimation of leakage

[tonnes of CO2 e]

Estimation of overall emission

reductions [tonnes of CO2 e]

10/2011-12/2011 0 48,814 0 48,814 2012 0 195,255 0 195,255 2013 0 195,255 0 195,255 2014 0 195,255 0 195,255 2015 0 195,255 0 195,255 2016 0 195,255 0 195,255 2017 0 195,255 0 195,255 2018 0 195,255 0 195,255 2019 0 195,255 0 195,255 2020 0 195,255 0 195,255

01/2021-09/2021 0 146,441 0 146,441 Total

(tonnes of CO2 e) 0 1,952,550 0 1,952,550

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 27 B.7. Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan:

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: Data / Parameter: EGfacility,y Data unit: MWh Description: Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid

in year y Source of data to be used:

Electricity meter(s) , see annex 6 for calibration certificate

Value of data applied for the purpose of calculating expected emission reductions in section B.5

165,000

Description of measurement methods and procedures to be applied:

Continuous measurement and at least monthly recording The following parameters shall be measured: (i) The quantity of electricity supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid; and (ii) The quantity of electricity delivered to the project plant/unit from the grid

QA/QC procedures to be applied:

Cross check measurement results with records for sold electricity

Any comment: -


B.7.2. Description of the monitoring plan: This section details the steps taken to monitor on a regular basis the GHG emissions reductions from Vader Piet. The monitoring plan for this project has been developed to ensure that from the start, the project is well organized in terms of collection and archiving of complete and reliable data. 1. Monitoring organization Prior to the start of the crediting period, the organization of the monitoring team will be established. Within WEB clear roles and responsibilities will be assigned to all staff involved in this VER project and a VER focal point has been nominated. All other VER monitoring staff will have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. WEB will manage the process of training new staff, ensuring trained staff will perform the monitoring duties, the coordination of functions with the project operator and the overall control of the monitoring procedures. On monthly basis both, Vader Piet N.V. and WEB Aruba N.V. representatives will read the kWh meters together and record these data. The dates on which the meters are to be read together are predetermined by both parties. 2. Monitoring equipment and installation With a defined emission factor which is calculated ex-ante and according to the Monitoring Methodology ACM0002 the only parameter to be monitored is electricity supplied to the grid by the project. Metering of Electricity supplied to the Grid Vader Piet will be connected to the 60 kV grid of ELMAR by means of a central single step-up transformer at the projects’ site and a single 6-kilometer 60 kV underground cable to the existing 60 kV substation in San Nicolas. The step-up transformer and 60 kV cable will be installed and owned by WEB. Vader Piet's wind turbines are connected by two strings of 34 kV medium voltage cables to the step-up transformer (Grid Connection Point - GCP). Billing meters of 0.5 and 0.2 accuracy classes have been installed by Vader Piet at the GCP and billing meters at the same point and of the same accuracy have been be installed by WEB. The billing amounts of electricity will be calculated as the average of these two meters. These two meters will therefore be key part of the VER measurement and verification process. Vader Piet will record all relevant data automatically using the standard SCADA system as supplied by VESTAS and as specified in the bid documents. WEB will get full and direct access to this SCADA system that enables WEB to monitor the wind farm performance at real time. WEB will also receive weekly summary reports of the performance of the wind farm through email. Moreover, to verify the automatically metering data monthly meter reading will be conducted by authorized representatives of both parties. To ensure maximum availability of data and to introduce quality controls, a cross-check could be done either with the data generated by the grid operator in secondary meters located elsewhere in the grid. The utilized electricity meters within the control of Vader Piet and WEB will meet the relevant local standards at the time of installation. As one of the billing meters is owned by WEB (and WEB and the grid belong to the same group of companies) this requirement is fulfilled. Before the meters are going to be installed

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 29 they will be calibrated by the manufacturer. Records on the meters (type, make, model and calibration documentation) will be retained in the quality control system. All meters will be jointly inspected on behalf of both parties (WEB and Vader Piet) and will not be interfered with, except in the presence of the authorized representatives of both parties. See figure B-2 for the proposed monitoring scheme:

Electricity displacement toAruba national grid

EGfacility,y

‚Vader Piet‘ wind farm

30 MW

EFgrid,BM,y

AM

34 kV

60 kV

Legend

Electricity

Metered parameter

Calculated parameter

Power meter * (bidirectional)

