Climate Change Technology Early Action
Measures (TEAM)
System of Measurement and Reporting for
Technologies (SMART)
SMART Sector Specific Protocol:
Biofuels in Transportation Projects
September 2006
TEAM Office
Acknowledgements for the SMART Sector Specific Protocols
The SMART sector specific protocols were developed by the TEAM Operations Office,
based on considerable research, consultations, collaborations, testing and valuable
contributions from many experts and initiatives in Canada and internationally. TEAM
would like to thank the many people that contributed to the development of these protocols,
an effort that extended between 2004 and 2006. TEAM‟s current and past staff led and
managed the development of these protocols. TEAM would like to thank the Delphi Group,
PricewaterhouseCoopers and GHGm.com, all the participants at the various stakeholders
consultations held in various cities across Canada and all the reviewers and companies that
provided comments and real-world learning experience. We would also like to thank the
Canadian Standards Association who organized and facilitated the workshops that included
individuals from different levels of government, private organizations (including
manufacturers, producers, potential project proponents and consultants) and NGOs.
This has been a collaborative effort with many organizations and individuals. The financial
contribution in the development of the protocols was provided by TEAM.
General Limitations of the SMART Sector Specific Protocols
This document is developed for TEAM (Technology Early Action Measures Programme,
www.team.gc.ca), a Government of Canada fund that supports GHG technology projects, to
enable project evaluation to be faster, better, and cheaper for TEAM and project
proponents. This document specifies requirements and guidance for the quantification of
project GHG emissions – it is not sufficient for the certification of GHG credits, which is
the authority of a GHG credit certification program or international framework.
The user of the TEAM protocols should note the general limitations of the latest SMART
dated 2006. In addition to the general limitations under the SMART protocol, additional
limitations for the TEAM protocols include the default assumptions and accompanying
default values. These default emission factors are based on a limited research of available
Canadian data at the time of the protocol development, and are meant as a suggestion to
simplify the process of GHG emissions estimations associated with a wide range of project
in this area by providing appropriately conservative estimates. The use of these factors is
by no means a requirement to completing this protocol. It is the user‟s responsibility to
evaluate these default values and to determine if they are suitable to the user‟s project. If
these default values do not reflect the user‟s project, or if the user wishes to develop and
provide more project specific values, then the user should obtain and/or derive values that
better represent the user‟s project with justifications of supporting rationale.
ii
Note: With the permission of Canadian Standards Association, some material is reproduced
from CSA Standard, CAN/CSA-ISO 14064-2-06, Greenhouse Gases – Part 2:
Specification with Guidance at the Project Level for Quantification, Monitoring and
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction or Removal Enhancements
(Adopted ISO 14064-25:2006, first edition, 2006-03-01), which is copyrighted by
Canadian Standards Association, 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, Ontario, M9W 1R3. While
use of this material has been authorized, CSA shall not be responsible for the manner in
which the information is presented, nor for any interpretations thereof.
For more information on CSA or the standard, please visit their website at www.shopcsa.ca
or call 1-800-463-6727.
iii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ___________________________________ 1
1.1 ISO Principles ____________________________________________________________ 2
1.2 Greenhouse Gas Programs __________________________________________________ 3
1.3 Protocol Organization ______________________________________________________ 3
2 General Requirements and Considerations __________ 6
2.1 Protocol Applicability ______________________________________________________ 6
2.2 Description of the GHG project ______________________________________________ 7
2.3 Regulations, standards, and best practice guidance ______________________________ 8
3 Deciding Whether to Use Default Values ___________ 12
3.1 Life Cycle Approach ______________________________________________________ 12
3.2 Considerations for Deciding Whether to Use Default Values _____________________ 13
4 Using the Default Values ________________________ 19
4.1 Overview of Default Values and Assumptions _________________________________ 19
4.2 Default Emission Factors __________________________________________________ 22
4.3 Quantifying Emissions and Emission Reductions _______________________________ 28
4.4 Monitoring Plan __________________________________________________________ 29
4.5 Managing Data Quality ____________________________________________________ 30
4.6 Risk Management Plan ____________________________________________________ 31
4.7 Reporting the Project _____________________________________________________ 31
5 Reassessing Default Assumptions _________________ 32
5.1 Step 1: Identify Project SSRs _______________________________________________ 34
5.2 Step 2: Identify and Select Potential Baselines _________________________________ 39
5.3 Step 3: Identify Baseline SSRs ______________________________________________ 43
5.4 Step 4: Select and Justify Relevant SSRs ______________________________________ 46
5.5 Step 5: Quantification of GHG Emissions _____________________________________ 54
5.6 Step 6: Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions____________________________ 60
iv
5.7 Step 7: Measuement Activities for the Project and Baseline ______________________ 61
5.8 Step 8: Managing Data Quality _____________________________________________ 65
5.9 Step 9: Develop a Risk Management Plan _____________________________________ 66
5.10 Step 10: Reporting the Project _____________________________________________ 66
6 Annexes _____________________________________ 68
6.1 Terminology _____________________________________________________________ 68
6.2 GHG programs __________________________________________________________ 69
6.3 Identification and Assessment of Risks Relevant to Biofuels in Transportation Projects
___________________________________________________________________________ 72
6.4 Technology and SSR Categories Description __________________________________ 74
6.5 Managing Data Quality ____________________________________________________ 77
6.6 Selecting the Baseline Scenario ______________________________________________ 85
6.7 Default Identified SSRs for Project and Baseline _______________________________ 90
6.8 Quantifying Uncertainty ___________________________________________________ 99
6.9 Procedure for Conducting a Sensitivity Analysis on the Project __________________ 102
6.10 Monitoring the Baseline and Biofuels Project ________________________________ 103
6.11 Generic Monitoring Template ____________________________________________ 108
7 References __________________________________ 126
v
1 Introduction
The SMART Sector Specific Protocol (SSP) on Biofuels in Transportation projects, which
includes a companion quantification spreadsheet, provides flexible procedures and
guidance for quantifying and reporting GHG emission reductions from a range of Biofuels
in Transportation projects. It is intended to assist users with developing documentation
specific to their particular project, and transparently describes the procedures that will be
used to quantify associated GHG emissions and emission reductions. As a protocol, this
document specifies procedures and guidance providing “what to do” and “how to do it”, as
well as providing justifications and explanations with the rationale for “why” decisions.
Using a comprehensive assessment framework to provide credibility to the GHG
quantification, this protocol specifies the approach in order to be flexible and cost-effective
depending on the specific circumstances and objectives of the project proponent.
The protocol uses a comprehensive framework to identify default sources, sinks and
reservoirs of GHGs, activity levels and emissions factors for quantifying GHG reductions
for Biofuels in Transportation projects. If the project falls under the assumptions used to
develop this protocol, the project proponent can use the default values, which requires
relatively less effort from the project proponent, but uses conservatively over-estimated
project GHG emissions to ensure that GHG emission reduction are not over-estimated.
Alternatively, the project proponent can review and modify the default assumptions for a
customized assessment, which requires relatively more effort from the project proponent,
but allows for more accurate quantification of GHG emissions to support potential claims
for more GHG reductions.
This document has been developed by Technology Early Action Measures Program
(TEAM), a Government of Canada fund that invests in technology demonstration and late
stage development in support of early action to reduce GHG emissions (or enhance GHG
removals), nationally and internationally, while sustaining economic and social
development. Information on the TEAM funded projects and the reporting process
including the TEAM‟s Business Plan and Management Framework is available at
www.team.gc.ca.
Within the TEAM‟s Business Plan and Management Framework, TEAM is committed to
report the technical performance and GHG mitigation potential of TEAM funded projects.
The System of Measurement And Reporting for Technologies (SMART), was developed
through the TEAM office for that purpose (January 2004): to provide the basis, in terms of
process, general requirements and guidance, to develop and/or evaluate the project
proponent‟s processes and documentation to substantiate the technology performance
claim(s) and assess the GHG mitigation potential. SMART is applicable to any type of
GHG project, given the broad range of sectors and project types encountered by TEAM.
1
The main objective of the SMART protocol is to increase the verifiability of the TEAM
projects as well as the accountability of the TEAM program and furthermore, it helps to
build the capacity of the GHG consultants. As a result of road-testing the latest SMART
protocol (January 2004) and TEAM‟s participation in the development of the ISO-14064
Part 2 International Standard, TEAM recognized the need to develop sector-specific
protocols (SSPs) in specific technology applications. A total of 5 protocols have been
developed through the TEAM office, namely protocols for projects in the areas of the
Biofuels use in Transportation, Fuel Cells use in Transportation, Wind-generated
Electricity, Small Scale Hydroelectricity and Grid-connected Renewable Energy Baselines.
Each protocol is designed to align with the general specifications of the ISO 14064 GHG
Project International Standard - Part 2 (ISO 14064-2), which specifies standardized
requirements and processes for project-level GHG quantification, monitoring and reporting.
ISO 14064-2 is policy-neutral (i.e. it can be used under various GHG policy regimes, and
does not take precedence over local policy or legislation) and is intended for use with
different project types and sizes. It is strongly recommended that the user consult ISO
14064-2 as a companion document to this protocol, if the user wishes to be certified to that
standard.
While the protocol is intended to be used by project proponents wanting to quantify GHG
emission reductions for Biofuels in Transportation projects, it should also be of interest to
other parties, such as investors, GHG program authorities, and academia. For example,
investors may wish to use this document to aid with making investment decisions, and
GHG program authorities may wish to use this document to determine whether GHG
projects in their program have appropriately accounted for all GHG sources, sinks and
reservoirs (SSRs) relevant for the project.
Practitioners and experts in the fields of GHG project quantification, Biofuels in
Transportation project technologies, agriculture, life cycle assessment, and auditing were
involved in the development of this document. Other interested parties, including various
government programs, general interest groups, service providers and non-governmental
organizations were also consulted in the development of this document.
1.1 ISO Principles
This protocol has been developed according to the following principles in accordance with
ISO 14064-2:2006
Transparency
Relevance
Accuracy
Completeness
Consistency
Conservativeness
2
For additional insight into GHG quantification principles, please consult Section 3 of
TEAM SMART (2004).
1.2 Greenhouse Gas Programs
This protocol is primarily intended to help project proponents meet the requirements of
TEAM‟s System of Measurement and Reporting for Technologies (SMART), but would
also be useful in meeting the requirements of any ISO 14064-2 based GHG program.
For parties looking to develop GHG reduction projects internationally, this protocol
document may be of assistance in developing quantification methodologies under the
following two Kyoto mechanisms:
Joint Implementation (JI)
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
Other related GHG programs and standards that project proponents should consider
monitoring include:
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Funds (GMF)
Agriculture and Agrifood Canada
European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) (U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States)
World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol for Project Accounting
Sustainable Development Technologies Canada (SDTC)
More details on some of these programs are available in Annex 6.2.
1.3 Protocol Organization
The SMART SSP for Biofuels in Transportation projects consists of two parts:
1. a written protocol (this document) that contains procedures, guidance, examples of
the application of the protocol, as well as figures and tables, explanations and
justifications of supporting rationale, and results
2. a Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet (Biofuels in Transportation – GHG
Quantification Spreadsheet) that contains emissions quantifications and related
tools, developed according to the procedures presented in the written protocol
document.
3
The written protocol is divided into 6 sections. The organization of these sections and the
spreadsheet are depicted in Figure 1.1. A description of the organization of the spreadsheet
associated with this written protocol can be found in the “Guidance” worksheet at the
beginning of the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet.
4
Section 1 – Introduction to Protocol
Protocol users, scope of the protocol, relevant GHG programs
Section 2 – General Requirements and Considerations
What projects are covered by protocol, how to describe GHG project, technical standards
and legal requirements
Section 3 – Deciding Whether to Use the Default Values
Relationship between default and comprehensive approach, assumptions, cost
considerations, GHG reductions desired, justifying use of default values
Section 4 – Using Default Values Section 5 – Reassessing Default
Assumptions
Overview and applications of default
values Analysis used to develop protocols
derivations of default values and
assumptions, guidance to project-
specific scenarios
Section 6 – Annexes
Terminology, Default SSRs, Uncertainty analysis, Monitoring, etc.
Biofuel in Transportation Spreadsheet
Project specific inputs, default emission factors, etc.
Figure 1.1 Protocol road-map, including Biofuel in Transportation
spreadsheet for calculating project-specific emissions. Dotted box indicates
sections of the written protocol.
5
2 General Requirements and Considerations
This section describes the types of projects covered by this protocol, whether the project
proponent should use this protocol, how to describe the GHG project, and technical and
legal standards for Biofuels in Transportation projects.
2.1 Protocol Applicability
This protocol applies to projects where biofuels are used in vehicle transportation to
displace the use of petroleum fuels, specifically:
Bioethanol blends used to displace gasoline fuel, where the biofuel is based on:
o Corn Ethanol Production (Wet Milling)
o Corn Ethanol Production (Dry Milling)
o Wheat Straw Ethanol Production (Enzymatic process)
o Wheat Straw Ethanol Production (Concentrated Acid process)
Biodiesel blends used to displace petroleum diesel fuel, where the biofuel is based on
biomass feedstocks of:
o Virgin Oil, including:
Soybean oil
Canola oil
o Tallow/Yellow Grease sourced from
Tallow from animal slaughterhouse waste
Yellow grease from used cooking oil.
6
The project proponent should note that if only certain aspects of their GHG project fall
within the scope of the protocol, those particular aspects of the protocol can be used for the
project, and the project proponent can then develop new methodologies for the remaining
aspects using ISO or further guidance provided in Section 5-Reassessing Default
Assumptions.
2.2 Description of the GHG project
Prior to using this protocol, the project proponent should clearly describe their project.
Such descriptions are typically required by GHG programs since they provide an important
foundation for GHG quantifications.
The greenhouse gas project must be described as follows:
project title, description, purpose(s), objective(s) and strategy to reduce GHG emissions
and/or enhance GHG removals;
project location, including geographic/physical information allowing the unique
identification and specific extent of the project and conditions prior to project initiation;
primary project function(s), including products and services, and expected level of activity
for each project function (see Section 4.1.1);
project activities and technologies, including main and auxiliary technologies, components,
and technical documentation;
identification of the human resource issues, including roles and responsibilities, contact
information of the project proponent, other project participants and of the relevant
regulator(s) and/or official(s) of the applicable GHG scheme(s); employee qualifications
(e.g. scientist (PhD), engineer (PEng), trade (electrician), non-technical, etc.), and level of
effort (units of person years (PY)) for the project activities;
relevant legislation, technical, economic, socio-cultural, environmental, geographic, site-
specific, temporal and contextual information (including but not limited to the discussion in
section 2.3);
identification of stakeholders that are interested or involved in the project;
chronological plan of the start dates, end dates and timeline for the project period, including
the project activities in each phase of the project cycle;
identification and where appropriate, quantification of significant environmental impacts to
air, water, land and wildlife;
identification of risks that may substantially affect the project's GHG emission reductions
(see Annex 6.3); and
identification of the health & safety issues (e.g. reduced worker exposure to harmful
chemicals, number of accident-free days, etc.) for the project activities (relative to the
baseline if possible).
The requirements for describing the project will also vary depending on the GHG Program
requirements. Project proponents should refer to any applicable GHG scheme for any
7
additional requirements. ISO 14064-2 provides additional guidance on what is required
from the project description section of project documentation.
Is your project covered by this protocol?
A project proponent using this protocol to develop project-specific documentation should
provide a statement that explicitly references their use of this document, and provides clear
justification for their choice of this protocol for their project. Based on the project
description, the project proponent should refer to Section 2.1 Protocol Applicability above,
when justifying their selection of this protocol.
2.3 Regulations, standards, and best practice guidance
Regulations, standards, and best practice guidance, which were identified as relevant to
Biofuels in Transportation projects during the development of this protocol, are described
below. The listed regulations, standards, and best practice guidance are provided for
reference only. The project proponent should consult the relevant authorities in order to
identify the regulations, standards, and best practice guidance specifically applicable to
their project and circumstances.
In addition, although contractual requirements cannot be described in this protocol because
of the uniqueness of each contract, project proponents should be aware of and document
any contractual requirements that influence the project. For example, a contractual
agreement can specify reporting requirements and ownership arrangements. These
agreements should be reflected in final project documentation submitted to, for instance,
GHG Program Authorities.
2.3.1 Federal, provincial, and municipal legislation, codes, guidelines
As for any other transportation projects, biofuels can be subject to federal, provincial,
municipal legislation, codes, and guidelines. The proponent shall consult the relevant
authorities in order to identify the legislation applicable to the project.
2.3.2 Technical standards, requirements, and best practice
Good Practice Guidance
8
In Canada, for Biofuels in Transportation technology projects, good practice guidance
includes:
For Biodiesel:
1. “2004 Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines” – U.S Department of Energy,
DOE/GO-102004-1999, September 2004
This guide includes general Biodiesel information, B100 quality parameters, B100
characteristics and handling recommendations, and information on B20 blends including
fuel characteristics and blending and handling recommendations.
2. “2005 Biodiesel User Manual” - Biodiesel Association of Canada (BAC), Spring
2005
This document is a compilation of the “2004 Biodiesel Handling and Use Guidelines” and
an additional biodiesel document commissioned by the National Biodiesel Board, and is
available through the BAC upon request.
For Ethanol:
1. ASTM E1117 “Standard Practice for Design of Fuel-Alcohol Manufacturing
Facilities”
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-48 on Biotechnology and is
the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass Conversion Systems
This practice applies to all fuel alcohol manufacturing facilities (FAMF) as defined in
Terminology ASTM E1705. This specification is primarily intended for, but not limited to,
fermentation ethanol processes. This practice applies to both batch and continuous FAMF
systems. Since a wide variety of equipment configurations can exist, this engineering
practice describes the necessary general requirements common to all FAMF facilities.
This practice is to be used in conjunction with applicable local, provincial and federal codes
for designing, constructing and operating FAMF facilities. ASTM Practice E1117 is a
recognized standard for evaluation performance and design practices for fuel ethanol
manufacturing facilities.
2. “Guidelines for Establishing Ethanol Plant Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Programs” - Renewable Fuels Association, RFA Publication #040301, August
2004.
This document provides guidelines for setting up a quality control program, and suggested
batch testing frequency. The testing methods and specifications are those listed in ASTM
D4806 “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline‟s
for use as an Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel”.
9
Criteria and Procedures
In Canada, for Biofuels in Transportation technology projects, recognized criteria and
procedures include:
For Biodiesel:
1. BQ-9000 Quality Management System Requirements for the Biodiesel Industry –
Approved by the National Biodiesel Accreditation Commission, November 2004
BQ-9000 is a quality management system requirement for the Biodiesel industry that was
developed under the guidance of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB). The National
Biodiesel Accreditation Commission (NBAC) is a committee of the NBB that has been
created to administer a Biodiesel accreditation program. BQ-9000 includes quality
management system requirements and Biodiesel sampling and testing requirements. The
intent is that BQ-9000 accredited producers and BQ-9000 accredited marketers will ensure
that the quality of the Biodiesel being produced and marketed meets D6751 quality
parameters.
