Prepared for Enel Green Power Canada Inc

SUBMITTED TO: Pascal J. Brun President Enel Green Power Canada Inc. 1255 rue University Suite 1204 Montreal, QC Canada H3B 3W9 Email: [email protected] SUBMITTED BY: Livio Nichilo, P. Eng Engineering Manager

294 Richmond St. East Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5A 1P5 tel – (416) 628-4658 fax – 1-888-868-0960 email: [email protected] www.internatenergy.com

Final Report

Green House Gas Verification Report for the

St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Project

Prepared for Enel Green Power Canada Inc.

March 2011

St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Project IESC #G0174

Page 2 of 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Verification Assurance Statement..............……………………………….... Page 3

2. Scope of Engagement...........................……...……………………………... Page 3

3. Assurance Standards and Procedures......…………………………….......... Page 3

4. Project Description........…………………………………............………….. Page 5

5. Verification Objective.......................……………………………………….. Page 6

6. Level of Assurance........................................................................................ Page 6

7. Verification Methodology............................................................................. Page 6

8. Verification Team and Objectives................................................................. Page 7

9. Corrective Action Identified in Verification Process.................................... Page 9

10. Conclusion..................................................................................................... Page 9

11. Appendix A: Process Documents

Risk Assessment and Verification Plan............................ Page 10

Sample Plan....................................................................... Page 16

12. Appendix B: Methane Decay Rate for Excavated Biomass..................... Page 17

13. Appendix C: Conflict of Interest Checklist...……………………..……... Page 19


Page 3 of 20

1.0 VERIFICATION ASSURANCE STATEMENT

May 30, 2011 Enel Green Power Canada Inc. 1255 rue University Suite 1204 Montreal, QC Canada H3B 3W9 To the Board of Directors and Management of Enel Green Power Canada Inc Internat Energy Solutions Canada (IESC) is pleased to submit this verification statement to Enel Green Power Canada Inc. We appreciate the opportunity in providing the verification service for this project.

1.1 SCOPE OF THE ENGAGEMENT

We have examined the following matters relating to the Greenhouse Gas Offset Project generated between 2007 and 2009 at the St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Plant in St. Félicien, Québec.

Greenhouse gas (“GHG”) project as measured in accordance with the ISO 14064-2 and the environmental integrity criteria established by the buyer of the Verified Emissions Reduction Removals (VERR’s) along with guidance from the Alberta Quantification Protocol for the Diversion of Biomass to Energy from Biomass Combustion Facilities

Project plan;

Baseline GHG emissions;

Emission reductions/avoidance;

Enel Green Power Canada Inc. is responsible for the preparation and presentation of the information within the Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Report. The responsibility of IESC is to express an independent conclusion on whether the GHG assertions, data and information are presented fairly, in all material respects, and in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and the environmental integrity criteria established by the buyer.

1.2 ASSURANCE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES

We conducted our work in accordance with ISO 14064-3 Specification for the Validation and Verification of GHG Assertions to provide a reasonable level of assurance on the application of the guidance established in ISO 14064-2. Our procedures included:

Review and analysis of the 2007, 2008, 2009 emission reduction reports and associated data Interviewing relevant management and staff at the St. Félicien Cogeneration facility and its

contractors responsible for data collection and reporting and previous verification reports.


Page 4 of 20

Obtaining an understanding of the management systems, processes and the relevant controls used to generate, aggregate and report the data

Reviewing relevant documents and records on a sample basis Testing and re-calculating information related to the data on a sample basis

The project generates for each year the following VERR’s (t CO2 eq.):

Type 2007 2008 2009Fresh Biomass

Production 714,726 594,642 611,968

Landfilled Biomass Production

243,337 398,706 319,781

Stream Delivery 11,503 10,620 8,851Electricity Generation

2,110 2,067 1,811

Total 971,675 1,006,036 942,411 2007- 971,675 tonnes CO2 eq 2008- 1,006,036 tonnes CO2 eq 2009- 942,411 tonnes of CO2 eq Total reductions available for transfer: 2,920,122 tonnes of CO2 eq. Conclusion In our opinion, the GHG assertions, data and information as stated in the St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Plant Emission Reduction Reports are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and the established environmental integrity criteria, to a reasonable level of assurance. Date of verification May 30, 2011 ____________________________ Date

Lead Verifier Contact details Livio Nichilo, P. Eng Engineering Manager 294 Richmond St. East Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5A 1P5 tel – (416) 628-4658 ext. 140 email: [email protected]

______________________________________ Lead Verifier May 30, 2011 ____________________________ Date May 30, 2011


Page 5 of 20

Enel Green Power Canada Inc. 1255 rue University Suite 1204 Montreal, QC Canada H3B 3W9

Dear Mr. Brun,

Internat Energy Solutions Canada (IESC) is pleased to submit this Verification Report that contains our deliverables and record of the methodology used for the verification and sample plan. This work was conducted in order to verify the VERR’s from the St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Plant Emission Reduction Project.