* 2 meters will be installed(1 by WEB, 1 by the project owner)

AM

GCP

Figure B-2: Monitoring plan Quality control of the metering Vader Piet and WEB have an agreement that both their meters will be checked for accuracy on regular basis by cross checking between the readings of both devices and will be treated as working satisfactory so long as the errors are within the limits prescribed for meters of that class and the difference between the two billing meters does not exceed 0.5%. If the deviation exceeds the above mentioned value the meters will be immediately calibrated or replaced, if required, by the grid operator. According to the manufacturer9 the meters do not need regular calibration and that Dutch laws stipulate that the type of meters at Vader Piet need only to be calibrated every 6 years, as such, unless the deviations as described above are detected, calibration of the meters will be done every 6 years. All tests on the billing meters will be conducted by the authorized staff of both parties jointly. For further details on the VER data quality control and quality assurance see the VER Monitoring System Procedures in annex 4. 9 email August 6 2013, from Mr. Nico de Wit, Account Manager Landis+Gyr

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 30 3. Data recording procedure The process for collecting the electricity meter data will be detailed in a procedure. A summary of this procedure is provided below. Metering Electricity delivered to the Grid As stated before, Vader Piet will record all relevant data automatically using the standard SCADA system as supplied by VESTAS. This system includes an extensive range of monitoring and control functions allowing the wind power plants to be controlled in the same way as a conventional power plant. A central server controls the continuous collection, storage and intelligent processing of data from the entire wind power plant. A Power Plant Controller provides active and reactive power regulation, power ramping and voltage control. Moreover the key features of the system are:

a. real-time active and reactive power control of the entire wind power plant b. control and monitoring of wind turbines, meteorology instruments and substations c. plant performance summaries in both text and graphical form d. comprehensive report generator module e. productivity presentations f. availability calculations g. instant online data from any turbine: Status, power, wind speed, voltage, current,

temperatures and alarms h. 10-minute averaged data, including mean values, standard deviations, minimum and

maximum values i. advanced power curve presentations, including power curves, scatter curves, reference and

wind distribution curves from multiple units j. user-friendly graphical user interface based on Windows standards k. client connection manager for access to multiple power plants l. secure login with customizable access profiles m. remote control of a single wind turbine or a group of turbines

In addition, the automatically metering data will be verified by monthly meter readings conducted by authorized representatives of both parties.

Main meter failure – use of cross-check meter data

As the average value of the two electricity meters to be installed will be the delivered power from wind energy, redundancy in metering is given. As long as the monthly checks of the difference between the billing meters do not exceed 0.5% the average value will be taken for billing purposes. If the deviation exceeds the above mentioned value the meters will be immediately calibrated10 or replaced, if required.

10 The manufacturer of the meters Landis-Gyr does not specify a specific calibration interval, ref Overview Technical data ZMD 402 CT/ZMD 402 CF. All meters shall be checked for accuracy yearly by both parties and shall be treated as working satisfactorily so long as the errors are within the limits prescribed for meters of the class and the difference between the billing meters do not exceed the above mentioned 0,5 %. If the difference between the billing meters do exceed 0,5 % or the meter/meters are found to be defective during the yearly checks they will be immediately calibrated

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 31 If both billing meters fail to record, data from cross-check meters (of grid operator or the SCADA system) will be used for the period, with a minor adjustment to allow for transmission losses can be undertaken. Additionally, the amount of energy provided to the grid could also be cross-checked with the information the grid operator managed though secondary measuring devices that allow them to control the energy inputs to the grid.

Cross-check failure

In the event of a cross-check meter failing/error, it will be calibrated or replaced by an accredited equipment testing organization. Maintenance records and any calibration documents will be retained by the project.


4. Data records and management

The monitoring data will be filed continuously automatically by the SCADA system. The electronic files need to have digital and hard copy back-up. Vader Piet needs to keep electricity sales and purchase invoices.

For details of the operational and management structure used for the monitoring of the project activity, please see annex 4.

B.8. Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies): The baseline study and the monitoring methodology were concluded on 08-05-2012. The entity determining the baseline study and the monitoring methodology as the Carbon Advisor is DNV KEMA. Contact: Toni Jatkowski, DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

(Tel.: +49 228 4469063, [email protected]).