For Ethanol:
1. “Fuel Ethanol Industry Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures” - Renewable
Fuels Association, RFA Publication #960501, Revised December 2003
This includes information on specifications, transportation recommendations, conversion
procedures, compatibility, storage and handling and a section on quality assurance and test
methods.
2. ASTM E1344 “Standard Guide for Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol Manufacturing
Facilities
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-48 on Biotechnology and is
the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass Conversion Systems
The purpose of this guide is to provide guidelines and evaluation criteria to enable a
prospective purchaser, or lender, or both, to effectively review the plans, specifications, and
plant operating concept of a mass produced fuel ethanol manufacturing facility (FEMF) and
to determine whether its design, as proposed meets the requirements of ASTM design
practice standards (ASTM Practice E1117).
The guide is primarily intended for, but not limited to, fermentation ethanol processes. The
guide is primarily intended for, but not limited to, small-scale (less than 1000 gal/day
capacity) plants. Since a wide variety of equipment configurations can exist, this
engineering practice describes the necessary general requirements common to all FAMF
facilities. This practice is to be used in conjunction with applicable local, provincial and
federal codes for designing, constructing and operating FAMF facilities. This is a
comprehensive practice, including details such as; pumping and piping systems, ethanol
10
storage, wastewater, site facilities, grain handling and dry milling, batch cooking,
continuous cooking, fermentation, distillation, and dewatering, and includes a design
review checklist.
3. ASTM E869 “Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Fuel Ethanol
Manufacturing Facilities”
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-48 on Biotechnology and is
the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E48.05 on Biomass Conversion Systems
This test method covers the determination of performance characteristics of fuel ethanol
manufacturing facilities. It is applicable for all starch, sugar and combination starch / sugar
based fermentable feedstocks, as well as batch and continuous manufacturing processes.
11
3 Deciding Whether to Use Default Values
3.1 Life Cycle Approach
As previously stated, this protocol provides flexible procedures and guidance for
quantifying and reporting net GHG emission reductions from a range of Biofuels in
Transportation projects. To provide credibility to these procedures, this protocol was
developed using a comprehensive life cycle framework.
For further descriptions and definitions of terms used in this and other sections, the project
proponent should consult Annex 6.1.
The overall systems approach used to develop this protocol is based on a life cycle
framework, in-line with requirements of TEAM SMART and ISO 14064-2. This approach
involves identifying GHG sources, sinks, and reservoirs (SSRs) for the project; delineating
the assessment boundary; defining the project function; and quantifying each relevant SSR.
The same procedure is also followed for the baseline system. This procedure allows for the
identification of all types of activities (e.g. production, transportation, manufacture,
operation, maintenance, utilization, and disposal) that may be attributable to a system over
the full cradle-to-grave life-cycle, satisfying the completeness principle of the ISO 14064-2.
The detailed procedure, as well as the outcomes of applying it to Biofuels in Transportation
projects is presented in Section 4. More information on life-cycle assessment is provided in
ISO 14040 series, which describes life cycle assessment of products and services (ISO
14040, 2005).
In developing a protocol that is applicable to a range of Biofuels in Transportation projects,
it is necessary to make certain assumptions at the various stages of the life-cycle approach.
Such assumptions include, for instance, identifying project and baseline SSRs, activity
levels and emission factors for these SSRs, baseline data, etc. In making these assumptions,
TEAM has attempted to make the protocol as widely usable as possible with minimal or no
modification, beyond the input of some key project variables by the proponent.
Additionally, assumptions have been made to reflect the conservativeness principle of ISO
14064-2, such that emission reductions calculated using the default assumptions should not
be overstated.
12
3.2 Considerations for Deciding Whether to Use Default Values
Default assumptions and values of this protocol are provided in Section 4. However, the
project proponent must decide whether to use the default assumptions and values, or to
reassess some or all of the default assumptions to provide values and results that are more
reflective of project-specific conditions, using the information and guidance provided in
Section 5.
By selecting the default values, the project proponent will be trading off the level of
accuracy in the GHG quantification, in benefit of practicality and cost effectiveness.
Therefore using the default values requires relatively less effort from the project proponent,
but uses conservatively over-estimated project GHG emissions to ensure that GHG
emission reductions are not over-estimated. Reviewing and modifying the default
assumptions requires relatively more effort from the project proponent, but allows for more
accurate quantification of GHG emissions to support potential claims for more GHG
emission reductions. Table 3.1 provides additional insight into the implication of
reassessing default assumptions.
Table 3.1 Characteristics of using default values versus reassessing default
assumptions
Characteristic Using Default Values Reassessing Default Assumptions
Based on the set of SSRs Depends on extent of reassessment –
Identification of SSRs already identified in can range from the addition /
protocol. removal of a limited number of
SSRs to a complete re-application of
a systematic SSR identification
procedure.
SSRs may not entirely Identified SSRs should closely
reflect the specific project. match the specific project.
Use the spreadsheet based Changes to SSRs or quantification
Quantification on default assumptions to methodologies require a more
methodology simply calculate emissions. comprehensive overhaul of the
spreadsheet. Modifications to
numerical values relatively
straightforward to accommodate
using existing spreadsheet.
Under-estimated emission More accurate estimates of emission
Emission reduction reductions (conservative reductions
estimate approach)
13
For key project variables May require an enhanced monitoring
Direct monitoring only, according to plan and more onerous monitoring
requirements recommended monitoring requirements.
plan
Basic; focused primarily on Additional documentation for the
Documentation justifying that the default justification of any changes made to
values are appropriate for default assumptions or values.
the project-specific
circumstances
The project proponent should consider the following issues when deciding whether or not
to use the default values:
Applicability of assumptions used to develop the default values, to the project. These
assumptions are detailed in section 4.1. If the assumptions do not apply to the project in
question (for example if the project proponent is the facility manufacturing the biofuel)
then the project proponent will have to reassess the default values, as described in section 5.
Cost Effectiveness, Practicality and Uncertainty: The project proponent should weigh the
benefits of reviewing default assumptions with the associated costs and reduced
practicality. For example, with respect to claiming GHG emission reductions, the value of
credits is important in gauging whether something is cost-effective or not. Reviewing and
modifying the default assumptions requires relatively more effort from the project
proponent, but allows for more accurate quantification of GHG emissions to support
potential claims for more GHG emission reductions. If the value of the additional emission
reductions is less than the cost of providing and justifying a modified approach, it may be
more cost-effective to continue using the default assumptions.
Requirements of a Relevant GHG System: For example, if the resulting GHG emission
reductions are to be sold into an existing emissions trading system, the requirements may
be quite specific with regards to the level of accuracy and approach that must be taken to
validate an emission reduction credit claim. This could mean employing standardized
emission factors for specific aggregated SSRs (e.g. manufacturing) or performing a detailed
life cycle assessment of all upstream and downstream SSRs to support the GHG emission
reduction claim.
Availability and Reliability of Data: Regardless of whether or not the project proponent is
mandated to follow a prescribed methodology to determine GHG emissions/reductions, the
proponent may be constrained by a lack of available information and data. For example, if
the fuel, energy and materials necessary for the production of feedstock (e.g. wheat, corn,
etc.) cannot be identified, then the proponent must make assumptions or employ
standardized emission factors for specific upstream components.
A decision tree is provided in
14
Figure 3.1 to assist proponents with determining whether or not to use default values. Note
that the project proponent can select to use a combination of default values provided while
reassessing the values for others. For more information on the default assumptions and
outcomes of this protocol, see Section 4.
15
Figure 3.1 Decision tree for determining whether to use default values
No
Does the project meet the
protocol applicability
requirements (Section 2.1)?
Yes
No Does the project meet all
assumptions for default
approach (section 4.1)?
Yes
Is need for accuracy and No
comprehensiveness
greater than default
approach?
Yes
Are there more accurate
data or quantification No Use default values from
methodologies section 4
available?
Yes
Is cost of project
development using
reassessed values offset No
by potential additional
GHG emission
reductions?
Yes
Review and adjust default values
using section 5
16
Are the Default Values Appropriate for Your Project?
Based on the previous discussion, the project proponent must decide whether the default
values will be used or whether the project proponent will review and adjust the default
assumptions to obtain more representative values for the project. Additionally, the project
proponent must provide clear justification for their choice based on their project.
After deciding whether or not to use the default values, the project proponent should detail
the GHG emission reduction quantification resulting from their project by developing the
Project Master Plan (PMP), according to the requirements of the SMART Protocol and ISO
14064. Table 3.2 summarises the content of the PMP, and the corresponding reference
section in this document, according to whether or not using the default values. Section 5.10
provides details on the reporting.
17
Table 3.2: Summarises the content of the PMP, and the corresponding reference
section in this document
Requirements for PMP
Using Default Value Reassessing Default
Asumption
Assumption
Describe the project Requirements in Section 2.2 Requirements in
Section 2.2
Identify Regulations, standards and best practice Requirements in
Requirements in Section 2.3
guidance Section 2.3
Specify and justify whether using default values or Requirements in Section 3 Requirements in
not Section 3
Identify SSRs relevant for the project Not required – Justification Requirement in
provided in SSP. Section 5.1
Identify and select baseline scenario Not required - Justification Requirement in
provided in SSP Section 5.2
Identify SSRs for the Baseline scenario Not required - Justification Requirement in
provided in SSP Section 5.3
Select and justify relevant SSRs for monitoring or Requirement in Section 5.4. Requirement in
estimation See example in Section 6 Section 5.4
(Annexes)
Quantify Activity Levels Requirement in
Quantification of GHG Emissions only – Requirements in Section 5.5
Section 4.2
Quantification of GHG emission reductions or Requirement in Section 4.3 Requirement in
removal enhancement Section 5.6
Requirement in Section 4.4 Requirement in
Development of monitoring plan – Refer to example in Section 5.7
Section 6.0 (Annexes)
18
Managing data quality Requirement in Section 4.5 Requirement in
Section 5.8
Reporting the GHG Project Requirement in Section 4.6 Section 5.9
4 Using the Default Values
This section of the protocol provides basic guidance and instructions for a proponent who
wishes to use the default values provided in the protocol. The project proponent should
consult Section 5, Reassessing Default Assumptions, to understand the assumptions and
rationale used to determine the default values.
4.1 Overview of Default Values and Assumptions
When using the default assumptions and values, it is expected that the project proponent
will, at a minimum:
1. identify and conform to relevant requirements of any relevant GHG program (if
applicable), legislative and technical codes and standards (see Section 1)
2. describe the project, including participants, project location, project type, project
size, market role, etc. (see Section 2.2 )
3. review and affirm that the default values are appropriate for the project (see
Section 4), and that the project meets default assumptions (see Section 4.1.1)
4. select emission factors for SSRs relevant for the project according to tables of
emission factors that are provided and organized by biofuel type (biodiesel and
bioethanol), feedstock type (wheat straw, corn oil, tallow, used cooking oil, etc.)
and combustion/use of specific biofuels (see Section 4.2)
5. select and justify the most appropriate baseline emission factor to calculate
displaced emissions that would have otherwise happened in the absence of the
project (see Section 4.2)
6. directly monitor and document required project-specific data on the type of
biofuel, the quantify of use of biofuel and distances transported (see Section 4.4)
7. calculate GHG emission reductions by subtracting the project GHG emissions
from the baseline GHG emissions and indicate the attribution of emission
reductions – however, whether or not the project proponent can claim credit
19
depends on the rules of the relevant GHG programme and/or other
legal/contractual basis (see point 1 above and Section 4.3)
8. report the project (see Section 4.7)
4.1.1 Default assumptions
The following assumptions apply to the use of the default values derived from the protocol
as described in Section 5.
4.1.1.1 General assumptions
The GHG projects perspective assumes that the project proponent is the user of the biofuel
(e.g. vehicle owner/operator), and does not manufacture the biofuel that is used.
If another perspective is used (e.g. the manufacturer as project proponent), then default
attributions may need to be changed (see Section 5).
The function of the project is fuel use and the functional unit provided by the project is
expressed in volume of biofuel used (e.g. litres of B10 biodiesel blend) over the project
period.
The Bioethanol is assumed to displace fossil fuel (petroleum gasoline) on a 1:0.66
volumetric basis, while the Biodiesel is assumed to displace fossil fuel (petroleum diesel)
on a 1:0.95 volumetric basis. This assumes that 0.66 L of bioethanol and 0.95 of Biodiesel
is required to produce the same amount of energy as 1L of project fossil fuel. This
particular ratio is chosen as a conservative default factor because the ratio changes
depending on the biofuel mix ratio with a conventional fuel as well as the production
methods including various types of feedstock. Therefore, this ratio will ensure that the
emission reduction is not over estimated. Because of various factors influencing the fuel
displacement ratio, the user of this protocol is encouraged to select and justify a ratio that is
suitable for the user‟s project. See section 5.2 for justification.
Full life cycle emissions for Biofuels in Transportation projects cover all the stages
beginning with production of the biofuel feedstock and ending with combustion of the
biofuel product. The default values are aggregated over this life cycle, and are represented
in emission factors for each stage in the biofuel cycle. The default values for SSRs for
biodiesel and bioethanol include aggregate emissions in the biofuel production process (i.e.
consist of the aggregate CO2-equivalent emissions for the production of the biomass
feedstock, additional processing of the biomass feedstock prior to biofuel production,
biofuel production, and the manufacturing of any energy or ancillary chemical inputs to the
process.) and for the use of the biofuel (CO2e combustion emissions for 1 liter of the fuel.
No affected SSRs are assumed. Biomass feedstock production is assumed dedicated to
feedstocks used in the GHG project for Biofuels in Transportation. In practice this means
that it is assumed that there are no affected SSRs resulting from economic or social
consequences of the project (i.e. leakage).
In the case of main commodity products (like canola, corn or animal tallow), it is assumed
that economic production of these quantities would not have happened otherwise. See
section above on leakage.
SSRs associated with biofuels are assumed to be equal to average (or typical) production in
the sector. This means that incremental changes to agricultural production, as a result of
20
biofuels activities, are assumed to be no different than present average activities. This is
important given that, if biofuel production were to increase substantially, there would be
both/either a redirection of existing agricultural capacity and/or growth in new capacity.
This would lead to changes in environmental, social and market impacts (market leakage)
that are difficult to predict and are not considered here.
4.1.1.2 Baseline Assumptions
The baseline is the most appropriate and best estimate of GHG emissions and removals that
would have occurred in the absence of the project. For this protocol it is assumed that the
biofuel fuel in transportation projects displaces fossil fuel, as determined in section 5.2.
Therefore the default parameters in this protocol are applicable only to Biofuels in
Transportation projects that displace petroleum diesel (in the case of biodiesel) or
petroleum gasoline (in the case of ethanol).
4.1.1.3 Production assumptions
Biomass feedstock agricultural production (soybean, canola, corn) is based on USA
average production data. Greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O) include those emitted
from the growth, cultivating and harvesting of biofuel feedstock crops. The data source
assumes farming of crop on 1 planted acre for 1 year, based on a 3-year average. The data
cover: seed production, tillage, fertilizer and pesticide application, crop residue
management, irrigation, harvesting. The harvested acres were modeled to represent at least
90% of the planted acres. The impacts of producing 1 kg of seed are assumed equal to
those of producing 1 kg of grain.
Corn production (for both wet and dry milling) is based on North American average
production provided by Michigan State University/Lawrence Berkeley Labs, 1995-1999
(Graboski 2002, Shapouri 2004, First Environment). Allocation between corn products
(sugar, oil, meal, etc.) is based on product mass (Shapouri 2004, First Environment).
Ethanol production, both wet and dry, assumes a new facility with a good yield based on
USA statistical data. In either wet or dry milling, starch is converted to ethanol by
fermentation. Mass balances are based on a large scale integrated ethanol facility that is
operating efficiently. Under optimal commercial conditions a yield of 2.8 gallons/Bushel of
corn (equivalent to 2.40 kg corn/L ethanol) is estimated. [Graboski 2002]. Other coproducts
also result, depending on process route, as below.
Default values for ethanol production from a wet mill assume 22.4 pounds of corn per
gallon of ethanol produced (2.69 kg/L). Coproducts are protein, corn oil, unconverted
starch, and non-reactive dry matter. These are combined to produce DDG (Distillers Dried
Grains), which is sold mixed with another residue called thin stillage to produce either
DDGS (Distillers Dries Grains with Solubles) or is sold wet as WDGS (Wet Distillers
Grains with Solubles). Default values are based on a yield of 1.74 kg DDGS/L ethanol, the
majority process. Based on these yields and USDA data [Shapouri 2004] on net energy
balance of corn ethanol, the default values in the mass balance assume that 65% of corn is
allocated on a mass basis to ethanol (wet-mill process).
21
Default values for ethanol production from a dry mill assume 21.3 pounds of corn per
gallon of ethanol produced (2.55 kg/L). The default values assume coproducts of 0.034 kg
corn oil per L ethanol, and two feed grain products, 0.054 kg corn gluten meal (CGM) and
0.302 kg corn gluten feed (CGF) per L ethanol [Graboski 2002]. Based on these yields and
USDA data [Shapouri 2004] on net energy balance of corn ethanol, the default values
assume that 63% of corn is allocated on a default values in the mass balance to ethanol
(dry-mill process).
Default values are based on a model for ethanol production from biomass using an
enzymatic batch process [NREL 1999]. Includes GHG emissions from ancillary inputs
(ammonia, lime) as well as energy inputs (natural gas for steam production and electricity).
The model assumes approximately 65% cellulosic content of the biomass. No allocation
since the sole commercial output of the process is ethanol.
Note: default values for the enzymatic process do not represent modern proprietry
advances in this technology.
Default values are based on a model for ethanol production from biomass via the
concentrated acid ethanol process [NREL 1999]. Includes GHG emissions from
ancillary inputs (ammonia, lime, sulfuric acid) as well as energy inputs (natural gas for
steam production and electricity). The model assumes approximately 65% cellulosic
content of the biomass. No allocation since the sole commercial output of the process is
ethanol.
Seed oil for biodiesel (soybean and canola) processing assumes USA average production
for 1998 (NREL 1999). The model includes transportation to the mill, storage, seed
preparation, oil extraction, meal processing, oil recovery, solvent recovery and oil
degumming. Data is based on an average mill in the US, which recycles more than two
thirds of the hexane solvent. Allocations for milling of oil seed (soy and canola) products
(oil and meal) was allocated on a mass basis
Extraction of canola oil is based on the model for soybean oil production, with a different
oil and meal yield. Canola oil processing is assumed to demand 45% of the energy
compared to soy oil, on a per kg basis.