Project Description

The biomass cogeneration project at the St. Félicien facility generates a source of renewable energy reducing the need to use fossil fuels for steam and electricity generation through the combustion of wood waste, which is considered a carbon neutral source of energy. VERR’s are being claimed from three areas 1) the diversion and extraction of biomass (wood waste) from the landfill, which would have otherwise been a source of methane emissions 2) Steam generation and delivery to a local lumber mill, offsetting the use of oil that would have otherwise been used 3) Electricity produced from a renewable source and offsetting fossil fuel sources on the electricity grid. The biomass cogeneration facility is located in St. Félicien and is owned and operated by Enel Green Power Canada Inc.

The project adheres to ISO 14064-2 standards and guidance from the Alberta Quantification Protocol for the Diversion of Biomass to Energy from Biomass Combustion Facilities.

Enel Green Power Canada Inc provided the St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Plant Emission Reduction Project Reports that account for the VERR’s in the years of 2007, 2008, 2009.

The project generates for each year the following VERR’s

Type 2007 2008 2009Fresh Biomass

Production 714,726 594,642 611,968

Landfilled Biomass Production

243,337 398,706 319,781

Stream Delivery 11,503 10,620 8,851Electricity Generation

2,110 2,067 1,811

Total 971,675 1,006,036 942,411 2007- 971,675 tonnes CO2 eq 2008- 1,006,036 tonnes CO2 eq 2009- 942,411 tonnes of CO2 eq Total reductions available for transfer: 2,920,122 tonnes of CO2 eq.


Page 6 of 20

Verification Objective IESC provided the role and services of the third party GHG verifier to Enel Green Power Canada Inc in order to verify the project’s VERR’s from 2007, 2008, and 2009 to ensure that they are in accordance with the requirements set out by ISO 14064-2 and the established environmental integrity criteria. The verification was undertaken to conform to ISO-14064-3. The objective of the verification is to ensure that the offset credit assertion statement for the St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Plant is presented fairly and free of material inaccuracies. Level of Assurance This verification was conducted in order to ensure a reasonable level of assurance for the offsets claimed by the project. The threshold used in the verification is 5%. Verification Methodology The verification was conducted to meet ISO 14064 part 3. The verification process consists of four parts: the pre-review, the planning review, executing the plan and completion of the review. Below is a summary of the activities carried and Appendix A contains the more detailed risk assessment, verification, sample plan and findings. The process of the verification was iterative and involved review and revisions of calculations, reports and plans. Constant communication and efficient methods of data transfer between the verifying team and project proponent were necessary for completion and accuracy. Below is a summary of the actions carried out in the verification.

1. On October, 29th 2010 IESC received the Project Design Documents (PDD) and all associated data 2. IESC reviewed the PDD and data, clearly established the objectives, scope, criteria, level of assurance

and materiality, and identified areas that needed further clarification 3. Undertook a Risk Assessment (provided in Appendix A) and identified potential risks, issues and

uncertainties that may affect the accuracy of the assertion statement. The overall risk assessment was determined to be low to medium

4. Based on the Risk Assessment a Verification and Sample Plan was developed (provided in Appendix A)

5. On November 16th, 2010 the verification and sample plan was emailed to Enel Green Power Canada Inc for review and preparation for on-site visit

6. Scheduled on-site visit by Livio Nichilo (lead verifier) for November 17, 2010 7. Livio Nichilo and Tony Harapin carried out the on-site visit on November 17th, 2010 assessing the

GHG information controls and GHG data and information. The following are some of the activities and items checked during the on-site visits:

a. The weight station where both the delivery and pickup transportation trucks pass through. The calibration of the scale was confirmed. The hardcopies of the delivery slips were checked and the database that maintains the delivery data.