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 33 SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period C.1. Duration of the project activity: C.1.1. Starting date of the project activity: The construction of wind farm Vader Piet started on September 15th 2009, official commissioning dated on December 18th 2009. Thus, the starting date of the project activity is 15/09/2009 (project construction start). C.1.2. Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: The project activity has an expected life time of 15 years. C.2. Choice of the crediting period and related information: C.2.1. Renewable crediting period: Not applicable. C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: Not applicable. C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: Not applicable. C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: The project activity will use a fixed crediting period of 10 years. C.2.2.1. Starting date: As per GS guideline (version 2.1, para 1.2.6) the starting date of the crediting period will be backdated up to two years from actual GS registration date for retroactive fast track registration. Hence, the starting date of crediting period will be backdated to 18/12/2009 (commissioning date of the project activity) after GS registration. If GS registration is expected for October 2013, the starting date of crediting period will be backdated and adjusted accordingly (e.g. October 2011). The effective date of registration will later determine the starting date of the crediting period. C.2.2.2. Length: 10 years

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 34 SECTION D. Environmental impacts D.1. Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts: An assessment regarding the environmental impact of the project activity is not required on Aruba in general. Nevertheless, the Aruba government (host party) has indicated that it prefers Vader Piet to carry out an EIA11 before building and issued some guidelines to such an assessment. These guidelines consisted of the following elements:

• impact of wind farm on the boundaries of silence zone (nature reserve and conservation zone) • probability of bird collision in relation to different aspects e.g. number of birds • assessment of the effects on resting, breeding and feeding grounds of birds • assessment of the effects on other animals in the area e.g. donkeys • visual impact on the neighbourhood and noise due to wind farm operation • assessment of the effect of wind turbines on landscape and the eco-system • assessment of the effects on air traffic and telecommunication

The main conclusion of the carried out EIA is that the effects of the wind farm are minor. The wind farm has mainly an impact on landscape and ecology. The proposed wind power project ‘Vader Piet’ will comply with all relevant environmental guidelines on Aruba during construction and operation. The Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by an independent assessment company named Grontmij (with extensive experience in environmental and social impact assessments) contains analysis of different possible impacts on land use, the local ecology, the landscape and noise (and other effects). Related to land use, in the vicinity of the project site there are no occupied settlements. The closest dwelling is at about 700 m away, which is at a safe distance. No infrastructure is present, except some unpaved roads at the west side of the wind farm. The project has no effect on public services. Although a radio link is crossing the wind farm, Vader Piet already received a letter from the local telecommunication company (SETAR) that there is no objection to change the layout of the wind farm. From the ecological side limited effects are expected on birds and other fauna. The EIA analysed the impacts on different bird species that live, breed or rest in the area of the project and concludes its effects to them as very limited. Special flight patterns between coast and birds’ feeding grounds do not exist so the project will be no barrier to the birds’ flying routes. Moreover, the effects of hit rates to the local bird population by the wind blades are concluded to be very limited. The EIA report analysed the effects of the project on bats as well. Within this analysis it was concluded that no direct effects of the project on the bat habitat will appear and no bat shelters have to be removed. Limited effects from the wind turbine sonic to the feeding pattern of the bad could appear. Due to the average flying altitude of bats, which is lower than 30 m, no significant hit rates are expected. The wind turbine blade tips are higher in position and therefore not in the bats’ flying path. 11 Ref: 09-169 MER-SIA Final Wind Park Vader Piet-English

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 35 The main ecological effects of the project will occur during its construction phase and will influence mainly the wild donkeys living in that area. Because of all-day human presence and noises from construction work the donkeys will avoid the area during this phase. As at the wind farm site water pools are located which are used by the wild donkeys for drinking purposes during the wet season, without mitigation arrangements it cannot be guaranteed that the donkeys will return after the construction phase. The EIA stated a considerable impact on the local landscape as the wind farm will be visible from a great distance. Moreover, no effects from noise emissions are to be expected as these will be restricted to a small zone in the surroundings of the project. Beyond this zone the noises of wind turbines will be shaded by the general wind noise on the island. No permanent housings are located in the influence zone. The realisation of the wind farm will in general have an important impact on the energy supply of Aruba as more than 15% of the electric energy consumption of the island can be covered by it. Aruba will therefore become less dependent on fuel-oil and fuel-oil imports. D.2. If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: As stated before, the EIA concludes that the only effects which would occur are related to the wild donkeys during the construction phase of the project and the erected wind turbines might have a considerable impact on the local landscape. Mitigation arrangements proposed by the EIA to assure the coming back of the donkeys are:

• to schedule the construction phase between February and June (outside the wet season) • to install water points outside the location

As the construction phase is already scheduled between June and December 2009, as mitigation arrangement for this impact the installation of water points outside the location will be preferred. The considerable impact on the local landscape can be handled easily as well. As it is very common for wind power projects to use a camouflage painting pattern for the wind tower, the adoption of an equivalent painting pattern would be easy to achieve on Aruba. The colours to be used in this pattern should fit to the most common environmental colours in the surroundings of the project. The considered impact to the local landscape can be minimized by this.