Use and consumption of ancillary inputs (engine fluids, maintenance parts, etc.) are
generally included within the SSR boundary but are all assumed to be equal from the
baseline SSR to the project SSR, and are therefore excluded, unless otherwise noted.
4.2 Default Emission Factors
The default emission factors established in this protocol provide the project proponent with
a faster, cheaper way to quantify project GHG emissions. The SSRs associated with
22
Biofuels in Transportation projects were identified using the comprehensive life cycle
framework described in section 5, and the associated emission factors were aggregated into
6 general categories (A, B, C, D, E, F), described below and illustrated in Figure 4.1. The
emission factors are provided in the associated excel sheet according to their general
category.
23
F. Affected SSRs, such as:
B. Upstream SSRs During Project
Operation, such as: 1. Market Transformation
2. Activity Shifting
1. Production of project inputs
2. Transportation of project inputs to
project site
A. Upstream SSRs Before Project C. Onsite SSRs During Project E. Downstream SSRs After Project
Operation, such as: Operation, such as: Termination, such as:
1. Production of raw materials and 1. Production/Provision of product(s) 1. Component decommissioning and
energy and transportation to and/or service(s) site restoration
manufacturing site
2. Maintenance 2. Waste management
2. Manufacturing of project
components
3. Transportation of project
components to project site D. Downstream SSRs During
Note: listing SSRs as Project Operation, such as:
“controlled” and “related” project
4. Project site preparation, is
project specific (e.g. whether the
component installation and 1. Transportation of product(s)
commissioning is a producer
project proponent
(e.g. renewable energy generator) 2. Use of product(s) and/or service(s)
or consumer (e.g. municipal fleet
manager using bio-fuel)) 3. Waste management
Figure 4.1 SSRs used to determine default values
24
A. Upstream SSRs before project operation, including:
A1. Production of raw materials and energy and transportation to manufacturing site
A2. Manufacturing of project components
A3. Transportation of project components to project site
A4. Project site preparation, project component installation and commissioning
B. Upstream SSRs during project operation, including:
B1. Production of project inputs
B2. Transportation of project inputs to project site
C. Onsite SSRs during project operation, including:
C1. Operation
C2. Maintenance
D. Downstream SSRs during project operation, including:
D1. Transportation of product(s) (i.e. electricity transmission & distribution)
D2. Use of product(s) and/or service(s)
D3. Waste management
E. Downstream SSRs after project termination, including:
E1. Component decommissioning and site restoration
E2. Waste management
F. Affected SSRs, including:
F1. Market transformation
F2. Activity Shifting
The following sections provide explanations and justifications for the methodologies and
assumptions used to calculate emission factors for aggregated SSRs.
25
4.2.1 Explanation of Procedure to Calculate Default Emission Factors
The full life cycle emissions for a Biofuels in Transportation Project cover the stages from
the production of the biofuel feedstock to the combustion of the biofuel product. Default
values are not provided in this protocol for categories A, D and E, because these categories
relate to emission factors for the upstream SSRs before project operation (A), the
downstream SSRs during project operation (D) and the downstream SSRs after project
termination (E). Category A, D and E are excluded from emission quantification for
Biofuels in Transportation projects because it was assumed that there were no significant
differences between project and baseline emissions for these SSRs (see Section 5.4.1 for
criteria). Note that there are no default emission factors provided in this protocol for
Category F (affected SSRs) because, as stated previously, it is assumed that the project is
small, and does not have an impact on affected SSRs. Note that for large projects, this
impact should be considered, and would need to be quantified according to the directives
described in section 5.
One of the preliminary steps required to determine an aggregated emission factor for the
various stages of the lifecycle for the Biofuel in Transportation sector is to understand the
upstream emissions generated from the agriculture practices and the biofuel production
processes, which are related to Category B SSRs. To get a better understanding of these
processes, various major sources of literature were identified and reviewed (see references
section).
The aggregate emissions over this life cycle can be represented as the “rolled up” values for
each stage in the biofuel cycle. The default values for SSRs for biodiesel and bioethanol
include values for the aggregate emissions in the biofuel production process (Category B
SSRs) and for the use of the biofuel (Category C SSRs).
The rolled up values for Category B consist of the aggregate CO2e emissions for the
production of the biomass feedstock, additional processing of the biomass feedstock prior
to biofuel production, biofuel production, and the manufacturing of any energy or ancillary
chemical inputs to the process. The rolled up value for C consists of the CO2e emissions for
the combustion of 1 liter of the fuel. A detailed explanation of the various sub-categories of
Category B and C is provided in Annex 6.4.
The default emission factors used to calculate project GHG emissions are organized into
tables according to the type of biofuel used in the project (e.g. biodiesel or bioethanol; see
Biofuels in Transportation - Quantification Spreadsheet, “Emission Factors” worksheet).
The emission factors are further organized into categories that reflect general temporal and
spatial life-cycle considerations, to satisfy the principles of completeness, relevance,
transparency. These categories are further disaggregated to permit the project proponent to
attribute GHG emissions according to whether the SSR is controlled (by the project
proponent), related to the project (by material and energy flows into or out of the project),
or affected by the project (by market changes such as activity shifting or market
transformation). Emission factors are in units of mass of GHG per volume of fuel. An
26
explanation is provided in Annex 6.4 and in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG
Quantification Spreadsheet.
The default emission factors for Biofuels in Transportation projects were based on the
comprehensive assessment presented in Section 5 and Annex 6.4, and can be found in the
Biofuels in Transportation – GHG Quantification Spreadsheet.
27
4.3 Quantifying Emissions and Emission Reductions
Quantification of net GHG emission reductions attributable to a project requires that project
GHG emissions be compared against emissions from a suitable reference, or baseline, case.
In this context, the baseline is a technology or practice that represents what would have
occurred in the absence of the project, and should provide the same product or service as
the GHG project so that they may be directly compared.
In the analysis, emissions are tracked, where possible, based on the type of greenhouse gas
(i.e. the six Kyoto GHGs: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6 ) that is emitted, and on the
attribution of the SSR, such as whether the SSR is:
controlled by project proponent(s);
related to the project (i.e., the SSR is physically related to the project or baseline system);
or
affected by the project (i.e., the SSR is economically associated with the project or baseline
system).
Once emissions or removals for each individual GHGs have been calculated, they are
expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) and summed for an overall
measure of GHG emissions for each SSR. GHG results for all relevant SSRs are then
summed to provide an overall quantification of project and baseline emissions.
The GHGs emissions for the project compared to the baseline are calculated by subtraction,
thus providing the quantification of total GHG emissions reductions (or removal
enhancements) for the project.
Quantifying emissions and emission reductions for the project and baseline using the
default values requires multiplying the level of activity of an SSR (e.g. the quantity of fuel
used at the SSR) by the GHG emission factor for the activity (e.g. mass of CO 2 per unit of
fuel combusted), resulting in a GHG emission for each SSR in units of mass of GHG.
When using the default values, the emission factors for the project and the baseline have
been developed for each SSRs (see Section 4.2) and are represented in the Microsoft excel-
based spreadsheets. This Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet
transparently presents all quantification procedures outlined in the protocol, allows project
proponents to input key project-specific data (e.g. activity levels of key project functions)
in a simple manner, and provides emissions quantification results according to the default
assumptions presented in this protocol. Should a proponent decide to modify the default
assumptions, this spreadsheet would also need to be modified accordingly. Equations and
examples can also be found in Section 5.5.
28
4.4 Monitoring Plan
Following the quantification of the GHG emission for each SSR of the project and the
baseline, the project proponent is required to develop a monitoring plan that should be
applied during project implementation.
Data monitoring focuses on the measurement of parameters necessary to calculate the GHG
emission reductions of a project. It includes tasks and procedures to monitor, collect,
assess, analyze and document, on a regular basis, data and information that are of
importance for quantifying and reporting the performance and objectives of the project and
baseline SSRs considering relevant criteria.
For this protocol monitoring is defined generally, to include measurement, estimation,
modelling, calculation and/or use of recognized reference factors. More precise terms are
also used:
Direct measurement is the measurement of project-specific or baseline-specific GHG
emissions
Estimating is the approximation of GHG emissions by measurement of other non GHG
project or baseline parameters (such as inputs, outputs or activity levels) and/or using
published data, recognized reference factors, calculations, etc.
When using the default values, the project proponent is expected to measure or estimate
and document the activity levels required as inputs in the quantification spreadsheets such
as the biofuel type, the distance travelled for each type of biofuel, and the volume of each
type of biodiesel used (see Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet,
“Inputs” worksheet). For an example of a full monitoring and estimation plan, the project
proponent should consult Annexes 6.10 and 6.11.
In most cases the amount and type of biofuel purchased will be documented on project
proponent invoices. Additionally, if the biofuel does not have the same power output as the
fossil fuel, then the project proponent shall measure the energy content or power output of
the biofuel (or biofuel blend) and compare it to the power output of the fossil fuel
historically used. This will then require adjustment of the 1:0.66 or 1:0.95 offset
assumptions shown in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet,
“Inputs” worksheet.
The spreadsheet provides the required fields that the proponent must fill in (see Table 4.1).
The proponent should refer to the “Guidance” worksheet for further instructions.
29
Table 4.1: Project inputs for the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification
Spreadsheet (with example data).
Project Inputs
Project Fuel Information
Biofuel Type Bioethanol
Feedstock Corn (Dry Milling)
Project Fuel Use Information
Volume Project Biofuel Combusted 10000 L
Baseline Inputs
Baseline Fuel Information
Fossil Fuel Type Gasoline
Baseline Combustion Information
Vehicle / Engine Type Light-duty automobile
Vehicle / Engine Control Type (if applicable) Tier 0, New 3-way
catalyst
Baseline Fuel Use Information
Baseline Fuel to Project Fuel Factor 1 L Baseline Fuel
/ L Project Fuel
Volume Baseline Fuel Combusted 10000 L
4.5 Managing Data Quality
The protocol provides data management procedures designed to ensure data quality and
integrity, and methodologies for addressing uncertainty and conducting sensitivity analyses.
It is recommended that the project proponent establish and maintain quality assurance and
quality control plans and procedures, linked to the monitoring plan as appropriate, to
manage data and information relevant to the project and baseline.
The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan establishes, justifies and
documents the criteria and procedures used to assure that elements owned and/or controlled
by the project proponent are tested and directly monitored with known precision and
reproducibility.
30
The QA/QC plan focuses specifically on those elements and components that are controlled
and those that contribute to the GHG emissions profile/performance of the projects. It is
necessary to specify the QA/QC requirements used to establish the quality of the data
controlled by the proponent. This will include detailing how precision and accuracy will be
presented.
Annex 6.5 provides a generic QA/QC plan, consistent with TEAM reporting requirements.
4.6 Risk Management Plan
Under the requirements of TEAM, the project proponent should develop a risk management
plan for the new technology. Refer to the SMART Protocol for further details on this. See
example in Section 6.0 (Annexes).
4.7 Reporting the Project
This protocol can be used to help satisfy two typical GHG reporting requirements:
Preparation of pre-project (also refered to as ex-ante) project documentation based on
estimated project results before the emission reductions or removals occur, which is used to
describe the project and the methods and approaches that will be used to quantify GHG
emissions and removals for the project and baseline. For TEAM, this documentation is
referred to as a Project Master Plan (PMP). Completed project documentation is typically
subject to validation by a program authority, funding agency or other relevant organization.
Preparation of post-project (also referred to ex-post) emission reduction/removal report,
which includes assertions of the GHG emission reductions or removals of the project based
on the actual project data and the methods and approaches documented in the validated
project documentation. Completed emission reduction/removal reports are typically subject
to verification by an independent 3rd-party.
The reporting of the project should conform to the requirements specified by the GHG
scheme, and those specified by ISO 14064-2 (2006). The content of the project report is
described in Table 3.2, section 3.
TEAM projects require that the project proponent use the SMART methodology for
reporting the project, and are refered to SMART for further guidance on reporting for
TEAM projects. TEAM requires an ex-ante PMP and a final quantification report ex-post.
31
5 Reassessing Default Assumptions
As described in section 3, the protocol was developed using a comprehensive life-cycle
framework to determine the SSRs, activity levels and emission factors applicable to
Biofuels in Transportation projects. It was developed based on the project function of fuel
use (see Section 4.1.1).The framework also allows the project proponent to have greater
flexibility in determining more accurate GHG emissions reductions by providing project-
specific evidence relating to activities (SSRs), emission factors, and monitored activity
levels. The protocol framework is structured in a way that corresponds to the ISO 14064-2
to facilitate an easier second or third-party validation/verification of the use of this protocol
to conform to the requirements of that standard.
The framework was applied in steps as shown in Figure 5.1. The first two steps,
“Identifying relevant requirements” and “Describing the project”, were discussed in Section
1.2 and Section 2.2, respectively. Each of the remaining steps, presented in the sections
below, is structured as follows:
ISO 14064-2 requirements are identified
Appropriate procedure(s) or criteria needed to meet the requirements are identified and
developed
The specific outcome of applying the procedure(s) is described
Guidance is provided for reassessing the default values as part of a customized project
approach
32
Identify Relevant
Requirements
Section 1.2
Project Baseline
Describe the Identify and
Project Select Baseline
Section 2.2 Section 5.2
Identify SSRs Identify SSRs
Section 5.1 Section 5.3
Select Relevant Select Relevant
SSRs SSRs
Section 5.4 Section 5.4
Quantify SSRs Quantify SSRs
Section 5.5 Section 5.5
Calculate
Emission
Reductions
Section 5.6
Develop
Monitoring Plan
Section 5.7
Managing Data
Quality
Section 5.8
Develop Report
and Reporting
Plan
Section 5.10
Figure 5.1 Steps used in development of protocol
33
5.1 Step 1: Identify Project SSRs
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.3 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.1.1 Procedure used to Identify SSRs for Project
The following procedure, used to identify the SSRs related to Biofuels in Transportation
projects, allowed for the identification of all types of activities (e.g. production,
transportation, installation, operation, maintenance, utilization, and decommissioning) that
were attributable to Biofuels in Transportation projects over the full cradle-to-grave life-
cycle.
The following steps (see Figure 5.2) were systematically applied to identify SSRs for the
project and to determine their attribution:
1. Potential SSRs for the system that are controlled (managed, owned, controlled by
contract) by the project proponent were identified. The behaviour or operation of a
“controlled SSR” is under the direction and influence of the project proponent
through financial, policy, management or other instruments.
For example, the project proponent will control and/or own the vehicles that provide
the transportation services using the biofuel. However, when hiring a trucking
company to ship a load, the shipping is not controlled, even though the proponent
has exerted some control by specifying who will do the shipping, what is being
shipped, and to where.
2. Potential SSRs that are physically related to the direct project were identified.
Products, materials and energy inputs/outputs were traced upstream to origins in
natural resources and downstream along life-cycle. Material and/or energy flows
into, out of, or within the project come from, or go to a “related SSR”.
For example, the project proponent would have no reasonable control over the
related SSRs associated with Biofuels in Transportation projects. However, these
activities are still influenced by the project‟s scope – e.g. utilizing 1,000,000 litres
of biodiesel will require more biomass feedstock then the utilization of 1000 litres.
This project-related decision will then indirectly cause upstream GHG emissions
34
associated with the growing and processing of biomass feedstock. As such, these
SSRs would be considered related by material and energy flows.
3. Potential SSRs that were economically affected by the project were identified. The
economic and social consequences of the project (compared to the baseline) were
considered, and activities, market affects, and social changes that result from, or are
associated with the project activity, were assessed.
Identify SSRs
Controlled by the
Project Identify SSRs
Related to the
Identify SSRs
Project through
Material and Identify SSRs
Energy Flows that are
Economically
Affected by the
Project
Climate Change Technology Early Action Measures
Figure 5.2 Process for Identifying SSRs
Justification for Procedure to Identify SSRs for the Project
The systems approach is a generic “streamlined life cycle assessment” to consider in high
breadth and depth all types of activities (e.g. production, transportation, installation,
operation, maintenance, utilization, decommissioning, etc.) and associated inputs and
outputs that may be attributable to the project. The systems approach is appropriate
because it follows generally accepted practice (reflects ISO 14040 LCA series) and, when
properly applied with documented criteria and assumptions (here based on industry and
project references, experts and reviewers), satisfies the principles of completeness,
relevance and transparency.
The results from the application of the systems approach to the biofuel sector have been
reviewed by various experts (LCA, biofuel experts, transportation experts, auditors, GHG
experts) and interested parties to confirm the procedure and the results are generally
acceptable.
35
The level of aggregation of SSRs reflects a balance of transparency and practicality
considering the needs of intended users. Where intended users require greater transparency,
the project proponent shall amend the procedure accordingly.
5.1.2 SSRs Identified for the Project
The SSRs identified for Biofuels in Transportation projects are illustrated in Figure 5.3 and
described in Annex 6.7.
36
A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation E. Downstream SSRs after
Project Termination
1. Production and 2. Manufacturing of 3.Transportation of 1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs
Transportation of Project Components Components to Project to Project Site
Materials & Energy Site B1.1 Biomass B2.1 Biomass
Feedstock Feedstock 1. Decommissioning and Site
A1.1 Steel A2.1 Vehicle A3.1 Vehicle Production Transportation Restoration
Production & Manufacturing Acquisition
Transportation
B1.2 Biomass B2.2 Processed E1.1
Feedstock Biomass Decommissioning
A1.2 Aluminium A2.2 Biofuel A3.2 Biofuel Processing Transportation
Production & Facility Facility
Transportation Components Components
B1.3 Chemicals B2.3 Chemicals
Manufacturing Transportation
Production Transportation 2. Waste Management
A1.3 Polymer
Production &
Transportation E2.1 Transport of
B1.4 Biofuels B2.4 Biofuels Waste
Production Transportation
A1.4 Fibreglass
Production & 4. Site Preparation installation
Transportation and Commissioning
Other (Project Other (Project E2.2 Waste
Specific) Specific) Management
A1.5 Copper
Production &
Transportation A4.1 Biofuels
Facility C. Onsite Project SSRs
Others (Project 1. Production/Provision/Use of 2. Maintenance
Specific) Product(s) and/or Service(s)
C1.1 Engine C2.1 Maintenance
Operations (Biofuel
Use)
C1.2 Transportation
Service
D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
1. Transportation of 2. Use of 3. Waste Management
Product(s) Product(s)/Service(s)
Figure 5.3 Default SSRs Identified for Biofuels in Transportation Project
37
5.1.3 Guidance to Proponent
The project proponent should review the identified SSRs, and determine if there are any
SSRs identified that should not be included, based on the proponent‟s project. Additionally,
any SSRs not already identified should be added as appropriate. Justification for changes
from the defaults should be provided. The project proponent should then review all
identified SSRs, and determine whether each is controlled, related or affected.