b. Required records and information were brought back to IESC office for review c. Conveyer scales and calibration procedure confirmed d. Examination of moisture content of wood testing procedures and guidelines e. Waste removal records confirmed f. Steam delivery system checked and calibration of meters confirmed


Page 7 of 20

g. Visit to local landfill site to establish distance and understand process of excavation of biomass that would have taken place from 2006

h. Speak with contractors that work at the landfill excavation site for process of selecting biomass for cogeneration facility and understand use of equipment at site

i. Additional documents collected: natural gas invoices, propane invoices, and fuel invoices j. Electricity produced on site and amount of electricity consumed

8. Documents and data collected on-site were brought to IESC office for review by Livio Nichilo, Tony Harapin and Andrea Sabelli. Further data analysis was carried out on such items as,

a. Inclusion of N2O in calculations of project emissions b. Biomass consumption uncertainties c. Diesel consumption statistics and uncertainties d. Propane consumption statistics and uncertainties e. Bark usage analysis for 2007, 2008, 2009 f. Dry and Fly Ash weights for 2007, 2008, 2009 g. Steam purchase agreements and energy content statistics h. Calorific content of fresh bark and humidity values i. Excavation costs and rates

9. Calculation methods used in the analysis were reviewed internally by Tony Harapin 10. Results of the analysis were communicated back to Michael Kehle of Enel Green Power in

December 2010 11. Revised PDD and calculations were submitted on May 11, 2011 for review of the following items:

a. Usage of LandGEM (Version 3.02) model for excavated bark emissions b. Revised electricity emission factors

12. Evaluated the GHG assertion statement and determined final materiality 13. Drafted the verification assurance statement and report 14. Internal review of verification report carried out by Tony Harapin and Dr. Erick Lachapelle 15. Issuance of the final verification statement

Verification Team and Qualification The IESC team includes all the necessary core competences and professional care consistent with the role as verifiers. The lead reviewer is registered as a professional engineer with Ontario. Each member of the team has pertinent knowledge in GHG emission quantification methodologies and experience completing verification projects. These include experience and knowledge in:

Energy management system analysis Emissions factor study research and calculation Knowledge base in matters pertaining to biomass and life-cycle analysis Technical understanding of cogeneration power plants Training and experience with ISO 14064-2 and 14064-3 and environmental integrity criteria Numerical data and statistical analysis Extensive knowledge with calculation software used in the project Information and process tracking

The following is a summary of the verification team and their main roles in the assessment


Page 8 of 20

Livio Nichilo – P. Eng, Lead Verifier, Analytical Engineer Livio acted as the lead verifier providing the technical experience to the project team. Livio is a graduate of Mechanical Engineering at Queen’s University and is currently completing an M.Eng (with a collaborative in Environmental Studies) in the department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Toronto. Livio has been a member of Professional Engineers of Ontario for over 4 years. Along with experience in the quantification of GHG emissions and training under CSA internal auditing and ISO 14064-2, Livio’s prior professional experience has provided him with a solid foundation in various industries. Livio carried out the on-site visit, review of the GHG management controls and systems, and collection of documents for analysis. Livio was also involved with the preparation of the verification and sample plan. Andrea Sabelli – MA, GHG Emissions Factor and Standards Advisor Andrea completed her master’s degree in Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Toronto, with a focus on climate change (science, impacts and policy), carbon trading and offset projects in the forestry sector. Her professional training includes the completion of the CSA ISO-14064-3 GHG Verification course and is currently completing a certificate program in Carbon Financing at the University of Toronto. At IESC she has worked extensively on researching and calculating emission factors from various activities including energy, transportation and waste management. She is currently building a GHG inventory for the company and has worked on previous verification projects. Andrea provided support in the verification process reviewing the PDD against the protocols and standards along with checking the sources of emission factors used in the calculations. She assisted in the development of the verification and sample plan, conducted data analysis and wrote the final report. Tony Harapin - BASc, M.Eng. Tony completed a Masters of Engineering and Public Policy (M.Eng) from McMaster University and a Bachelor of Applied Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Waterloo. Tony has experience with energy systems, energy efficiency and life cycle analysis. He has completed training in CSA ISO-14064-3 GHG Verification. At IESC he is working on renewable energy projects, GHG quantification and verification and carbon accounting projects. He accompanied Livio for the on-site tour and assisted with the development of the final report, data analysis and verification and sample plans. Erick Lachapelle – B.S.Sc., PhD, Internal Auditor of Final Verification Report Erick acted as the internal peer reviewer and provided additional expertise in developing the final assurance statement. Erick has completed his doctoral dissertation on carbon pricing at the University of Toronto, and is now an Assistant Professor of Political Science at l’Université de Montréal. Erick has taught courses on research methods, quantitative data analysis, and comparative climate change policy at the University of Toronto, and now teaches environmental politics and policy at l’Université de Montréal. Erick has additional experience developing emissions factors for the local Canadian context and has participated in GHG verification projects. Erick’s background in statistical analysis and knowledge of best practices in the area of carbon pricing provides additional assurance of the present verification’s quality and rigor.