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 36 SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments To envisage and address issues regarding the project activity, a stakeholder consultation was initiated and conducted already in November 2004. The agenda of the meeting was as follows:

1. Welcome 2. Project presentation

• Initiative • Why a wind park • Search for a location • Choice for the specified location at Vader Piet • Number of wind mills • Consequences for the surroundings • Environment • Energy production

3. EIA • Execution • Report • Feedback

4. Design and Built project. 5. Parties involved 6. Time frame execution 7. Discussion 8. Closure

In addition, there have been two stakeholder feedback rounds hosted by WEB, taking place in October 2010 and November 2011. These feedback rounds formed another chance to address in particular social and environmental issues of stakeholders regarding implementation of the project. NGO’s were selected on the basis of earlier contacts, their reputation, on the basis that they had approach the energy company before, or because they live or have businesses in the vicinity. Stakeholders were invited via email, telephone or via an advertisement in the newspapers. Stakeholders were considered relevant because they are active as environmental or conservation NGO’s, because they represent businesses or people who live near the area or because they manage a nature reserve located next to the area where the wind park is foreseen. For additional information on stakeholder consultation process please refer to the Gold Standard Local Stakeholder Consultation Report of this project activity. E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: Stakeholders were invited through ad in the newspapers to give their comments during a stakeholder meeting. Some stakeholders, e.g. the natural park, were specifically invited to give their comments. E.2. Summary of the comments received:

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 37 Stakeholder comment Was comment taken into account

(Yes/ No)? Explanation (Why? How?)

Upgrade present energy plant instead of building a wind park

No Upgrading of plant would never result in the same environmental effect, and is not economically feasible.

Place mills in the sea No Sea is too deep Induce people to consume less energy

No This is already an ongoing effort

Visual disturbance of mills No Mills are only visible from a few locations, the location is best considering, wind, neighbours and use.

Dangers to migrating birds No Has already been subject of the EIA, the risk is considered low

Dangers to bats YES An international expert on the subject was hired to evaluate the situation and draft risk mitigating measures if necessary

E.3. Report on how due account was taken of any comments received:

See E2.


Annex 1

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY Organization: Water en Energiebedrijf Aruba N.V. Street/P.O.Box: Balashi 76 Building: City: Oranjestad State/Region: Postcode/ZIP: Country: Aruba Telephone: +297 525 4600 FAX: +297 585 7681 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: www.webaruba.com Represented by: O.J. Boekhoudt Title: General Manager Salutation: MSME Last name: Boekhoudt Middle name: Julian First name: Oslin Department: Mobile: Direct FAX: +297 585 7681 Direct Tel: +297 525 4625 Personal e-mail: [email protected]

Organization: Windpark Vader Piet N.V. Street/P.O.Box: L.G. Smith Boulevard 22 Building: City: Oranjestad State/Region: Postcode/ZIP: Country: Aruba Telephone: FAX: E-Mail: URL: Represented by: Hutting Windenergie b.v. Title: Salutation: Mr. Last name: Hutting Middle name: First name: Henk Department: Mobile: + 31 6 46 181 888

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 39 Direct FAX: Direct tel: Personal e-mail: [email protected]


Annex 2

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING

Not applicable. There is no public funding in this project. Major funding source of the project is bank loan.


Annex 3

BASELINE INFORMATION

There is no additional information of baseline determination. For calculation of the grid emission factor of Aruba, please refer to the Excel appendix of this PDD.


Annex 4

MONITORING INFORMATION Table 1: VER Monitoring System Procedures

Procedure name Description Scope VER Staff Training This procedure outlines the steps

to ensure that staff receives adequate training to collect and archive complete and accurate data necessary for VER monitoring.

This procedure should be followed by all staff on site prior to performing any monitoring duties for the VER project.