In Biofuels production, should the proponent choose to re-analyze “Category B” SSRs,
they should be cautious that biomass system can be complex. For example: in some cases
the whole system of SSRs may perform one or more functions (e.g. food production and
energy production); some individual SSRs may serve more than one specific functions (e.g.
oil seed extraction produces both meal and oil); and biomass by-products should be
carefully considered as to whether they are wastes or co-products (which may vary be
region and economic factors). The function(s) (products, goods and services) provided by
the system of SSRs should be determined comprehensively (see Section 2.2 Description of
the GHG project for this requirement).
Further general guidance can be found in ISO 14064-2 (2006), TEAM SMART (2004), and
WRI/WBCSD GHG Protocol (2005).
38
5.2 Step 2: Identify and Select Potential Baselines
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.4 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.2.1 Procedure used to Identify and Select Baseline
The baseline is the most appropriate and best estimate of GHG emissions and removals that
would have occurred in the absence of the project.
For this protocol a barriers test was used in the selection of the baseline for Biofuels in
Transportation projects, keeping in mind the wide range of possible projects, and the their
locations. The application of the barriers test to this protocol is described in the following
section.
5.2.2 Identification and Selection of Baseline
In a Biofuels in Transportation Project, the functional service provided by the project
system might be fuel use, or transport or “energy output” from the vehicle engine, directly
related to the combustion of fuel. The baseline scenarios method considers what other
means would have provided this functional service, in the absence of the project. The focus
is on fuel and energy options.
Biofuels in Transportation projects are generally designed to displace the use of traditional
fuels in a fuel-switching framework. For example, biodiesel is switched for diesel and
bioethanol for gasoline (and bio-methane for natural gas). Considerations include the exact
use of the biofuel including the equivalence of service from traditional to bio-fuel.
Three potential baseline scenarios were identified:
1. The project itself as a baseline (the use of biodisiel or ethanol, or a blend using any
of these, as transportation fuel). It is conceivable that, in the absence of the
designated project, the activities of the project would have occurred nonetheless;
thus the project itself is the first candidate baseline scenario.
2. Business-as-usual (B.A.U), in this case, the use of petroleum fuel as energy source
in the vehicle. It is assumed that gasoline would be the B.A.U. fuel for projects
involving ethanol and diesel would be the fuel for projects involving biodiesel. It
is conceivable that, in the absence of the project, nothing exceptional would have
taken place. For example, no capital expenditure would have occurred and the
project would not have been built, or standard site operations would have
39
continued as they had been. Thus, the BAU is a standard and necessary scenario to
consider.
3. Another alternative fuel or energy option for the vehicles (e.g. natural gas, fuel
cell, hybrid electric, etc.).
The barriers test is used to determine which of the potential baseline scenarios identified is
the appropriate baseline for the project. The potential baseline scenarios were assessed
against barriers. The potential baseline scenario that was not affected by any of the barriers
was identified to be the actual project baseline scenario.
Table 5.1 Barriers test on potential baseline scenarios
Option 1 Option 2
Option 3
Barriers Project Business-As-
Other alternative fuel
Usual
Financial/ No barrier: No barrier Barrier: Investment
Budgetary: No investment required required for new
by proponent infrastructure
Technology and Barrier: No barrier Barrier:
maintenance: maintenance Additional and different Additional and different
needed for implementation maintenance required maintenance required,
of fuel use (minor) extent unknown.
Technology and No barrier: No barrier Barrier:
maintenance: no additional maintenance purchase of alternative
infrastructure changes for fuel technology (e.g.
new technology modify propulsion system)
Technology and Barrier - OVERCOME No barrier Barrier:
maintenance: inadequate Funding provided given Varies from fuel to fuel,
supply of fuel to offset costs for supplies would need to be
biodiesel fuel for the developed or arranged.
project (higher barrier for new
fuels, eg. hydrogen)
No barrier where
infrastructure is exists, e.g.
for natural gas)
Market structure: no Barrier – OVERCOME No barrier Barrier:
incentives to invest in Funding provided to Varies from fuel to fuel
alternative fuel offset infrastructure costs (higher barrier for new
infrastructure for biodiesel fuels, eg. hydrogen);
(lower barrier where
incentives exist, e.g. for
natural gas)
Resource availability: cost Barrier – OVERCOME No barrier Barrier:
of fuel Funding provided given Fuel costs and availability
40
to offset cost of biodiesel vary
purchase
41
Results of barriers test
Option 1 (the project as potential baseline scenario) exhibited a number of
significant barriers that negated its viability as a baseline.
Option 3 exhibited numerous diverse and complex barriers. The use of other
alternative fuels would have required concerted efforts and financing greater than
the biodiesel project option.
Option 2, the status quo diesel or gasoline baseline scenario was therefore the
default baseline option, since it showed no barriers. This is perfectly logical given
that it was the business-as-usual scenario, and was reasonably the activities that
would have occurred in the absence of the project.
As such, and as described in Section 2.1 on Protocol Applicablity, based on the scope of
this protocol, the default baseline selected for Biofuels in Transportation projects was that
bioethanol would displace fossil fuel on a 1:0.65 volumetric basis and biodiesel would
displace it on a 1:0.95 volumetric basis.
The project baseline is determined specifically where biofuels are used in vehicle
transportation to displace the use of petroleum fuels:
Gasoline fuel, where the project biofuel blend contains bioethanol
Petroleum diesel fuel, where the project biofuel blend contains biodiesel
Justification of Baseline ratio of biofuel substitution
The default baseline scenario assumes that the ratio of substitution is 1:0.65 and 1:0.95 (one
volume of biofuel in the project fuel offsets an equal volume of petroleum fuel). The higher
heating value (HHV) of ethanol is 23.6 MJ/l and for gasoline is 34.7 MJ/l. This would
suggest a default displacement ratio or 1:0.68 on an energy basis; if you were to assume
there were some combustion efficiency gains with the ethanol that number might be
somewhat higher, but in order to be conservative it is assumed that the displacement ratio is
1:0.65 for ethanol. Similarly biodiesel has a HHV of 36.9 MJ/l and diesel has a HHV of
38.7 MJ/l. This would suggest a default value around 1:0.95 for biodiesel.
Thus these assumptions are a conservative ratio given normal biofuel performance, and can
be adjusted in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet.
5.2.3 Guidance to Proponent
Should the proponent desire to change the ratio of biofuel substitution to a value that is less
conservative, they are required in this Protocol to provided evidence in support of the ratio
used. In some cases, such as a liquid project biofuel displacing a gas (at standard
temperature and pressure) baseline fuel (e.g. propane or natural gas), this volumetric ratio
42
would need to be adjusted in order to maintain the accuracy of the quantifications. See
section 5.7 for more details.
Should one of the default baselines not be used, the project proponent shall select and
justify the baseline used. The discussion in Annex 6.6 provides the project proponent with
further guidance on selecting and justifying the baseline.
5.3 Step 3: Identify Baseline SSRs
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.5 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.3.1 Procedure to Identify Baseline SSRs
The procedure used to identify SSRs for the baseline is similar to the procedure used to
identify SSRs for the project (Section 5.1). It differs from the procedure used for the
identifying project SSRs in that SSRs in the baseline scenario are hypothetical. Thus,
guidance on the baseline needs to be understood in terms of hypothetical attributions (what
would have been controlled, related, affected).
When identifying SSRs in the baseline, a similar level of aggregation was maintained
between analogous SSRs of the project and baseline.
Additional criteria for identifying SSRs in the baseline scenario included:
System expansions necessary to match all functions in the project system, thus ensuring
equivalence of service.
System expansions required to capture and quantify project SSRs (or corresponding
baseline SSRs) that are economically affected with the project activities (leakage).
The criteria and procedures in Section 5.1 were applied to identify SSRs related to Biofuels
in Transportation baseline scenarios. Following this, the SSRs identified in the project were
compared to those identified in the baseline scenario.
5.3.2 Identified Baseline SSRs
The identified baseline SSRs are illustrated in Figure 5.4 and described in Table 6.6
(Annex 6.7).
43
A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation E. Downstream SSRs after
Project Termination
1. Production and 2. Manufacturing of 3.Transportation of
Transportation of Project Components Components to Project Site 1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to
Materials & Energy Project Site
1. Decommissioning and Site
A1.1 Steel Production A2.1 Vehicle A3.1 Vehicle Restoration
& Transportation Manufacturing Acquisition B1.1 Crude Oil B2.1 Crude Oil
Extraction Transportation E1.1 Decommissioning
A1.2 Aluminium A2.2 Fossil Fuel A3.2 Fossil Fuel
Production & Facility Components Facility Components B1.2 Fossil Fuel B2.2 Fossil Fuel
Transportation Manufacturing Transportation Production Transportation
2. Waste Management
A1.3 Polymer
Production & Other (Project Other- Products
Transportation E2.1 Transport of
Specific) Transportation Waste
A1.4 Fibreglass
Production & 4. Site Preparation installation and
Transportation Commissioning
E2.2 Waste
Management
A1.5 Copper C. Onsite Project SSRs
Production &
Transportation A4.1 Fossil Fuel
Facility 1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) 2. Maintenance
and/or Service(s)
Others (Project
Specific) C1.1 Engine C2.1 Maintenance
Operation (Fossil
Fuel use)
C1.2 Transportation
Service
D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
1. Transportation of 2. Use of 3. Waste Management
Product(s) Product(s)/Service(s)
Figure 5.4 Default SSRs Identified for Baseline Scenarios for Biofuels in Transportation Project
44
5.3.3 Guidance to Proponent
The project proponent shall identify the baseline SSRs according to the above procedure
and add any SSRs as appropriate for the proponent‟s project. Additionally, the project
proponent shall compare the project and baseline SSRs as follows.
The proponent shall list and compare the project‟s identified SSRs with those identified in
the baseline scenario as shown in Table 5.2. Because the project system and baseline
scenario provide the same function and are based on the same functional unit, there must be
equivalence of service and thus comparability at the system level. There may also be
comparability at the SSR level, though it is to be expected that not all SSRs identified for
the project will be directly comparable to analogous baseline SSRs.
Table 5.2 Sample comparison of project and baseline SSRs. P refers to Project and B
refers to Baseline. SSR.0.0 is a generic identifier for this table only.
SSR SSR name Attribution Associated Comments
Identifier with
P B
Steel Production &
SSR.0.0 Related X X
Transportation
This SSR is present
Biomass Feedstock
SSR.0.0 Related X only in the project, not
Production
in the baseline.
SSR.0.0
Crude Oil
Related X X
Extraction
45
5.4 Step 4: Select and Justify Relevant SSRs
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.6 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.4.1 Procedure to Select Relevant SSRs
The following procedures and criteria were applied to assess in sequence whether each
identified SSR (including its inputs and outputs) was relevant for the project and for the
baseline scenario, and to determine whether it was necessary to quantify the emissions by
direct measurement or estimation in order to determine GHG emission reductions.
If any criterion was determined in the negative, then the SSR was not necessary to quantify
GHG emission reductions.
A. Is the SSR new or changed from the baseline scenario to the project
system? If it is not, the SSR is not relevant to quantification of GHG
emission reductions, unless (C) applies.
B. Does the SSR directly emit (or remove) GHGs? If it does not, the SSR is
not relevant to quantifying GHG emission reductions and removals,
unless (C) applies.
C. Is the SSR needed to determine the level of activity for other elements?
If it is not, the SSR is not relevant to quantification of GHG emission
reductions.
D. Are GHGs emissions estimated to be lower for the project SSR than for
the corresponding baseline SSR? If there is evidence to support the
estimate, then the SSR can be excluded from quantification because it is
conservative to underestimate GHG emission reductions.
The lack of data and/or information for a specific SSR does not provide a justification for
the exclusion of the SSR. In these cases emissions will have to be estimated based on
professional judgment.
Once these criteria were applied to each SSR, any SSRs excluded were identified and
tabulated to show the excluded SSR, exclusion criterion, and a description of the reason for
exclusion.
46
5.4.2 SSRs Relevant to Project and to Baseline
The SSRs that were identified as being relevant to the project and were included for direct
monitoring or estimation are shown in Figure 5.5 and in Table 6.5. These are the SSRs
subject to monitoring or estimation.
47
A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation E. Downstream SSRs after
Project Termination
1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to
No relevant SSRs for Project Site
this category No relevant SSRs for
B1.1 Biomass B2.1 Biomass this category
Feedstock Production Feedstock
Transportation
B1.2 Biomass B2.2 Processed
Feedstock Processing Biomass
Transportation
B1.3 Chemicals B2.3 Chemicals
Production Transportation
B1.4 Biofuels B2.4 Biofuels
Production Transportation
Other (Project Other (Project
Specific) Specific)
C. Onsite Project SSRs
1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) 2. Maintenance
and/or Service(s)
C1.1 Engine C2.1 Maintenance
Operations (Biofuel
Use)
D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
No relevant SSRs for
this category
Figure 5.5 Default SSRs included in the scope of study for Biofuels in Transportation Projects
48
The SSRs that were identified as being relevant to the baseline and were included for direct
monitoring or estimation are shown in Figure 5.6 and described in Table 6.6.
Table 5.3 shows the SSRs that were excluded from quantification based on the criteria
discussed above.
Table 5.3 SSRs excluded from quantification in Biofuels in Transportation projects
and Baseline scenarios.
SSR SSR Name Criteria Justification
Identifier for
exclusion
A1.1 Steel Production Criteria A Unchanged by the project: Minimal
and Transportation change in the manufacturing of the
vehicle for the project, therefore no
change in the Materials and Energy
required for production or
manufacturing
A1.2 Aluminium Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
Production & very minimal change in the
Transportation manufacturing of the vehicle for the
project
A1.3 Polymer Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
Production & very minimal change in the
Transportation manufacturing of the vehicle for the
project
A1.4 Fibreglass Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
Production & very minimal change in the
Transportation manufacturing of the vehicle for the
project
A1.5 Copper Production Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
& Transportation very minimal change in the
manufacturing of the vehicle for the
project
A1.6 Others Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
very minimal change in the
manufacturing of the vehicle for the
project.
A2.1 Vehicle Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
Manufacturing very minimal change in the
manufacturing of the vehicle for the
project
A2.2 Plant Component Criteria C Biofuels plants are smaller so smaller
Manufacturing components manufactured, therefore
fewer emissions
A3.1 Vehicle Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
49
SSR SSR Name Criteria Justification
Identifier for
exclusion
Acquisition very minimal change in the
transportation of the vehicle to the
project site
A3.2 Plant component Criteria C Biofuels plants are smaller so lighter
transportation components, therefore fewer emissions
A4.1 Plant installation+ Criteria C Biofuels plants are smaller, therefore
commissioning fewer emissions
C1.2 Transportation Criteria A This SSR is unchanged from the
Service baseline by the project activity
E1.1 Decommissioning Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
very minimal change in
decommissioning
E2.1 Transport of Waste Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
very minimal change in the
transportation of waste from the vehicle
in the project versus the baseline
scenario
E2.2 Waste Criteria A Unchanged by the project: No change or
Management very minimal change in the waste
management for the vehicle in the
project versus the baseline scenario
50
A. Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation B. Upstream SSRs During Project Operation E. Downstream SSRs after
Project Termination
No relevant SSRs for
this category 1. Production of Project Inputs 2. Transportation of Project Inputs to No relevant SSRs for
Project Site this category
B1.1 Crude Oil B2.1 Crude Oil
Extraction Transportation
B1.2 Fossil Fuel B2.2 Fossil Fuel
Production Transportation
B1.x Other (Project B2.x Other Products
Specific) Transportation
C. Onsite Project SSRs
1. Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) 2. Maintenance
and/or Service(s)
C1.1 Engine C2.1 Maintenance
Operation (Fossil
Fuel use)
D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
No relevant SSRs for
this category
Figure 5.6 Default SSRs included in the scope of study for Biofuels in Transportation Baseline Scenarios
51
5.4.3 Guidance to Proponent
In customized project-specific applications of this procedure, the project proponent shall
determine if there are any relevant SSRs not identified in this protocol, and add them as
appropriate. Figure 5.7 presents a decision tree to assist the project proponent with
amending the default SSRs relevant for the project. The project proponent shall exclude any
SSRs justified as not relevant to the specific project, but the project proponent can not
justify excluding SSRs based on lack of data availability. If the project proponent is
uncertain about the existence of an SSR for a specific project, then the SSR should remain.
In this protocol, upstream SSRs before project operation (Category A SSRs as described in
section 5) are aggregated because it is not practical or cost-effective to analyse every raw
material for all components that are part of a biofuel project, but this should not limit the
project proponent from identifying and analyzing additional raw materials and/or SSRs that
are not listed, should the proponent have reason to believe it is prudent to investigate these
further.
Finally, the project proponent shall amend Figure 5.5, Table 5.3 and Table 6.5 to include
project-specific relevant SSRs. The figure and table for in-scope SSRs for the project
should properly categorize and identify the SSRs and be part of the final project
documentation.
Direct measurement versus estimation of emissions
The proponent shall identify, justify, estimate and document any project SSR emissions not
subject to direct measurement.
If direct measurement of the SSR emission is not within the means and resources of the
project (i.e., not cost-effective), the project proponent shall estimate the SSR emission.
Estimation shall include measurement of activity levels, inputs and/or outputs when
feasible and shall follow the principles of conservativeness, completeness and accuracy.
Further, for Criteria C, discussed above, if there is evidence to support and justify the
omitting or underestimating of a project SSR, then the project proponent can exclude the
SSR from quantification because it is conservative to GHG emission reductions to do so.
The project proponent shall refer to TEAM (2004) for further guidance on estimation and
monitoring of SSRs.
52
For every SSR No
Consider default identified Does each SSR
SSRs relevant for the project identified exist in the
project?
#2 Eliminate SSRs that
do no exist and
return to step #2
#1
Yes
Based on your No
project design, are
there any SSRs not
identified?
#3
Re-evaluate
Is operation or
behaviour under Yes
direction of
Yes proponent through
financial, policy, SSR is controlled
management or
other instruments?
List these SSRs and
amend the figure
No
No.
Eliminate from and return
to Step #2
Yes No Yes
Is the SSR influenced Does the operation or
by project activity by step have material or
SSR is changes in market energy flows into or out SSR is
affected demand or supply? of the project? related
Figure 5.7 Decision Tree to Identify and Categorize SSRs Relevant for the Project
53
5.5 Step 5: Quantification of GHG Emissions
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.7 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.5.1 Procedure to Quantify GHG emissions
This section covers quantification of GHG emissions for both the baseline and the project.