Page 9 of 20

Corrective Action Identified in the Verification Process

Wood waste excavated from the landfill (i.e in 2006 ~30% of the biomass combusted was excavated from landfill) needs to have the VERR’s potential adjusted to the time of decomposition while in storage. The concern is that, if stored for a period of longer than 6 months, the material may have already undergone a significant amount of decomposition, thus emitting some methane claimed in the project’s VERR’s.

o In 2006 there begins a transition where the supply of biomass cannot meet the demand in St. Félicien. To account for this shortfall in biomass from the mills, biomass is taken from a local landfill. Since 2006 is the year of transition for this supplementary supply of bark, it might be assumed that there was a good potential to excavate newly deposited bark from the landfill. Yet, there is no certainty as to whether the biomass was deposited at the landfill site in a period for less than six months. As per the Alberta Protocol Diversion of Biomass to Energy from Biomass Combustion Facilities- the storage of biomass may be excluded as a source of emissions if it is stored under six months, since the generation of methane during this period is considered to be negligible. The excavation of biomass starting in 2006 and carried out in 2007 (35%), 2008 (52%) and 2009 (47%) from the landfill site by the St. Félicien project presents a unique situation and the Alberta Protocol provides no guidelines on how to address this. Understanding how long the biomass has been in the landfill prior to excavation and the decay rate is critical to ensuring that the VERR’s claimed are consistent with the environmental integrity criteria of conservatism.

o The LandGEM model (Version 3.02) was used to calculate the potential emissions produced by the biomass while in storage at the landfill and all input variables were taken from the latest research on biomass decay for landfills and wood products where available.

The emission factor of electricity used in the calculation of VERR’s for electricity generation at the biomass cogeneration facility needs to be consistent with the local electrical grid. To stay consistent with the environmental integrity criteria of conservatism, the emission factor for the province of Québec electricity generation was used.

Conclusion Following careful analysis of documents and data and several revisions and recalculations no material discrepancies have been detected in the final review process. Based on this review the claimed credits assertion of 2,920,122 CO2 eq are consistent with the data recorded and the current protocols in place for quantifying reductions. The information is presented fairly and in accordance with these criteria


Page 10 of 20

Appendix A November 15, 2010 Livio Nichilio Internat Energy Solutions Canada 298 Richmond Street East, Suite 200 Toronto, ON

Verification Plan for the St. Felicien Biomass Cogeneration Project Background Internat Energy Solutions Canada (IESC) has been contracted by Hydrodev Inc. to verify the emission reduction credits generated between 2007 and 2009 at the St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Plant in St. Félicien, Québec. The offsets being claimed are generated from the diversion/excavation of biomass from the landfill and reduced use of fossil fuels for steam and electricity generation offset by the combustion of biomass, which is considered a carbon dioxide neutral energy source (although other GHG gases are still generated). The project will verify these credits in order to ensure they are made in accordance with the ISO 14064 standards and the established environmental integrity criteria, with guidance from the Alberta Protocol. Third party verification is required, which IESC will undertake. Objective The purpose of this verification plan is to identify the key issues and risks to the project’s assertion statement. To this end, the verification will identify the data sources, data controls, methods and procedures, review the raw data and calculations used in order to determine the accuracy of the assertion statement. The objective of the plan is to facilitate the verification process and communicate to the project proponent the data requirements and potential points of clarification needed prior to the on-site visits. Level of Assurance The project proponent is seeking a reasonable level of assurance Scope Project description: Verify that the emission reductions from the St Félicien Biomass

Cogeneration Project between 2007-2009 are in accordance with the assertion statement of 2007- 971,675 tonnes CO2 eq 2008- 1,006,036 tonnes CO2 eq 2009- 942,411 tonnes of CO2 eq


Page 11 of 20

Location: 1250, rue de l'Énergie, Saint-Félicien, Québec, Canada G8K 3J2 Ownership of Facility: 96% Enel North America

Period: The GHG report is for 2007-2009 Intended user: CSA Clean Projects Registry Verification standards: The verification of emission reductions will be performed in

accordance with the ISO 14064-3 by a verified third party, IESC Criteria

1. The stated amount of VERR’s is a fair and accurate representation of the reductions over the period of time covered in the report.