VER data and record keeping arrangements

This procedure provides details of the sites data and record keeping arrangements. The arrangements ensure that complete and accurate records are retained within the quality control system. Data and records will be stored and archived according to this procedure.

All data and records should be managed following this procedure. All staff is responsible for ensuring that any data or records are dealt with according to this procedure.

Data collection The procedure will outline the

steps to collect the data from the main grid company electricity meter and the cross check meter (on site, if required).

The procedure for the data collection of the billing meters should be agreed on by the grid operator and Vader Piet.

VER data quality control and quality assurance

Data and records will be checked prior to being stored and archived. Data from the project will be checked to identify possible errors and omissions. The data checks will include checks of the electricity figures on the receipts.

All staff is responsible for ensuring the collection and archiving of complete and accurate data and records.

Electricity meter maintenance

This procedure outlines the steps to provide regular and preventative maintenance to the electricity meters.

This procedure should be followed by all staff involved in checking and maintaining the on site electricity meters.

VER – Verified Emission Reductions page 43 Equipment calibration This procedure details the

process of organizing and managing the calibration process. The procedure includes details of how a suitable company or organization is commissioned to undertake the calibration to the relevant standards.

The calibration of the electricity meters will be conducted by a suitable company according to the relevant standards.

Equipment failure (both meters)

This procedure details the process of data collection in the case that a problem with both billing meters occurs.

This procedure should be based on the procedures applied by the grid operator and Vader Piet.

Table 2: Operational procedures and responsibilities for monitoring and quality assurance of emission reductions of the project activity

Task Operator Vader Piet Wind Farm

Manager

WEB Aruba General Manager

WEB Aruba Production Manager

Maintenance / External company

(VESTAS)

Collect Data E R I I n/a

Enter data into spreadsheet E R I I n/a

Compile monthly and annual reports

n/a E/R R/I n/a n/a

Archive data & reports n/a E/R R/I n/a n/a

Calibration / Maintenance I I I I I

E = responsible for executing data collection R = responsible for overseeing and assuring quality I = to be informed


Annex 5

TIME LINE Time line development of wind park at Vader Piet, Aruba

• Early 2000’s various feasibility studies concerning various sites on Aruba • 2004: the government decides to designate the site at Vader Piet as possible location for Wind

Park • November 2004 Environmental Impact Assessment concludes that there are no unacceptable

environmental risks for the operation of a wind park at the location. • November 2004 a stakeholder consultation is organized • Early 2005 requests for proposals for the delivery and construction of wind mills are sent out.

The premise is that WEB Aruba will own and operate the wind park. At this time the topic of using funds from emission trade is first discussed, the idea is dropped as the participants at the moment think that only CDM projects are possible and Aruba has not ratified the Kyoto protocol

• July 2005 negotiations start with Delta, the lowest bidder. • October 2005, negotiations are stopped as Delta increased its bid price, making the project

unaffordable. The project is suspended • On October 21, 2005 WEB/GE signed a Mutual None-Disclosure Agreement to restart the project

on the basis of a single source bid. • The investigation that followed was not successful and on June 9, 2006, WEB advised GE that

there is no economic basis to continue the discussions/negotiations. • During February 2007 WEB went out for tenders on the basis of 2 alternative approaches:

Alternative 1 (Plant operated by WEB) 1. Bid for Balance of Plant 2. Bid for Windmill Park Alternative 2 1. IPP 2. Bid for Balance of Plant

• April 2008: WEB approaches Deloitte Aruba for advice on additional funding for the wind park, one of the topics discussed at this meeting is emission trade

• March 2008: Deloitte presents a memo where the option of emission trade as a means of acquiring additional funding is further explored

• July 2008: Based on the tenders received, the alternative 2 proved to be the only economically feasible option.

• June 2008 the issue emission rights is discussed with Vader Piet NV (the candidate IPP) • July 2008 An LOI outlining the that WEB will retain the emission rights in order to co finance

the project is signed between WEB and Vader Piet NV • In August 2008 an IPP contract was signed with WPVP NV and the Balance of Plant was

awarded to 3 separate contractors. • September 2008 WEB commissions Deloitte to start the process of emission trade


• Construction of the park is officially started on September 15,2009 • Initial electricity supply to grid started on November 08, 2009. • On December 18, 2009 WPVP NV went into commercial operation.


Annex 6 Calibration Certificate







Documents

PDD Aruba Final v1 12