For the purposes of the SMART, GHG quantification is the process of obtaining a value for
GHG emission and removal for each of the SSRs selected for quantification (in both the
project and baseline systems) in the previous step. Note that some SSRs can be grouped
together for quantification. Thus the quantification of GHG emission from a source could
be done by:
Direct measurement of the GHG emission from the source
Estimation of the GHG by using emission factors (measured or estimated), inputs,
outputs and activity levels.
For a detailed description of the GHG quantification please refer to the SMART protocol.
In selecting the quantification methodology, the primary characteristic considered was the
accuracy (both of the parameter and calculation) of the chosen quantification methodology.
The quantification procedure chosen for the default values in the Biofuels in Transportation
project protocol is a calculation based on the estimation of GHG emissions for each
relevant SSR by using its activity level and emission factor (as described below).
The Estimation of GHG emission is obtained through:
Measurement of the level of project/baseline activity when feasible.
Emission factors obtained via measurement, conservative estimation or documented
sources
During the research and assessment to obtain data and information relevant to the biofuel
sector in order to establish and apply procedures, type, availability, and quality of data was
such that quantification of GHG emissions is appropriate using emission factors (e.g. rather
than direct measurement of GHGs or other procedure).
54
General GHG quantification procedure using Emission Factors
Generally, the emissions are determined by taking the product of the activity level of an
SSR and the emission factor associated with the SSR as follows:
Equation 5.1 Ei = AL* EF
Where: E= Emissions of greenhouse gas
i= Greenhouse gas type
AL= Activity Level (e.g. quantity of fuel used in m3)
EF= Emission Factor (e.g. emission factor of the
combustion of the fuel in t CO2e/m3)
GHGs are quantified for each identified default SSR where applicable. The quantification
procedure was based on using data and information about:
1. Inputs (e.g. raw materials, fuels, etc.)
2. Outputs (e.g. volume or mass of material, electricity, etc. produced by the SSR)
3. Level of activity (e.g. distance traveled)
4. GHG Emission factor(s) for specific activities associated with the SSR (e.g.
combustion – x tonnes CO2e/litre of fuel; manufacturing - x tonnes CO2e/tonne of
material manufactured).
The emission calculation requires consideration of the units used and any conversion
factors necessary to produce the appropriate activity level.
In general, inputs, outputs and activity level data can be obtained by:
Direct measurement such as continuous or periodic sampling (measured)
Performing mass and energy balances on the system (estimated)
Manufacture/supplier specification documents (e.g. quantity of steel used in the
manufacture of the pylon) (estimated)
Professional estimation using published data or information collected from external similar
sources. (estimated)
Activity levels may be relatively simple, such as the amount of a material produced or
quantity of fuel used (e.g. tonnes or m3), or they may be more complex. For instance, for
transportation emissions, an activity level in units of tonnes-km is often used, representing
the product of mass of goods X distance transported.
55
An emission factor may be specifically determined in the project through measurement of
the SSR; or it may be secondary, estimated via appropriate selection from published or
private sources. Thus emission factors can be obtained by:
Measurement: undertaking a detailed assessment of the specific activity and developing
from first principles - measuring all related activities and then normalizing the overall
emissions to a specific parameter (e.g. tonnes CO2e/tonne of steel produced)
Estimation: Estimating using data derived from historical operations, external but similar
processes, facilities or areas of operation or from published life cycle assessments
performed on related industries, processes or activities or professional judgement.
Documented Emission Factors are also estimated and include using emissions factors from
recognized origins such as an industry association, national GHG inventory, GHG program,
or an international body (e.g. IPCC). The default factors in this protocol were mainly
estimated using documented references.
Like activity levels, emission factors may be relatively simple or more complex. In all
cases, the units of an emission factor must include the reciprocal of the units of the
matching activity level. For example, when calculating transportation emissions using a
tonnes-km activity level, the associated emission factor would be in units of GHGs per
tonnes-km.
To promote the use of GHG emission factors that are the most robust and have the highest
possible accuracy, the project proponent should use the following methods in decreasing
order of preference:
a) Empirical evidence of:
i) Standard GHG emission outputs for measured inputs under known conditions of a
specific GHG sources and sinks; or
ii) Stoichiometric and mass balance measurements and calculations for a specific
GHG sources and sinks or process with all losses accounted;
b) Empirical evidence for similar or comparable GHG sources and sinks or processes;
c) Manufacturers‟ specification of output for specific or similar GHG sources and sinks
under known conditions;
d) Externally supplied emission factor specific to a specific area, region, province or state;
e) Externally supplied emission factor specific to a country or region of countries;
f) Externally supplied average emission factor for international use.
Once emissions or removals of individual GHGs were calculated, they were expressed in
terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per unit time and summed for an overall
measure of GHG emissions for each SSR.
Additionally, emissions were tracked in the quantification (where possible) based on
greenhouse gas (CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) and also on the attribution of the SSR:
a) SSRs controlled by project proponent(s)
56
b) SSRs related to the project - i.e. the SSR is physically related to the system
c) SSRs affected by the project – i.e. the SSR is economically associated with the
system.
When using emission factors for the individual greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, and N2O), the
following general equation was used for estimating the CO2 equivalent emission for the
SSRs:
n
Equation 5.2 CO2 e Ei GWPi
i 1
Where: CO2e = emissions of CO2 equivalent (mass)
i= greenhouse gas type
n= total number of greenhouse gases emitted by the
SSR
Ei = emissions of greenhouse gas, i (mass)
GWPi = Global Warming Potential of greenhouse gas i
Once emissions or removals of individual GHGs are calculated, they are expressed in terms
of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) and summed for an overall measure of GHG
emissions for each SSR. Then the GHG results for all SSRs in a system are “rolled up”
across the entire system, accounting for the individual activity of each SSR to the total
system.
A total account for the system is generated describing GHGs by type and attribution.
Lastly, the flux in GHGs for the project compared to the baseline is calculated, thus
providing the quantification of total GHG emissions reductions (and removals
enhancements) for the project, also broken down by type and attribution (see Section 5.6).
5.5.2 GHG emissions for Project and Baseline
The Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet was developed to include
all the estimations that were done for each SSR on the basis of the type of gas. The
spreadsheet provides a basis to establish, justify and document procedures to quantify
project GHG emissions and removals for each SSR, using established emission factors (i.e.
referenced to a standardized, by a recognized authority). The spreadsheet includes all
assumptions that were required for performing a quantification of the emissions from each
project scenario.
57
The emission factors are provided in the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification
Spreadsheet in the “Emission Factors” worksheet. These emission factors are current as of
the date of this protocol. GHG quantification procedures used in the spreadsheet are
organized by category (A, B, C, D, E) and sub-categories (corresponding to the assessment
framework and the figure and table presenting SSRs).
The GHG Calculation Spreadsheet performs the calculations necessary to estimate GHG
emissions and/or emission factor for each SSR. Individual SSRs are then rolled up by the
spreadsheet to provide a total GHG emission rate for the project. This number can then be
normalized.
5.5.3 Guidance to Proponent
The project proponent should follow the procedure for selecting the quantification
methodology for the proponent‟s project as outlined in section 5.5.1. Where there are
existing quantification methodologies, either approved by the relevant GHG program, or
otherwise available, they should be considered for use.
In the event that there are two quantification methodologies with similar uncertainties, the
principle of conservativeness applies and the most conservative quantification methodology
should be selected. When there is not an obvious choice of quantification methodology
based on accuracy, the default choice should over-estimate the project emissions.
Once the project proponent has determined the quantification methodology, the project
documentation should list the identified SSRs, parameter data, whether directly measured,
estimated or documented sources, indicator/unit, reference, monitoring frequency and
rationale for quantification methodology selection and the errors. Table 6.14 in Annex 6.11
has been provided to show how this information may be documented. When using
customized (i.e. not standardized or established) quantification procedures, the proponent
shall provide sufficient documentation to allow for reproduction by independent parties.
The project proponent is refered to the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification
Spreadsheet in the “Guidance” worksheet for calculating GHG emissions related to the
proponent‟s specific project. When modification to the exisiting GHG quantification
spreadsheet is required, the project proponent is advised to build a new spreadsheet as
necessary to better represent his/her project.
Quantifying Uncertainty
The proponent shall establish, justify and document uncertainty analysis procedures to
quantify the uncertainty of project GHG emissions and removals quantified in the GHG
project report(s) according to Annex 6.8. Specifically, as much as possible, a level of
uncertainty should be determined and reported with each input and activity level in the
Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. Where precise uncertainty is
indeterminate, then a conservative estimate should be made.
58
To conduct a rigorous analysis of emissions and emission reduction uncertainties using
monitored data from the project, it is recommended that the proponent follow the
procedures for uncertainty estimation and propagation published by the IPCC in Good
Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
(IPCC, 2000), and in particular Chapter 6 of this document.
59
5.6 Step 6: Quantification of GHG Emission Reductions
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.8 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.6.1 Procedure to Quantify GHG emission reductions
The procedure used for calculating the GHG emission reductions was the process of
subtracting the project emissions from the baseline emissions.
A sensitivity analysis was also conducted to examine the variance in the resulting emission
reductions when project assumptions are changed. This analysis is accessible in the
supporting spreadsheet document in the “sensitivity” tab, which includes a list of
parameters, instructions and sensitivity results.
5.6.2 GHG emissions reductions
The GHG emission reductions calculated based on the above procedures are found in the
Biofuels in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet. Emission reductions, based
on the proponent‟s project inputs, are displayed in the “Detailed Results” worksheet, with a
high-level summary of results provided on the “Inputs & Summary” worksheet.
5.6.3 Guidance to Proponent
The proponent should consult the “Guidance” worksheet of the Biofuels in Transportation-
GHG Quantification Spreadsheet for how to use the spreadsheet to quantify GHG emission
reductions for the specific project. Annex 6.8 provides further guidance on uncertainty
analysis and Annex 6.9 provides guidance on sensitivity analysis for the project GHG
reductions and the baseline.
60
5.7 Step 7: Monitoring Activities for the Project and Baseline
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.10 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.7.1 Procedure for Measurement and Estimation Activities in the
Project and Baseline
In order to provide accurate and timely GHG emission reporting and quantification, it is
necessary to develop and prepare a monitoring plan. The objective of the monitoring plan is
to ensure adequate information is provided as evidence to fulfill the project objectives and
the needs of the intended user(s) (e.g. GHG program, technology advancement fund, etc.)
such as calculating the emission reductions that result from the project implementation.
The procedure for developing a monitoring plan for this protocol considered several issues.
As a first step, appropriate methodologies that will be useful in evaluating GHG emissions
and reductions are identified. Depending on the phase and activity of the Biofuels in
Transportation Project, different approaches can be used to provide such quantifications.
The methodology to evaluate the baseline emissions will also need to be identified.
The plan must include the monitoring procedures for all GHG emitting activities of the
project. It also must cover monitoring roles and responsibilities and GHG information
management systems.
It is easiest to develop the monitoring plan based on the parameter data required in the
project and baseline calculations. In some cases, the monitoring plan will specify different
parameter data than that required to perform the project design calculations, since the
quantification methodologies will be different between the project design and
implementation stage. In such a scenario, it is important to determine the quantification
methodology associated with the SSR and the associated parameter data during the
implementation phase. Usually, there are estimated or documented parameter data for the
project design stage and measured parameter data for the project implementation stage.
Once the monitoring parameters are determined, the selection of monitoring method for
each parameter depends on various considerations such as function, need for accuracy, and
economics. As previously mentioned, for this protocol monitoring is defined generally, to
include measurement, estimation, modelling, calculation and/or use of recognized reference
factors. More precise terms are also used here:
Direct measurement is the measurement of project-specific or baseline-specific GHG
emissions,
61
Estimating is the approximation of GHG emissions by measurement of other non GHG
project or baseline parameters (such as inputs, outputs or activity levels) and/or using
published data, recognized reference factors, calculations, etc.
The monitoring plan shall include both directly measured GHG emissions and all project
and baseline parameters relevant to the estimation of GHG emissions.
The selection of monitoring method depends on various considerations such as monitoring
objective, costs, access to information, etc.
The monitoring frequency will depend on the monitoring method, need for accuracy, and
the variability of the parameter data. In some cases, the the method itself will establish the
limits on the monitoring frequency (e.g., a data acquisition system that is capable of a
number of monitoring per second). Consequently, the need for accuracy and the variability
of the parameter are interrelated and the selection of the frequency of monitoring will
consider these factors. The higher the need for accuracy in the parameter data, and the
greater the variability in the data, the higher the frequency of measurements.
Once the monitoring method and frequency are determined, additional documentation is
required in the project documentation for the:
Justification of the selection of the monitoring method
Justification of the selection of the monitoring frequency
5.7.2 Monitoring/Estimations of Activities for the Project
Based on the requirements and discussion above, a monitoring template was developed for
this protocol. This template can be found in Table 6.14 (Annex 6.11). This table includes
both measured and estimated parameters. In this protocol, upstream SSRs before project
operation (Category A SSRs as described in section 5) are aggregated and represent only
major classifications of raw materials, because it is not practical or cost-effective to analyse
every raw material for all components that are part of a biofuel project.
5.7.3 Guidance to Proponent
The project proponent can modify Table 6.14 in Annex 6.11 based on the proponent‟s
project. The project proponent must monitor all activity levels associated with the relevant
SSRs, but the emissions might be estimated or directly monitored depending on the
situation. The project proponent should determine whether SSR emissions can be directly
monitored, accurately, completely and consistently, within the means and resources of the
project and whether direct monitoring of the SSR emission is justified on the basis of
benefits versus costs. If direct monitoring of the emission from a relevant SSR is not within
the means and resources of the project (i.e., not cost-effective), the emission shall be
estimated. Estimation shall follow the principles of conservativeness, completeness and
accuracy.
62
If the proponent decides to use emission factors other than the default emission factors
provided in this protocol for biofuel combustion, there is additional guidance to monitoring
of the project and baseline activities in Annex 6.10.
GHG information system
ISO 14064-2 (2006) requires that a GHG information management system be implemented.
The GHG information management system should consider the following. The data that
results from monitoring comprises the dynamic information that must be collected,
calculated, aggregated and reported. Static data (e.g., GWP, emission factors, etc.) must
also be maintained. It is recommended that the project proponent establish a systematic
method of collecting, maintaining, and storing this information. The GHG information
management system can be in hard copy (e.g., records, documents) or electronic (e.g.,
spreadsheets, databases) form. An adequate GHG information management system will
have sufficient and appropriate evidence to establish a data trail from data collection to
GHG information reporting. This GHG information management system will have
appropriate data controls to ensure that the information residing in the system is accurate
and complete. There is no universal GHG information management system because they
evolve to suit the needs of the project. Consequently, this protocol cannot specify a GHG
information management system. It can outline the principles of good information
management.
A good information management system is one that is capable of operating without
significant error, fault or failure during a specified period in a specific environment. The
underlying principles of good information management are: availability, security, integrity,
and maintainability. 1
Availability: The information management system is available for operation. This has
implications for the users of the system as they must be able to input new or revised
information into a system. It has implications for the users who access the information for
reporting and other purposes. It has implications for support personnel who monitor and
make system changes when needed.
Security: The information management system is protected against unauthorized physical
and logical access. This implies that access must be restricted to authorized users.
1
These principles are based on the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts,
Management's Discussion and Analysis - Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure, Part
2: General Disclosure Principles, May 2004 and have been modified to fit with TEAM
requirements and the climate change context [reference: Christine Schuh,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2005]
63
Integrity: The information management system processes the information completely,
accurately, timely and in an authorized manner. System processing addresses all systems
components and phases of processing (e.g., collection, calculation, aggregation, and
reporting). Sufficient data controls need to be established over the processing of dynamic
data and the changing of static data.
Maintainability: The information management system can be updated when required in a
manner that continues to provide system availability, security and integrity.
64
5.8 Step 8: Managing Data Quality
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.9 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.8.1 Procedure for Managing Data Quality
There was no specific procedure for managing data quality developed for this protocol
since this is a project-specific or company-specific issue. Consult guidance section below.
5.8.2 Guidance to Proponent
It is recommended that the project proponent establish and maintain quality assurance and
quality control plans and procedures, linked to the monitoring plan as appropriate, to
manage data and information relevant to the project and baseline.
Additionally, for biodiesel, data quality management should include a quality system such
as BQ-9000 Quality Management System Requirements for the Biodiesel Industry, which
includes quality management system requirements and Biodiesel sampling and testing
requirements. For ethanol, data quality management should include a quality system such
as Fuel Ethanol Industry Guidelines, Specifications and Procedures, which includes
information on quality assurance and test methods.
The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan establishes, justifies and
documents the criteria and procedures used to assure that SSRs controlled by the project
proponent are tested and monitored with known precision and reproducibility.
The QA/QC plan focuses specifically on those components that are controlled and those
that contribute to the GHG emissions profile/performance of the projects. It is necessary to
specify the QA/QC requirements used to establish the quality of the data controlled by the
proponent. This will include detailing how precision and accuracy will be presented.
Annex 6.5 provides a generic QA/QC plan, consistent with TEAM reporting requirements.
65
5.9 Step 9: Develop a Risk Management Plan
Under the requirements of SMART the project proponent is expected to develop a risk
management plan. Note that this is not a requirement under ISO, and is an important issue
under the TEAM program since it deals with new technologies. Refer to SMART for
further details on the SMART Protocol. See example in Section 6.0 (Annexes).
5.10 Step 10: Reporting the Project
The project proponent should refer to Section 5.13 in the ISO 14064-2 to determine the
necessary requirements.
5.10.1 Procedure to Report the Project
The reporting requirements of ISO 14064-2 and the SMART protocol were used in this
protocol.
5.10.2 Reporting the Project
The structure of this section follows the reporting requirements that have to be completed
by the project proponent for a GHG project. Reporting contents are also summarized in
Table 3.2 (see section 3).
5.10.3 Guidance to Report the Project
The reporting of the project should conform to the requirements specified by the GHG
scheme and by ISO requirements as noted above. The project proponent should refer to the
SMART (TEAM 2004) for further guidance on reporting the project.
Reporting principles
66
An important aspect of reporting is adequate disclosure. There are two principles
underlying adequate disclosure: materiality and usefulness. 2
1. Materiality assesses whether the information presented in the report should be
material to the decision-making needs of users. It is the project proponent‟s
responsibility to identify address and communicate quantitative and qualitative
information necessary for users to understand and evaluate the project‟s nature,
changes and future positions. Reports should be materially accurate at the time of
their release. Determining material information relies on judgment and experience.
If it is a borderline decision, the information should probably be considered
material.