2. The stated amount of VERR’s has been calculated in accordance with the method of quantification specified in the PDD.

3. The project is implemented in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and the established environmental integrity criteria.

4. Guidance was also taken from the Alberta Quantification Protocol for the Diversion of Biomass to Energy from Biomass Combustion Facilities.

5. VERR’s must conform to the environmental criteria of being real, surplus, quantifiable, unique, verifiable and permanent.

Materiality At the judgment of the verification body following a full assessment of the PDD including methodologies, calculations, and justifications for the baseline scenario, selection of SSRs and quantification of emission reductions, data management and quality control; Qualitative materiality is determined at the discretion of the verifiers. Quantitative materiality should not in aggregate exceed 5% of total reported GHG emissions/reductions. Verification Team Livio Nichilo – Project Manager, Analytical Engineer Erick Lachapelle – Auditing Advisor and Verification Statement Andrea Sabelli – GHG Emissions Factor and Standards Advisor Tony Harapin – Internal Project Audit and Review Site Visit A site visit is to be undertaken by Livio Nichilo and Tony Harapin on November 17th at the St Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Project.


Page 12 of 20

Risk Assessment As part of the verification process and in accordance with ISO 14064-3 IESC has examined the risks associated with this project. Overall risk assessment is low to medium. IESC has undertaken a previous verification at the St. Félicien biomass facility (2004-2006) so there is already a well-established understanding of the project (such as meeting eligibility requirements). The technology and process of the project are considered established with documentation and the recording process has improved since its start in 2001. The data collection and monitoring system are robust. Further, automated data entry reduces risk associated with human error. Concerns arise, however, over claiming the VERR’s from excavated landfill biomass and from the generation and sale of electricity. These issues need further investigation. Ownership of the reductions associated with the electricity and steam offsets need to be clarified. In addition, reliance on the “excavation contractor” to provide the rates and factors for the excavation of biomass and the associated emissions needs to be supported. It will be necessary to understand how these data are tracked and monitored. Verification Plan

1) Baseline Electricity Data

What to check Issues/Risks

Method Findings

Conditions Prior to Project Initiation- Base load electricity generation

-Determine if electricity generation is displacing fossil fuels and by how much -Potentially, who and where is this electricity being sold to/exported to -Discuss with project team why this is not included in previous verifications - Québec electrical grid exports - Is the area a net exporter or net importer of electricity

Exports to Ontario in 2009 totalled 1745MW, to NY State 1800MW, to Vermont 2275MW and New Brunswick 1080MW. Historical peak production in 2009 was 32,230MW hence exports represented 6900MW (21.5%). It is assumed that the Québec electrical grid is a net exporter.

Credits Ownership -Ownership of VERR’s from contract review

-Hydro Québec VERR’s ownership

-HydroDev is currently in ownership of the VERR’s but it is not clearly identified in contract terms with electricity buyer -Hydro Québec has no ownership over VERR’s currently but claim has not be challenged to date

Total amount of electricity -Review electricity bills, sales -Revenue and smart meters


Page 13 of 20

produced on site and amount consumed

receipts of electricity -Verify revenue/smart meters

were verified -Electricity bills, sales verified

REC’s not being claimed by project

-Request a written statement from Project Proponents that no REC’s (Renewable Energy Credits) have been provided

-Obtained written statement verifying that no REC’s have been provided

Transfer of VERR’s outside of Québec

-Documentation supporting potential buyer’s offsets, location and industry - i.e. transfer receipts

-VERRs to be posted on Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Clean Projects Registry

Export of electricity outside of Québec

-Demonstrating where Hydro Québec exports its electricity, how much and when?

-Exports were obtained, assumed to be 6,100MW.