2. Usefulness assesses whether the information presented should embody the qualities
of reliability, comparability, consistency over reporting periods, relevance and
understandability.
o Reliability – refers to information that is complete and offers a fair
presentation. It represents faithfully what it purports to represent and avoids
the use of excessive language. It is neutral, balanced, and free from material
error.
o Comparability – refers to sufficient information being provided so that
similarities and differences among time periods can be discerned and
evaluated.
o Consistency over reporting periods – significant information should be
updated and explained unless it becomes irrelevant. If it is irrelevant, why
this is so should be explained.
o Relevance – information that has feedback value and is timely.
o Understandability – the use of plain language and graphics to enhance
understanding
2
These principles are based on the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts,
Management's Discussion and Analysis - Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure, Part
2: General Disclosure Principles, May 2004 and have been modified to fit with TEAM
requirements and the climate change context [reference: Christine Schuh,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 2005]
67
6 Annexes
6.1 Terminology
Table 6.1 General Terminology
Term Abbreviation Definition
Affected SSR SSR influenced by a project activity by
changes in market demand or supply for
associated products or services.
“Leakage” in international GHG terminology.
Attribution Categorization of SSR as controlled, related or
affected.
Baseline The scenario which would have occurred in the
absence of the proponent‟s technology.
Controlled SSR SSR under the direction and influence of the
project proponent through ownership,
financial, policy, management or other
instruments.
Coproduct The case where an activity, process or
operation provides more than one product or
functional output.
Direct Measurement The measurement of project-specific or
baseline-specific GHG emissions
Downstream Refers to temporal positioning of activities that
must happen after the operation of the project.
Emission factor EF The conversion unit to convert activity data
into GHG emissions (e.g. intensity of
greenhouse gases). An emission factor may
refer to a combination of a specific fuel and
technology (e.g. Environment Canada National
Inventory emission factors) or an entire project
(project emission factor).
Estimation The approximation of GHG emissions by
measurement of other non GHG project or
baseline parameters (such as inputs, outputs or
activity levels) and/or using published data,
recognized reference factors, calculations, etc.
68
Global Warming Potential GWP A conversion factor for a specific GHG to
units of carbon-dioxide equivalent.
ISO principles The principles used to develop this protocol
are transparency, relevance, accuracy,
completeness, consistency, and
conservativeness [ISO 14064-2:2006]
Level of activity or Activity The size or magnitude of an SSR.
Level
Life cycle analysis LCA Compilation and evaluation of the inputs,
outputs and the potential environmental
impacts of a product system throughout its life
cycle. Also: life cycle assessment
Monitoring Defined generally, to include measurement,
estimation, modelling, calculation and/or use
of recognized reference factors.
See also: direct measurement, estimation
Project The proponent‟s specific technology/service
being assessed in this analysis with respect to a
baseline scenario.
Quantification Quantification refers to the general procedures
used to determine the GHG emissions from the
project and baseline.
Related SSR An SSR that is not directly controlled by the
proponent but is associated with the GHG
project by material and/or energy flows.
Source, Sink or Reservoir SSR An element identified in the project or baseline
that emits, removes or stores GHGs.
Upstream Refers to temporal positioning of activities that
must happen prior to the operation of the
project.
6.2 GHG programs
The project proponent should consider monitoring the status of the following initiatives.
6.2.1 Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM) and the System of
Measurement And Reporting for Technologies (SMART)
http://www.team.gc.ca/
69
Within the TEAM‟s Business Plan and Management Framework, TEAM is committed to
report the technical performance and GHG mitigation potential of TEAM funded projects.
The purpose of the SMART is to provide the basis, in terms of process, general
requirements and guidance, to develop and/or evaluate the project proponent‟s processes
and documentation to substantiate the technology performance claim(s) and assess the
GHG mitigation potential.
The SMART offers many benefits to both project proponents and government programs.
Project proponents benefit by establishing credibility, gaining experience and know-how,
showing leadership, building competitive advantage, maintaining constructive government
and public relations, and developing a network of partners and relationships to link to
technology markets, GHG markets, and government initiatives. The Government of
Canada benefits in the confidence and knowledge that its investments have real-world
results, are fiscally responsible, build capacity in the private sector, and reduce risks
associated with climate change.
6.2.2 Kyoto Protocol – Joint Implementation
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/ji/items/1674.php
Joint Implementation (JI) is a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol whereby Annex I
countries (e.g. Japan or European countries) can implement projects in other Annex I
countries (such as Canada) that result in GHG emission reductions or removals, and receive
credit in the form of emission reduction units (ERUs). ERUs can be used to help achieve
national emission targets under the protocol. Projects starting from the year 2000 that meet
JI requirements may be listed as JI projects, though ERUs may only be issued in relation to
periods from 2008 onwards.
6.2.3 Kyoto Protocol – Clean Development Mechanism
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/cdm/items/2718.php
The clean development mechanism (CDM) is a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol
whereby Annex I Parties can implement projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I
Parties, in return for Certified Emission Reductions (CERs). The CERs generated by such
project activities can be used by Annex I Parties to help meet their emissions targets under
the Kyoto Protocol. CDM projects are required to assist with sustainable development in
host countries, and meet other requirements. As with ERUs under Joint Implementation,
projects starting from the year 2000 that meet CDM requirements may be listed as CDM
projects, though CERs may only be issued in relation to periods from 2008 onwards.
6.2.4 European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU
ETS)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/emission.htm
70
The EU ETS is a multinational CO2 emissions trading scheme that covers approximately
12,000 facilities, representing nearly half of Europe‟s CO2 emissions, when it came into
effect in January 2005. The ETS is designed to assist EU member states in achieving their
target emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. The scheme is generally restricted to
the following sectors: energy activities, production and processing of ferrous metals, the
mineral industry, and some pulp and paper activities.
Under the scheme, each member nation develops a national plan that determines the total
quantity of national emission allowances available for allocation to companies, subject to
approval by the European Commission. At present, GHG reduction projects undertaken in
Canada would not be eligible to trade CO2 emission reductions into this scheme.
6.2.5 Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
http://www.rggi.org/
The RGGI is a cooperative effort among nine U.S. Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States to
develop a cap and trade trading scheme that will initially focus on CO2 emission from
electricity generation in the region. In the future, the scheme could be extended to other
sectors and greenhouse gases. Eastern Canadian Provinces and New Brunswick are
observers in the process.
71
6.3 Identification and Assessment of Risks Relevant to Biofuels in
Transportation Projects
Table 6.2: Generic risk management considerations
Identify Risk Assess Risk Mitigate Risk Manage Risk
Technical Risks
Equipment Preventative Implement a
malfunction or Maintenance Preventative
breakdown resulting in Program will Maintenance
interrupted operation minimize equipment Program
failure or breakdown
Availability of trained Trained maintenance Train in-house
maintenance staff staff will minimize maintenance staff
resulting in more the frequency and on the proper
frequent and longer period of down-time operation and
periods of down-time service of the
facility
Availability of local Local service Retain the services
service contractors contractors will of one or more local
resulting in more minimize the equipment service
frequent and longer frequency and period contractors
periods of down-time of downtime
Availability and access The availability of Maintain a stock of
to replacement parts replacement parts replacement parts
resulting in increased critical to the on-hand
length of down-time operation of the
specialized
equipment will
minimize the period
of downtime
Lack of maturity of
technology used,
resulting in interrupted
operation
Environmental & Health Risks
Force majeure – Minor An emergency Establish an
lightning strike, preparedness plan emergency
hurricane, ice storm, preparedness plan to
extreme weather deal with an
conditions, resulting in environmental
72
Identify Risk Assess Risk Mitigate Risk Manage Risk
equipment failure or catastrophe or major
down-time equipment failure
Observation of adverse Thorough
environmental impacts environmental impact
of project assessment fulfilling
fed/prov
requirements to
minimise potential
impacts and confirm
public acceptance
Market Risks
The potential Minor
development of a
(competing) superior
technology
Policy Risks
Changes to standard Minor None Consider the
industry practices financial impact of
resulting in a change the potential
of baseline and reduction carbon
reduction of GHG credits
reduction associated
with project
Changes to future Minor None Consider the
regulations which financial impact of
would change the the potential
baseline and reduce reduction carbon
available GHG credits
reductions that could
be claimed
Financial Risks
Financial
complications at the
proponent level,
resulting in inability to
pursue operation
73
6.4 Technology and SSR Categories Description
The following categories were used to determine default emission factors. (Make sure this
is mentioned in SSR section)
6.4.1 Upstream SSRs During Project Operation
Upstream SSRs During Project Operation are categorized as “B” in Figure 4.1.
Biomass Feedstock Production
Biofuels are produced from a variety of biomass feedstocks, including commodity
agricultural inputs (e.g., corn and canola seed), agricultural waste (e.g., wheat straw) and
animal by-products (e.g., tallow).
1) Commodity agricultural products: The inputs and outputs for the production of wheat,
corn, canola, and soybeans come from life cycle data developed for the USDA. The data
covers the entire USA, and is weighted by tillage practice. The inputs that generate GHG
emissions for this SSR include agricultural chemicals, fertilizers and fuels for harvesting
and transportation. While there is likely a wide range of values for each of these inputs –
depending on the size of the farm, weather, agricultural practice, etc. – this US-wide
average is representative and can be considered sufficiently conservative.
Note that other feedstocks for biofuels are possible, but were not included in this protocol.3
2) Agricultural waste products: Agricultural waste products (e.g., wheat straw) are
considered to be „burden free‟ since the agricultural activities that have emissions are due to
the production of the commodity crop. Most waste products are left on the field, burned or
cleared to produce a low value coproduct. Any GHG emissions for these waste products
come from the diesel fuel required to harvest the waste matter from the field and ship it to
the processing facility.
3) Animal by-products: beef tallow can be used to produce biodiesel. The beef waste is
generated at a slaughterhouse, and the beef fat is shipped to the processing plant to render
the tallow into an oil suitable for biodiesel production. Any GHG emissions for the animal
by-products comes from the collection and transport of the waste fat to the rendering plant.
3
Other potential biomass feedstocks for biodiesel include various oilseeds like mustard. For bioethanol,
switch grass, wood and other cellulostic sources have been suggested.
74
Biomass Feedstock Processing
Biobased feedstocks need additional processing before they are used to produce the
biofuels – biomass needs to be turned into and oil to produce biodiesel, and corn needs to
be milled prior to the production of bioethanol.
Biodiesel
The biodiesel production process consists of the transesterification of oils and fats. To
convert a biobased feedstock into oil, the feedstock requires:
1) For the soy or canola oil, the feedstock needs to be crushed to extract oil from the
seed/bean. The GHG emissions from this process come from the manufacturing of the
chemical inputs to the oil extraction process (e.g. hexane) and the energy required to mill
the agricultural material. The values used in the rollup numbers come from a generic
model of soybean oil production developed for the USDA. For canola oil, the process is
similar, though canola oil production is more efficient because the seed yields more oil than
soybeans.
2) For tallow, the beef fat needs to be thermally transformed into tallow. The process
requires inputs of natural gas and electricity, which are the two sources of CO2e emissions
for the facilities. The rolled up data for beef fat rendering comes from data provided by a
renderer, as reported by National Research Council [2002].
3) For used vegetable oil, the process is similar to the tallow production process. The
used oil is transformed into yellow grease using natural gas and electricity. The grease is
transported to the biodiesel plant for processing.
Bioethanol
Corn ethanoal plants are integrated: they combine feedstock processing with biofuel
production in a continuous process. In this report these two steps are considered together
under biofuel production
Biofuel Production
Biodiesel
The emission factors for biodiesel production come from two sources – a „generic‟ model
for biodiesel production produced for the US Biodiesel Board (USDA/NREL 1998, First
Environment) and the SMART BIOBUS (2004) TEAM project. While the generic biodiesel
production process and the BIOBUS example are similar, their emphasis is on different
feedstocks:
1. Biodiesel from soybean oil: the biodiesel production process is modeled using data
for the typical inputs and production yield from a standard biodiesel facility in the USA
(USDA/NREL 1998, First Environment). The data are, in general, representative of a
75
generic biodiesel production process. The GHG emissions come from energy inputs for
steam and electricity use. The canola process was modeled based on the soy oil process,
using a higher oil content for seed.
2. Biodiesel from tallow or yellow grease: the biodiesel data for the production of the
fuel from rendered tallow or yellow grease. The data comes from the SMART BIOBUS
(2004) report, and the emissions are driven by energy inputs and raw material consumed in
the process.
Bioethanol
For Bioethanol production, the data focuses on the production of ethanol from cornstarch
and the production of ethanol from agricultural waste via either the enzymatic or
concentrated acid process.
For corn bioethanol, the corn is either dry milled or wet milled. Wet milling produces more
co-products than dry milling. For the rolled up data, the ethanol production process is
aggregated with the data for the corn wet and dry milling, since a number these plants
operate inline, making it difficult to segregate out the emissions specific to just the starch
processing stages. The emissions from wet and dry milling come mainly from energy inputs
at the plant and a few ancillary chemicals.
1) Bioethanol from corn: the data for ethanol production is aggregated with the data
for the upstream processing of the corn to produce starch – corn wet milling or dry milling.
The CO2e emission from these two processes comes primarily from energy inputs to the
process.
2) Bioethanol, concentrated acid: cellulose can be converted into ethanol through acid
hydrolysis of the biomass. The inputs to the production process include ammonia, lime,
sulphuric acid and steam, and the aggregate emissions contain the values for these inputs as
well. The values for the model represent feedstock material that is about 65% cellulose and
hemicellulose.
3) Bioethanol, enzymatic: cellulose can also be converted into ethanol through the
enzymatic conversion of the biomass into sugars. The production process includes steam,
lime, ammonia and electricity. Most of the CO2e for this SSR comes from the production
steam to drive the process.
76
6.5 Managing Data Quality
Note: the following QA/QC plan guidance is modified from QA/QC procedures prepared by
ETV Canada Inc.
6.5.1 Introduction
It is recommended that the project proponent establish and maintain quality assurance and
quality control plans and procedures, linked to the monitoring plan as appropriate, to
manage data and information relevant to the project and baseline.
The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) plan establishes, justifies and
documents the criteria and procedures used to assure that elements owned and/or controlled
by the project proponent are tested and monitored with known precision and
reproducibility.
The QA/QC plan focuses specifically on those elements and components that are controlled
and those that contribute to the GHG emissions profile/performance of the projects. It is
necessary to specify the QA/QC requirements used to establish the quality of the data
generated on site. This will include detailing how precision and accuracy will be presented,
where:
Precision is the agreement between repeated measurements of the same quantity; and
Accuracy is the agreement between a measurement and an accepted or known value.
Quality Assurance
Quality assurance is defined as the management system that is in place to ensure that QC
procedures are being performed correctly. Quality assurance (QA) is a set of operating
principles that, if strictly followed during sample collection and analysis, will produce data
of known and defensible quality, namely, the accuracy of the result can be stated with a
high level of confidence. Quality assurance planning includes the following:
Cover sheet with plan approval;
Staff organization and responsibilities;
Sample control and documentation procedures;
Calibration procedures;
Internal quality control activities;
Data assessment procedures for accuracy and precision, and data reduction, validation, and
reporting.
Quality Control
77
Quality control is defined as the procedures established and observed in the field/on site to
ensure that the end results of testing and monitoring activities meet the intended data
quality objectives. Quality control is a technical document that specifies activities required
to achieve data quality objectives and describes how all data are assessed for precision,
accuracy, completeness, comparability, and compatibility.
Sections of the Plan
The QA/QC plan includes the following sections:
Samples
Analytical methodology
Quality control (for the technology and for the monitoring and the analysis of samples)
Instrument/equipment calibration and frequency
Assessment of data during the project
Data review, verification and validation
Reporting
The project proponent is advised to consider the guidance established by the US EPA and
ETV Canada for quality assurance plans and quality control procedures in addition to
guidance presented here.
6.5.2 Samples
No testing or monitoring program will result in the generation of a sole data set. The data
generated during testing and monitoring will instead consist of several related data sets.
Generally, the data collected can be categorized as either performance parameters, or
operating conditions.
Performance parameters:
Parameters that provide direct measures of the activity of the project or baseline system,
such as amount of energy consumed, amount of product produced, etc.
Operating Conditions:
Any parameter, variable, or condition that has, or could have, a significant impact on
system performance should be considered an operating condition. For instance, climatic
conditions could be considered operating conditions.
Replication and Number of Samples
In order that individual system anomalies be accounted for it is generally recommended
that at least three replicates (the minimum number of replicates for statistical acceptability)
located in the same area, same size range, and having the same types of loads should be
monitored. If the systems are significantly different, then the uncertainty of the data
78
collected from each is increased and will reduce the confidence level of the projected GHG
emission reductions.
Number of Samples
The number of samples for testing or monitoring must be sufficient to demonstrate the
desired 95% confidence of the results. For the data to be statistically robust, a minimum of
ten data points from each sampling location must be collected to constitute an acceptable
“data set”. A preferred statistically sound data set requires about 30 data points. A 95%
level of confidence level is generally the peer review quality accepted objective.
When determining savings, one is estimating a difference level rather than measuring the
level of consumption, therefore a greater absolute precision is required. Typically, when
determining difference, a larger sample size is recommended than that for measuring the
level of consumption (IPMVP, 2002).
Sampling Frequency and Period
Sampling times or „frequency‟ refers to the number of times during the test or monitoring
period that the samples are to be collected. As a minimum, the sample frequency must
provide a reasonable characterization of system performance under the operating conditions
identified. In general, sampling intervals should be chosen based on the expected
frequency of changes. In practical applications, this may vary from as little as 5 minutes or
less to as long as 1 hour or more within each sample.
Sampling period refers to the length of time that the monitoring plan is in place. Seasonal
variations in natural systems necessitate sampling over each of the seasons. A minimal
study period for a project is typically one year in order to capture performance under an
entire seasonal cycle (except where a project system is not operating for a particular portion
of the year due to ice, etc.).
Sampling Records
Records of sampling and equipment maintenance must be kept current and accessible for
review. Records must include:
Date and time of all sampling activity.
Sample identifications
Sample collection method (e.g. data acquisition system);
Identification of sampling staff;
Malfunctions and corrective action taken;
Maintenance log including frequency and type of maintenance performed on equipment,
etc.,
Calibration and repair log for on-line analyzers
Any other relevant information.
79
Any sampling malfunctions/problems during sample collection should be reported and
recorded.
Sampling Chain of Custody
It is essential to insure sample integrity from collection to data reporting. This includes the
ability to trace possession of the data throughout the data collection, analysis, and reporting
process. This is referred to as chain of custody and is important in demonstrating data
control when litigation is involved. This will also prove useful when justifying data quality
during verification audits.
Records should be maintained regarding chain of custody. Where data will be collected,
stored and transferred electronically, chain of custody can be demonstrated through
computer-generated logs of data collection and transfer times. In the case of manually
monitored and collected data (e.g. reading a thermometer), or where electronic data is
transferred manual via CD, memory stick, etc., a chain of custody record should
accompany the data. This record should include:
Data label, including description;
Signature of collector / transferor;
Date, time, and address of collection / transfer;
Data type;
Data analysis request sheet; and
Signature of persons involved in the chain of possession, including dates.
6.5.3 Analytical Methodology
The section of the QA/QC plan on analytical methodology should document all the
methods used to analyze collected data, and methods should be clearly referenced or
justified. Any modifications to existing methods or in-house methods should be explained
and validated. In case of an in-house method, the standard operating procedure (SOP)
should be referenced and included in the appendix.
All the instrumentation/equipment used for the analyses should be listed, and the level of
accuracy, precision and bias obtained from the analyses should be discussed. If third
parties perform certain analysis, then a list of these analyses as well as the turn-around time
expected should be provided, and the credentials of the third parties documented.
6.5.4 Quality Control
The section on quality control may be divided in two different categories:
Quality control on the process (technology);
Quality control for the collection and analysis of samples.
Quality Control on the Process (Technology)
80
The section for the quality control of the technology should include the standard operating
procedures (SOPs) and the maintenance requirements.
The SOPs should detail the procedures for the start-up, operation and shut down of the
technology. The health & safety requirements and the SOPs should be read and understood
by the personnel working with the technology.
Quality Control of the Data Collection
The section on quality control for the collection and analysis of samples should contain
information about the activities undertaken to assess/demonstrate the reliability and
confidence of the data obtained.
Data collection must provide sufficient quality data to help assess the validity of the
technology. A data collection quality control checklist (Table 6.3) is provided to guide and
ensure that quality data is generated. Many of the items identified in the checklist have been
previously described. However, those criteria requiring explanation are explained below.
Table 6.3 Quality Control Criteria Checklist
Minimum Standard
Test Criterion
Established
Personnel
Credentials and Contact Information
Health, Safety & Training Requirements
Operating Conditions
Number of Samples
Sampling Times/Frequency
Sample Chain of Custody
Calibration
Monitoring Process
Data Collection
Data Storage and Archiving
Personnel
The personnel responsible for collecting the data must be identified. They must have an
acceptable level of knowledge and experience related to the equipment used and data to be
collected. The ideal system for this application would have data loggers installed at each
unit and collectively connected to a central database facility.
Credentials and Contact Information
Names and credentials should be supplied for personnel involved with the following:
Calibration of all data acquisition systems (DAS) (list for each DAS element; all site DAS
calibration should be done by one person at one location)
81
Installation of DAS at the project sites (list for each DAS element):
Commissioning of DAS at project sites (list for each DAS element):
Health, Safety & Training Requirements
Training must be provided to the operators to ensure effective, efficient and safe work.
Training materials should cover both operation and safety aspects. A simple checklist can
be prepared to ensure that the requirements for Health and Safety and Training have been
satisfied by the testing agency and by each participant in the demonstration testing. An
example of this checklist is presented in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4 System Operations, Health, Safety, and Training Requirements Checklist
Requirement Acknowledged
User Manual(s) Provided
Standard Operating Practices Available
Operation & Maintenance Procedures Specified
MSDS Available
WHMIS Information Posted
Safety Plan Developed
Emergency Response Plan Prepared
Protective Equipment Identified
Off Site “Hands On” Training Provided
On Site “Hands On” Training Provided
Data Storage and Archiving
To ensure the security of data after collection, it is necessary to develop procedures for
storing and archiving data.
These procedures are intended to guard against accidental loss or corruption of data, due for
instance to computer malfunction, fire, etc.
6.5.5 Instrument/Equipment Calibration and Frequency
This section identifies when and how the different instruments / equipment maintenance
and calibration will be done. The procedures followed for the maintenance and the
calibration of the instruments, the standards utilized, the frequency of the calibrations and
the acceptable errors should be documented. The procedure followed to record the
calibrations and the maintenance work should also be documented. The detection limit of
each instrument used for analysis should also be documented. Any SOPs containing this
information may be included in the appendices. The project proponent should submit
credentials of any third parties performing monitoring or analysis.
It is highly recommended that instrumentation be calibrated with procedures by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Usually, sensors and metering
82
instrumentation are selected based in part on the ease of calibration and the ability to hold
calibration (IPMVP, 2002).
6.5.6 Data Assessment
The data assessments to identify potential problems early in the project and allow for
corrections may include the following: surveillance, proficiency testing and technical audits
of field, laboratory or data management activities. The frequency of these assessments
during the span of the project should be justified and documented.
Data assessment is an iterative activity. Initial results should be evaluated and compared to
expectations from the proposed experimental design. Deviations from expected results
should be investigated to determine if the deviations are due to unusual operating
conditions or unexpected feed conditions. If the deviations are actually unexpected
responses, then changes to the experimental design, operating conditions or feed conditions
can be made early in the program to continue with testing that satisfies the test objectives. It
is important to note that these data represent a “start up” situation, but may not be
acceptable for long term demonstration of the technology performance.
Although a detailed data assessment naturally follows the data collection process, it is
important to at least identify how the data will be assessed for the specific application. The
assessment strategy has a direct impact on the quantity and quality of data to be collected. It
therefore warrants consideration during the design of the testing program.
Data should be assessed based on the principles of relevance and quality. A number of
criteria must be met with regard to both of these principles. To complement the relevance
and quality criteria for assessing data, the following are examples of additional tools
available for evaluating raw data generated during the testing and monitoring programs.
Development and/or use of mathematical equations to describe relationships between key
variables in a process. These equations could be used to compare predicted with observed
results.
Mass and/or energy balances around a process to ensure that all major inputs and outputs
are accounted.
Statistical techniques to determine means, variances and confidence limits for measured
data, and to test hypotheses (i.e., claims).
Measurement Uncertainty
Uncertainty in the measurement of system parameters (including greenhouse gas emissions
and reductions) needs to be taken into consideration when monitoring and evaluating the
performance and impacts of projects. For example, for GHG emission reduction
measurements, uncertainties include the following (Vine and Sathaye, 1999):
The use of simplified representations with averaged values, i.e. emission factors.
83
The uncertainty in the scientific understanding of the basic processes leading to emissions
and removals for non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases.
The uncertainty in measuring the project baselines, which can‟t be directly measured or are
fully representative.
The accuracy of the measurements can be improved in two general ways (IPMVP, 2002):
1. Reducing biases by using measured values in place of assumed or stipulated values.
2. By reducing random errors, either by increasing the sample sizes, using a more
efficient sample design, or/and applying better measurement technique such as the use of
data logging and an automated central data collection facility.
The precision of measurements and results should be reported in one of the two following
ways (Vine and Sathaye, 1999):
1. Quantitatively: by specifying the standard deviation around the mean for a bell-shaped
distribution, or providing confidence intervals around mean estimates.
2. Qualitatively: by indicating the general level of precision of the measurement i.e. low,
medium or high.
6.5.7 Data Review, Verification and Validation
This section includes the procedure followed when reviewing the data obtained. It is a final
review of the data to determine whether it is accepted or rejected. The calculations are
reviewed, the templates are inspected to ensure that all the data has been properly entered,
and the chain of custody is reviewed.
The verification process is the evaluation of the conformance/compliance of the data set to
the methods or procedures outlined in this plan, for example, the location of the samples
taken, the sampling methods used, etc.
The validation process goes above and beyond the review and verification. It focuses on
the specific needs of the project and determines whether or not the data obtained meets
these needs. The process is performed to ensure that the project stakeholders make
decisions based on relevant and accurate data.
6.5.8 Reporting
Upon completion of the monitoring program and data analysis (or periodically for long-
term monitoring), a monitoring report should be prepared which contains all raw and
analyzed data, description of the methods used for data collection and analysis, QA/QC
description and plan.
84
6.6 Selecting the Baseline Scenario
This section is provided to guide the proponent, should they desire to select another
baseline than the one developed in this protocol.
6.6.1 General methods
Four methods for selecting the baseline scenario are generally considered:
1. Project specific method, which uses a project-specific procedure and information on
the specific circumstances of the project to select the baseline scenario. For
example, some project specific considerations may include:
o current practice
o planned changes or upgrades
o standard or regulated industrial practice
2. GHG performance standard method, which identifies existing or planned activities,
plants, or practices to establish a performance standard, which is used as the
baseline emissions.
o standard or regulated industrial practice
o best available technology or superior industrial practice
o emerging technology or alternative practice
3. Retrofit procedure, which uses historical emissions for baseline emissions.
4. Consideration of any relevant GHG program baseline requirements.
The project-specific method is most appropriate for Biofuel in Transportation projects
because it is one of the four generally accepted practices, and when properly applied, with
documented criteria and assumptions, it satisfies the principles of relevance, transparency,
completeness and accuracy.
A GHG performance standard method could be very complex for transportation projects
because of the many differences in transportation services (ridership, modal switch, type of
vehicle, type of fuel, composition of transportation fleet, etc.). Another issue with the use
of the performance standard is that transportation service performance (i.e. fuel economy,
efficiency of services) is very dependent on the environmental conditions (i.e. snow, cold
weather). In Canada, considering all the complex relationships between these parameters,
85
there is not a sufficient dataset to establish a performance standard. Even if a Performance
Standard could be established, it may be expensive.
Given that Biofuels in Transportation projects are based on a fuel switch and do not involve
a change of equipment, the retrofit procedure is not applicable.
Lastly, no GHG program baseline requirements are presently in effect.
6.6.2 Considerations for Selecting Baseline Scenario for Biofuels in
Transportation Projects
The selection of the baseline using the project-specific method can be conducted by
assessing several potential baselines and selecting the most appropriate and conservative
scenario.
The selection of the baseline is a two-step process for ensuring that the baseline selected is
comparable to the project and that it represents the “business-as-usual” scenario. The
following questions can be used to select the Biofuels in Transportation projects baseline:
Step 1: Is the baseline comparable to the project?
Does the baseline provide the same service as the project?
Does the baseline have the similar operational capabilities as the project?
Does the baseline have the similar operational lifespan as the project?
Step 2: Does the baseline represent the “business as usual” scenario?
Does it represent what could have happened in the absence of the project?
Is it standard industry practice or the predominant process/technology in the industry
today?
Step 3: Is the baseline conservative?
Is it the conservative choice?
6.6.3 Project-specific Method
In selecting the baseline scenario for Biofuels in Transportation using the project-specific
method, there are a number of considerations for selecting the scenario that would best
represent what would have happened in the absence of the project:
The transportation service provided: What fuel, vehicle mode or transport service would
have been provided otherwise? Would the service have been equivalent?
The biomass baseline: What would have happened to the agricultural production or biomass
product in the absence of the project? Would it have been produced? How would it have
been used otherwise?
86
Co-products: Would any co-products have been produced alternatively? Would an
alternative product (e.g. petroleum based glycerine vs. bio-based glycerine) have been
produced in the absence of the project? Would the alternative be equivalent?
These issues are considered below in the context of the protocol requirements.
Equivalence of service
ISO 14064-2 section 5.4 requires the project proponent to select or establish criteria and
procedures for identifying and assessing potential baseline scenarios, wherein the baseline
is equivalent to the project in type and level of activity of products or services. This is
further supported in ISO 14064-2 section A.2.4, which states that using functionally
equivalent units (i.e. the same level of service is provided by the project and the baseline
scenario) is part of satisfying the consistency principle; and section A.3.3.1, which states
that to ensure an appropriate comparison of the project and baseline … the services,
products or function generally include a quantitative measure, and demonstrate functional
equivalence.
The project proponent shall select and justify the baseline scenario on the basis of
equivalence of service of the project system and the baseline scenario. Equivalence of
service ensures that the baseline is a fair comparison to and an accurate representation of
what would have happened in the absence of the project.
The project proponent shall make a statement regarding the degree of comparability of the
baseline scenario to the project system. The project proponent shall also justify any
weaknesses, lack of or risks of lack of comparability (and/or lack of equivalence) between
the project system and the baseline scenario.
Deviations in equivalency are sometimes unavoidable, in which case, the baseline shall be
constructed so as to be conservative towards the measurement of GHG emissions reduction,
and any deviations should be justified.
Transportation service
In the case of this Biofuels in Transportation protocol, the core service provided by the
project is transportation. For biofuels used in transportation, the common functional unit for
the service will be amount of fuel used, the distance travelled, and the time over which
transportation service is provided. The details of the service may include characteristics that
are required in a statement of equivalence of service, such as specific distance, type or
mode of transportation, power output or profile of engines, vehicle reliability, or similar
function(s) provided by or related to the fuel. The same and equivalent power service needs
to be provided by the baseline scenario.
Co-Products
Biofuels systems are intended to provide a core service of fuel or transportation. The
production of both biofuels generates other products, which are recovered and used in other
87
product systems. They are considered as coproducts. Examples of co-products, services or
functions that may be present in the broadest scope of a biofuel projects include:
waste management service (e.g. disposal of restaurant grease)
enhanced agricultural performance (e.g. removal of wheat straw may enhance crop growth)
by-product food crops (e.g. soy protein from soy bean for soy oil as biomass feedstock for
biodiesel)
animal feed (e.g. canola meal by-product for use in feed blend)
industrial commodities (e.g. corn oil, corn sugars in various forms from milling processes)
industrial chemical production (e.g. glycerine by-product from biodiesel production)
energy (e.g. by-product steam or power energy from bioethanol production)
The treatment of these kinds of co-products is an important consideration for biofuel
systems, and needs to be addressed in one of two ways:
Co-product allocation, at the SSR level. This approach does an apportioning or allocating
of energy resources, raw materials, pollutants, etc. from the common (shared) production
steps to the specific product being studied (i.e. the fuel) and the coproducts. Inputs and
outputs of the common steps can be partitioned across the coproducts on various bases,
including (for example): mass, dry mass, energy content, economic value.
o In this Protocol, allocations have been used for the biofuels SSRs, as
documented in the source references. See section 4.1.1.3 on production
assumptions used for the default values.
Baseline expansion, where for each particular good or service provided as a function of the
project system, the baseline system must be constructed to provide an equivalent function
For example, if a co-product of biodiesel production is bio-glycerine, it might be matched
by traditionally produced petroleum glycerine; or if the biofuel system provides a service of
agro-waste disposal, the baseline system might use composting as a means of providing the
equivalent waste management service.
Regardless, system functions must be identified for both the project and baseline, and then
the equivalence of functions must be carefully correlated between the project system and
the baseline system. Identification and relevance of SSRs may need to be readdressed if
equivalency is not obtained.
Biomass baseline effects
With respect to the biomass baseline, this protocol assumes that the biomass feedstock
production is dedicated to feedstocks used in the GHG project for Biofuels in
Transportation. In practice this means that it is assumed that there are no economic affects
(leakage).
Biofuels is a young and emerging sector in Canada, therefore there is a potential for market
changes to result from increases in biofuels activities. This protocol is limited to
consideration of known activities only. Thus, it is assumed in the guidance/requirements
88
that quantifications are provided on a business-as-usual basis and that activities associated
with biofuels are assumed to be equal to average (or typical) production in the sector. This
means that incremental changes to agricultural production, as a result of biofuels activities,
are assumed to be similar to present average activities. In particular, this is important given
that, if biofuels production were to increase substantially, there would be both/either a
redirection of existing agricultural capacity and/or growth in new capacity. This would lead
to changes in environmental, social and market impacts (market leakage) that are difficult
to predict and are not considered here.
The following discussion considers answers to the questions:
What would have happened to the agricultural production or biomass product in the
absence of the project?
How would it have been used otherwise?
Affected baseline SSRs
In the case of main commodity products (like canola oil, corn sugar/starch or animal
tallow), it is assumed that economic production of these quantities would not have
happened otherwise.
Baseline scenarios should consider appropriate diversion activities on a feedstock specific
and region specific basis. Activities in the project need to be considered carefully for co-
products, and potential baselines to reflect the co-products need to be considered.
Related baseline SSRs
There are numerous potential related baseline SSRs that concern biomass feedstock
production and processing:
combustion of biomass, e.g. field burning of agricultural waste
waste disposal of biomass, e.g. animal wastes
industrial use of biomass chemicals, e.g. animal tallow
alternative use of biomass in forestry products
high value use of agricultural biomass as animal feed (e.g. corn, hay)
low value use of agricultural biomass (e.g. animal bedding use of straw)
Time period
An important consideration in all baselines is that the baseline scenario must cover the
same time period as the project. A statement shall be made regarding the comparability of
the time period of the baseline scenario to the project. Any differences in time period
between the project system and the baseline scenario shall be justified.
89
6.7 Default Identified SSRs for Project and Baseline
6.7.1 Default SSRs for Project
Table 6.5 presents the results of applying the systems approach procedure to identify
default SSRs for biofuel projects, as well as proposed default attribution of the SSRs.
Table 6.5 Overview Table of Default Identified SSRs Relevant for the Biofuels in
Transportation Project
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
Category A – Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation
A1 Production and Transportation of Materials & Energy (Used in Manufacturing
Project Components)4
The upstream production SSRs incorporate activities associated with the conversion of raw
materials (e.g. iron ore, lime, petroleum) and energy into useable products (e.g. steel,
cement, fibreglass). In subsequent stages of the life cycle, these useable products are
transported and then manufactured into vehicle and biofuel facility components. The
upstream transportation SSRs include all that is involved in the transport of the upstream
production SSRs (e.g. steel, aluminium, fibreglass, etc.) to the site where they will be
transformed into the components. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation.
A.1.1 Steel Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
steel (all different types,
including cast iron) and
transportation to
manufacturing facility.
A.1.2 Aluminium Refers to aggregated sources Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
aluminium and
transportation to
4
As described elsewhere in this document, these sources represent the main activities
and inputs/outputs relevant in this part of the life-cycle for the project.
90
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
manufacturing facility.
A.1.3 Polymer Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
polymer and transportation
to manufacturing facility.
A.1.4 Fibreglass Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
fibregalss and transportation
to manufacturing facility.
A.1.5 Copper Production Refers to aggregated source Related
& Transportation representing all activities,
inputs of materials and
energy for production of
copper and transportation to
manufacturing facility.
Other Material Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
other materials such as
HDPE, oil/grease, paint used
in the various components of
the vehicles and biofuel
facility.
A.2 Manufacturing of Project Components
The upstream manufacturing SSRs include all energy inputs required to transform the
upstream production SSRs (e.g. steel, aluminium, fibreglass, etc.) into components and
ultimately entire upstream manufacturing SSRs (e.g. vehicles). Emissions associated with
the main material inputs have already been accounted for in the „Production‟ stage of the
life cycle (e.g. for steel production, aluminium production, etc.). As such, the main input
for the manufacturing of the vehicles and biofuel facility components from the upstream
production SSRs will be a form of energy, such as electricity, diesel, etc.
A.2.1 Vehicle Refers to all activities Related
Manufacturing involved in manufacture of
vehicles.