Data monitoring and collection

The monitoring and collection of data as reported in the PDD will be verified on-site i.e. “Revenue meter”, electronic recording at control center

-Revenue meter verified

2) Emission Reductions due to Biomass Destruction/Excavation


Method Findings

Monthly biomass consumption

-Review records, deliveries compare with Excel sheets

-Documents verified

Emissions calculation- Decomposition of biomass calculation

-Verify calculations

-Verified calculation-decomposition of biomass calculation -LandGEM model was used and validated against US EPA Verision 3.02

Usage of LandGEM model for excavated biomass

-Research and understand methodology behind the LandGEM model

-Primarily created for normal mixed waste landfill sites, the LandGEM model gives a conservative estimate on methane release for a landfill with wood waste as the decay rates for the mixed landfill are expected to be


Page 14 of 20

higher -Weather conditions in St. Félicien with long winters are also expected to result in reduced decay rates then the model provides

Input values for LandGEM model

-Check the methane generation rate and potential methane generation capacity values

-Values researched and discussed in Appendix Two -Verified

Landfill site -Evidence that the landfill is covered, well managed SWDS - verify on site or documentation from landfill manager

-Landfill filling and excavation process verified on-site with contractors

1a)Excavation of Bark (timing)

-Collect evidence to support the bark excavation period (landfill manager interview, shipment information etc)

-Verified with permits for excavating

1b) Excavation of Bark (amount excavated)

- Review records, delivery truck scales

-Verified

1c) Excavation of Bark (energy use)

- Check how these data are collected and stored and transferred to the St. Félicien- on-site visit to landfill is required and interview with the excavator

- Review records of diesel consumption (invoices)

-Collect recordings for excavation rate/hr

-Verify whether there are additional energy requirements for excavating the bark

-Verified data collection, storage, diesel consumption, recording collection and additional energy requirements for the bark

1d)Excavation of Bark (transportation)

-Verify how the transportation of the excavated bark is accounted for i.e. from the mill to the landfill to St. Félicien

-Verified

Data monitoring and -On-site visit i.e scales, -Verified


Page 15 of 20

collection conveyor belts

3) Fossil Fuel Steam Production (Reduction calculations)


Method Findings

Emissions calculation -Verify calculations -Verified Energy delivered to steam client

-Review records, invoices, check records of scheduled meter calibration

-Verified

Ownership of Credits -Discussion with HydroDev on steam generation and sales contract

-No ownership of environmental attributes is specified in the purchase agreement of the steam and so ownership has not be challenged

Data monitoring and collection

-On-site visit and records for calibration of equipment

-Verified

4) Facility Boiler Emissions


Method Findings

Calculations -Review calculations -Verified

5) Ignition Oil and Propane Emissions


Method Findings

Diesel consumption -Request invoices and compare with Excel sheets

-Verified and checked diesel consumptions emissions, relevant protocols and deadlines

6) Transportation Emissions


Method Findings

Calculations -Verify calculations -Verified and checked transportation emissions


Page 16 of 20

against relevant protocol and guidelines -Review of distances used for calculations

Sample Plan

In order to complete the verification plan the following data or documents are requested to be sent or prepared for IESC upon visitation. During the on-site visit this list can be reviewed to make sure that all the required information is being collected. Having the documents sent by email or online transfer before site visit can be beneficial to project timing if at all possible. Note that the sample plan is an iterative process and can be revised at any time.

1. Invoices of electricity sold to Hydro Québec for all project years 2. Documentation of HydroDev renewable energy credit ownership for electricity sold to

Hydro Québec 3. Calibration Records for meter used for electricity invoicing 4. Calibration Records for all weighing equipment (for years 2007-2009) 5. Statement from financial account that no RECS have been claimed 6. Biomass (fuel) delivery records/receiving slip (time/date, amount delivered) for the months

of January, June and October of each year (for years 2007-2009) 7. Documentation demonstrating the landfill “age” and fill years 8. List of all sites that excavated bark is being taken from and location in relation to project site

(for years 2007-2009) 9. Diesel fuel invoices for consumption at the excavation site (for year 2009) 10. Documentation demonstrating the rate of excavation 11. Records of steam delivery invoices and client payments (for year 2007) 12. Records for diesel and propane invoices used on project site (for year 2009) 13. Records of the weight of bottom ash shipments (for years 2007-2009, 2004, 2005)

People to meet with

‐ Excavator contractor to discuss how data are collected, transferred and stored

During the site visit, the verifier may require access to original logged data and operator notes.


Page 17 of 20

Appendix B St. Felicien Biomass Degradation: Addressing the Methane Decay Rate of Wood Waste Degradation of carbon within wood products and methane emissions (quantity and timing) depend on 3 factors

1) Biomass Decay Capacity into CH4 2) Decays Rates Under Different Landfill Moisture Conditions 3) Landfill Gas Collection Practice

1) Biomass Decay Capacity into CH4

Methane Yield for Solid Waste Components Material CH4

generation/MTCO2E/Dry Metric Ton

CH4 Generation MTCO2E/Wet Short ton

Dimensional lumber

1.60 1.30

Medium density fiberboard

1.60 1.30

Branches

1.60 1.30

2) Decay Rates Under Different Landfill Moisture Conditions

K=0.04 corresponds to landfills receiving more than 25 inches of precipitation (Québec average is 41 inches)

Material Component-specific decay rates

Dimensional lumber

0.02


0.02

Branches

0.02

Methane emissions of a material in landfills over time are approximated using the first order decay decomposition calculation. The methane generation potential of waste decreases gradually over time and all materials degrade faster under wetter conditions. The figure below is taken from EPA (2010) update on landfilling emissions (http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/landfilling-chapter10-28-10.pdf).


Page 18 of 20

3) Landfill Gas Collection The landfill at St. Félicien does not collect gas. As such, this area is not relevant. Information is also now available for the carbon storage potential of biodegradable materials. This is important to consider since excavating the biomass may actually also be removing a carbon storage sink. Below is the carbon storage of wood waste products.

Material Amount of Carbon Stored (MTCO2E/Wet Short ton)

Dimensional lumber

1.14


1.14

Branches

0.22

Although wood waste in Canadian landfills are a source of methane, they are considered by Canada’s National Inventory Report (2010, pg. 196) to be a minor source. To calculate emissions from wood waste in landfills the NIR (2010, 199) assigns a k (k represents the first order rate at which CH4 is generated after waste has been landfilled) default value of 0.03 /year to represent the methane generation rate of all wood waste in landfills in Canada. This is very similar to what the EPA (2010) has calculated, 0.02. Since this is representative of wood waste in Canada this decay rate should be adopted.


Page 19 of 20

Appendix C Conflict of Interest Checklist St. Félicien Biomass Cogeneration Project

Question Yes No

1. Can the verifying organization or the verification team members directly benefit from a financial interest in the Project Developer or the Project Developer’s Project?

X

For example:

• Owning shares of the Project Developer;

• Having a close business relationship with the Project Developer;

• Contingent fees relating to the results of the engagement;

• Potential employment with the Project Developer; or

• Undue concern about the possibility of losing the verification or other fees from the Project Developer.

2. Can the verifying organization or verification team members be in a position of assessing their own work?

X

For example:

• Involvement of the verification organization in the compilation of the data contained in the GHG assertion.

• Involvement of the verification organization in the development of a quantification protocol other than protocol recognized or recommended by the regulatory authority.

• A verification organization member performing non-verification services that directly impinge on the client’s GHG assertion, such as implementing the GHG data management system, or having performed validation services on the project being reviewed;

• A member of the verification engagement team having previously been a GHG data compiler of the Project Developer or who was employed by the Project Developer in a position to exert direct and significant influence over the Project Developer's GHG assertion being verified.

3. Does the verifying organization or a member of the verification team, or a person in the chain of command for the verification, promote or be perceived to promote, a Project Developer's position or opinion to the point that objectivity may, or may be

X


Page 20 of 20

perceived to be, compromised?

For example:

• Dealing in, or being a promoter of, GHG credits on behalf of a Project Developer; or

• Acting as an advocate on behalf of the Project Developer in litigation or in resolving disputes with third parties.

4. Is one or more of the verification team too sympathetic to the Project Developer's interests by virtue of a close relationship with a Project Developer, its directors, officer or employees?

X

For example:

• A person on the verification team has a close personal relationship with a person who is in a senior GHG compilation role at the Project Developer; or

• The verification team or a person of influence on the verification team has accepted significant gifts or hospitality from the Project Developer.

5. Is a member of the verification team or a person in the chain of command is deterred from acting objectively and exercising professional scepticism by threats, actual or perceived, from the directors, officers or employees of the Project Developer.

X

For example:

• The threat of being replaced as a third party verifier due to a disagreement with the application of an GHG quantification protocol;

• Fees from the Project Developer represent a large percentage of the overall revenues of the verifying organization.

• The application of pressure to inappropriately reduce the extent of work performed in order to reduce or limit fees; or

• Threats of litigation from the Project Developer

.