A2.2 Biofuel Facility Refers to all activities Related
Components involved in manufacture of
Manufacturing components for the biofuel
plant.
91
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
A.3 Transportation of Components to Project Site
The transportation of main project components (e.g. vehicle) from the manufacturer sites to
the project site. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation.
A3.1 Vehicle Refers to transport of vehicle Related
Acquisition to project site
A3.2 Biofuel facility Refers to transport of Related
Components components from the biofuel
transportation plant to project site
A.4 Site Preparation Installation and Commissioning
Site preparation refers to construction of access roads, cutting trees and clearing the
overburden, levelling/preparing the ground and construction of support structures.
Installation refers to building and assembly structures and components. Commissioning
refers to start-up phase. Emissions for planning, assessments, engineering, travel, etc. are
also estimated.
A4.1 Biofuel Facility Refers to all activities Related
involved in the installation
and commissioning of the
biofuel plant
Category B - Upstream SSRs During Project Operation
B.1 Production of Project Inputs
B1.1 Biomass Feedstock Refers to all activities Related
Production involved in the seed
production, tillage, fertilizer
and pesticide application,
crop residue management,
irrigation, harvesting.
B1.2 Biomass Feedstock -For Canola and Soy (Refers Related
Processing to all activities involved in
the transportation to the mill,
storage, seed preparation, oil
extraction, meal processing,
oil recovery, solvent
recovery and oil
degumming).
-For Corn (Refers to all
activities involved in the wet
milling of raw corn to
produce corn oil and other
by products. Allocation
between products based on
mass.)
-For tallow & yellow grease
rendering (Refers to all
92
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
activities involved in the
processing of waste fats to
refine the oil for use as feed
to biodiesel process.)
B1.3 Chemicals Refers to all activities Related
Production involved in the processing
and distribution of chemicals
B1.4 Biofuels Refers to all activities Related
Production involved in the
transportation of input and
the energy required for the
production of biodiesel
B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site
B2.1 Biomass Feedstock Refers to all activities Related
Transportation involved in the
transportation of the biomass
feedstock to the mill or plant
B2.2 Processed Biomass Refers to all activities Related
Transportation involved in the
transportation of the
processed biomass feedstock
to the biofuel production
plant
B2.3 Chemical Refers to all activities Related
Transportation involved in the
transportation of the
chemicals to the biofuel
production plant
B2.4 Biofuels Refers to all activities Related
Transportation involved in the
transportation of the biofuel
to the distributor or project
site
Category C - Onsite Project SSRs
C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s)
C1.1 Biodiesel use Refers to all activities Owned
involved in the
use/combustion of biofuels
C1.2 Transportation Refers to all activities Owned
Service involved in the operation of
vehicle for transportation
purposes
C.2 Maintenance
93
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
C2.1 Maintenance Includes all ancillary inputs Owned
(fluids, maintenance parts,
etc.) and other maintenance
activities.
Category D - Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
D.1 Transportation of Product(s)
D.2 Use of Product(s)/Service(s)
D.3 Waste Management
Category E – Downstream SSRs after Project Termination
E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration
E1.1 Decommissioning Includes all Owned
decommissioning activities
for the vehicle
E.2 Waste Management
E2.1 Transport of Waste Refers to transportation of Owned
waste to recycling and
landfilling for the project
components and structures
E2.2 Waste Includes the landfill Related
Management emissions, refurbishing
emissions and the recycling
emissions
6.7.2 Default SSRs for Baseline
Table 6.6 presents the results of applying the systems approach procedure to identify
default SSRs for Biofuels in Transportation projects, as well as proposed default attribution
of the SSRs.
Table 6.6 Overview Table of Default Identified SSRs Relevant for Baseline Scenarios
of Biofuels in Transportation Projects
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
Category A – Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation
A.1 Production and Transportation of Materials & Energy
A.1.1 Steel Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
steel (all different types,
including cast iron) and
transportation to
94
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
manufacturing facility.
A.1.2 Aluminium Refers to aggregated sources Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
aluminium and
transportation to
manufacturer of vehicle
components.
A.1.3 Polymer Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
polymer and transportation
to manufacturer of vehicle
components.
A.1.4 Fibreglass Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
fibreglass and transportation
to manufacturer of vehicle
components.
A.1.5 Copper Production Refers to aggregated source Related
& Transportation representing all activities,
inputs of materials and
energy for production of
copper and transportation to
manufacturer of vehicle
components.
A1.7 Other Material Refers to aggregated source Related
Production & representing all activities,
Transportation inputs of materials and
energy for production of
other materials such as
HDPE, oil/grease, paint used
in the various components of
the vehicles.
A.2 Manufacturing of Project Components
95
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
The upstream manufacturings SSRs include all energy inputs required to transform the
upstream production SSRs (e.g. steel, aluminium, fibreglass, etc.) into components and
ultimately entire upstream manufacturing SSRs (e.g. vehicles). Emissions associated with
the main material inputs have already been accounted for in the „Production‟ stage of the
life cycle (e.g. for steel production, aluminium production, etc.). As such, the main input
for the manufacturing of the vehicles from the upstream production SSRs will be a form of
energy, such as electricity, diesel, etc.
A.2.1 Vehicle Refers to all activities Related
Manufacturing involved in manufacture of
vehicles.
A2.2 Fossil Fuel Facility Refers to all activities Related
Component involved in manufacture of
Manufacturing components for the Fossil
fuel plant.
A.3 Transportation of Components to Project Site
The transportation of main project components (e.g. vehicle) from the manufacturer sites to
the project site. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation.
A.3.1 Vehicle Refers to transport of vehicle Related
Acquisition to project site
A3.2 Fossil Fuel Refers to all activities Related
component involved in the
transportation transportation of
components for the Fossil
fuel plant.
A.4 Site Preparation Installation and Commissioning
Site preparation refers to construction of access roads, cutting trees and clearing the
overburden, levelling/preparing the ground and construction of support structures.
Installation refers to building and assembly structures and components. Commissioning
refers to start-up phase. Emissions for planning, assessments, engineering, travel, etc. are
also estimated.
A4.1 Fossil Fuel Refers to all activities Related
Facility involved in the installation
and commissioning of the
Fossil Fuel plant
Category B - Upstream SSRs During Project Operation
B.1 Production of Project Inputs
The upstream Production of Project Inputs SSRs include all energy and materials required
to produce the fuel and the chemicals required for that fuel production.
B1.1 Crude Oil Refers to all materials and Related
Extraction energy required for the
extraction of crude oil
B1.2 Fossil Fuel Refers to all the Related
Production transportation of the crude
96
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
oil and the energy required
for the production of fossil
fuels (i.e. gasoline, diesel,
etc…)
B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site
The transportation of the project inputs from the production site to the project site to the
project site. Modes may include land, rail, sea or air transportation.
B2.1 Crude Oil Refers to all activities Related
Transportation involved transportation of
the crude oil to the refining
plant
B2.2 Fossil Fuel Refers to all activities Related
Transportation involved in the
transportation of the Fossil
fuels to the project site
C. Onsite Project SSRs
C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s)
C1.1 Engine Operation Refers to all activities Owned
(Fossil Fuel use) involved in the
use/combustion of fossil
fuels
C1.2 Transportation Refers to all activities Owned
Service involved in the operation of
vehicle for transportation
purposes
C.2 Maintenance
C2.1 Maintenance Includes all ancillary inputs Owned
(fluids, maintenance parts,
etc.) and other maintenance
activities.
D. Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
D.1 Transportation of Product(s)
D.2 Use of Product(s)/Service(s)
D.3 Waste Management
E. Downstream SSRs after Project Termination
E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration
E1.1 Decommissioning Includes all Owned
decommissioning activities
for the vehicle
E.2 Waste Management
E2.1 Transport of Waste Refers to transportation of Owned
waste to recycling and
landfilling for the project
97
SSR Identifier SSR Name SSR Description Default
Attribution
components and structures
E2.2 Waste Includes the landfill Owned
Management emissions, refurbishing
emissions and the recycling
emissions
98
6.8 Quantifying Uncertainty
The following discussion is meant to guide project proponents in handling uncertainty.
6.8.1 Uncertainty approach
Sources of uncertainty in the quantification of emissions include scientific uncertainty,
parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty, and uncertainty propagation.
Scientific uncertainty is related to incomplete knowledge of emission processes – or
example global warming potentials. These uncertainties are common to every project and
can be excluded from the uncertainty analysis.
Parameter uncertainty is related to the measured or estimated data used in the
quantification methodology.
Model uncertainty is associated with the quantification methodology.
Uncertainty propagation occurs when the uncertainties associated with the parameters are
propagated through the quantification and consolidation process.
Refer to the Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Reporting Instructions (Volume 1), Annex 1, for further references in these terminology
and uncertainty calculations.
6.8.2 Uncertainty in Project Emissions
Table 6.7 is a template for the proponent to document uncertainties for each SSR.
Alternatively, the project proponent can modify the Biofuels in Transportation- GHG
Quantification Spreadsheet to include uncertainty. Additionally, if appropriate, the project
proponent should document the model uncertainty as shown in Table 6.8.
Table 6.7 Template for parameter uncertainties in Project Scenario. Project
proponent should insert sources of parameter uncertainty and the extent of
uncertainty.
Associated
Parameter
SSR ID SSR Description Input Parameter Type
Uncertainty
Material
Project Scenario total CO2e
Parameter Uncertainty Propagation
99
Table 6.8 Template for model Uncertainty for Project Scenario. Project proponent
should insert sources of model uncertainty and the extent of uncertainty.
Associated
SSR ID SSR Description Input Model Type Model
Material Uncertainty5
Project Scenario total CO2e
Model Uncertainty Propagation
(Project proponents should also insert a table with the total uncertainty for the project)
6.8.3 Uncertainty Analysis for Baseline Emissions
Uncertainties for the baseline emissions are calculated in the same way as for the project
emissions. Parameter uncertainty (Table 6.9), model uncertainty (Table 6.10), and
combined uncertainty can be determined for the baseline and documented according to the
templates or through the in Transportation- GHG Quantification Spreadsheet.
Table 6.9 Template for parameter Uncertainty for Baseline
Associated
Parameter
SSR ID SSR Description Input Parameter Type
Uncertainty6
Material
5
Emission factor uncertainty is assumed using uncertainty intervals based on the rounding protocol (see
www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_99_report/sec4_e.cfm) where one significant figure has >50% uncertainty, two significant
figures have between 10 and 50% uncertainty, and three significant figures have less than 10% uncertainty. According to
the rounding protocol, the number of significant figures applied to GHG summary tables based on uncertainty of emission
estimates for fossil fuel industries and electricity and steam generation is three.
6
Parameter uncertainties provided here are associated with measurement accuracy of the material input for each SSR.
100
Baseline total CO2e
Parameter Uncertainty Propagation
Table 6.10 Template for Model Uncertainty for Baseline
Associated
SSR ID SSR Description Model
Input Model Type
Uncertainty7
Material
Baseline total CO2e
Model Uncertainty Propagation
7
Emission factor uncertainty is assumed using uncertainty intervals based on the rounding protocol (see
www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/1990_99_report/sec4_e.cfm) where one significant figure has >50% uncertainty, two significant
figures have between 10 and 50% uncertainty, and three significant figures have less than 10% uncertainty. According to
the rounding protocol, the number of significant figures applied to GHG summary tables based on uncertainty of emission
estimates for fossil fuel industries and electricity and steam generation is three.
101
6.9 Procedure for Conducting a Sensitivity Analysis on the Project
Sensitivity analysis is a qualitative analysis that consists of examining the likely variance in
the resulting emission reductions when the protocol assumptions are changed (e.g., the
project is implemented in alternative locations, there are alternate fuel production and
delivery techniques, etc.).
Table 6.11 provides a simple sensitivity analysis by varying parameters affecting the
project scenario or baseline.
Table 6.11: Template for Sensitivity Analysis
Potential
Sensitivity Default Variations in Variation
Discussion
Parameter value Parameter in GHG
emissions
102
6.10 Monitoring the Baseline and Biofuels Project
6.10.1 Baseline monitoring
The protocol does not provide any guidance on monitoring baseline parameters.
6.10.2 Monitoring of biofuels production
In the case where these SSRs are controlled or owned by one of the project partners, this
section provides general guidance in addition to specific considerations for the project.
Energy
GHGs are associated with the energy requirements for heat and power. Typically steam is
used to heat the reaction, which, in turn, may be derived in a number of ways, often
utilizing on-site combustion of fossil fuels.
Processes may be run as batch or continuous, depending on the technology employed. An
accurate mass balance of the materials used assists in determining quantity and quality of
both the glycerine and the biodiesel, and thus the energy and material requirements per unit
of product.
Materials
Feedstock issues are addressed elsewhere (for example, see vegetable oil production in
Section 6.4.1).
In a complete GHG measurement ancillary requirements and GHGs associated with input
materials like acids and other reactants need to be identified, evaluated and analyzed if
relevant. Methanol is provided here as an example.
Methanol emissions
Methanol is used in biodiesel production. It is typically produced from natural gas with
associated GHGs. It is an indirect GHG source itself, with a GWP of approximately 4.4 kg
CO2e/kg. However, it is not be included in the account, as it is not one of the six inventoried
GHGs. Nonetheless, there is a risk of emissions of methanol from methanol handling and
from the biodiesel reaction, particularly if the reaction vessel is not well contained, which
should be considered in the GHG account, and noted separately. Unused amounts of
methanol are recovered from the biodiesel process and reused in a closed loop. The amount
recovered is general small (e.g. approximately 1%), and not entered as a recycling loop to
offset the methanol requirement. About 10% of the input feedstock is methanol that is
consumed in the transesterification.
103
By-products
The issue of by-product glycerine from biodiesel is important to address, as its use may
offset GHGs from petroleum glycerine production.
6.10.3 Monitoring of biodiesel processes
General procedures for testing biodiesel during reaction processes are described here.
Based on the mass and energy balance of the SSR, emission factors are correlated to the
level of activity for the SSR, using a SSR functional unit of 1 litre of biodiesel production.
GHG emissions associated with each input and output are calculated for the full process.
An aggregate emission factor for biodiesel production is then determined by summation of
the individual contributions, expressed in kg CO2e/L B100.
For biodiesel, the most pertinent parameters are distillation, acid number and glycerine, as
these are the most difficult specifications to attain in the final product. These are also the
most critical parameters in terms of biodiesel quality and, along with cloud point, for
performance operability.
Biodiesel Process Pre-Process Testing:
Titration:
All vegetable oil is stabilized by neutralizing the free fatty acids (FFA‟s). Adding caustic
soda to the feedstock material and measuring pH will determine the correct amount of
catalyzing materials required for the reaction.
For example, if 6 g/L of NaOH is required for neutralization of the FFA‟s, and 3.5 g/L is
required for the transesterification process, then 9.5 g/L NaOH is required for the batch
process.
Intermediate Biodiesel Process – Observations:
If the reaction has reached a high level of conversion, the product mixture will form two
liquid phases. The top phase would be the alcohol and the esters, and the bottom phase
would be the glycerol.
In a reaction that did not reach full conversion, the unreacted lipids and bound glycerol
would solidify in the bottom layer.
Biodiesel can be significantly contaminated with both free and bound glycerol, triglycerides
and alcohol due to incomplete transesterification and / or insufficient purification. This is
indicated by a murky or hazy looking product in the Biodiesel.
Excessively hazy glycerine and / or the presence of solids in the glycerol may also be an
indication of either poor conversion, or an inefficient process, or both.
104
The presence of these minor contaminants can be detrimental to engines and the
environment through pollution.
Intermediate Biodiesel - Testing:
Acid Number Titration:
This is typically done after the first reaction, as a measure of FFA conversion. The acid
number is a titration technique that measures the presence of acids. It is specified in the
Biodiesel standard to ensure the proper aging properties of fuel, as well as a good
manufacturing process.
Acid number reflects the presence of free fatty acids or acids used in the manufacturing
process of Biodiesel. Acid number may also reflect the degradation of Biodiesel due to
thermal degradation.
Glycerine:
This is typically done after the second reaction to measure the presence of total glycerine.
The degree of conversion completeness of the Biodiesel is indicated by the amount of free
and total glycerol present in the Biodiesel. If the glycerine level exceeds 0.24%, this is an
indication that the reaction was not complete, and the product does not meet specification.
The solution is to react the Biodiesel with a 3:1 molar ratio of methanol-NaOH solution /
Biodiesel to allow the reaction to go to completion.
Biodiesel Washing Process - Testing:
pH:
Testing for pH is a crude, qualitative check for leftover solvents and catalysts. Alkyl esters
are neutral compounds. Therefore, if the pH is not 7.0, the wash cycle should be repeated.
To investigate the effectiveness of the washing process, samples of ester, wash water, and
glycerine are collected from the Pilot Plant and measured. The amount of residual catalyst
can be measured by titrating the ester, glycerine and wash water with 0.01 N HCl using
phenolphthalein indicator. Soap content can be determined by carrying the titration to the
yellow end point of bromophenol blue.
Wash Water:
A visual check can be done during the draining process. Waste water should be clear. If it
appears cloudy at all, or has any odd coloration, the wash cycle should be repeated.
The soap test is a crude, qualitative observation. It involves simply shaking the wash water
vigorously and observing whether soap foam or film was formed.
105
A pH check of the waste water is a crude, qualitative check for residual materials in the
wash water. If they are present in sufficient qualities to alter the pH to anything other than
7.0, additional washing may be needed.
6.10.4 Monitoring of bioethanol processes
General procedures for testing bioethanol during reaction processes are described in the
following section.
6.10.4.1 Biofuel quality testing (QA/QC)
Biodiesel
Fuel-grade biodiesel must be produced to industry specifications in order to insure proper
performance. As such, biodiesel is required to meet or exceed ASTM D 6751: Standard
Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels [ASTM D6751],
which dictates a number of measurements and tests. The results of these tests support a
completed Certificate of Analysis (COA) for a fuel.
All Biodiesel fuel produced for sale as a blending stock is required to meet ASTM D6751
“Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels”. Grade
S15 is for 15 PPM grade B100 Biodiesel blend stock and is intended for on-road use.
Grade S500 is for 15 PPM grade B100 Biodiesel blend stock and is intended for off-road
use.
Table 6.12- Biodiesel quality testing as per D 6751 requirements
Quality Parameter ASTM Test Method Grade S15 Grade S500
Spec. Limits Spec. Limits
Flash Point (closed cup), C, min. D93 130 130
Water & Sediment, volume %, max. D2709 0.050 0.050
Kinematic viscosity, 40 C, mm 2/s D445 1.9 - 6.0 1.9 - 6.0
Sulfated ash, % mass, max. D874 0.020 0.020
Sulfur, % mass (PPM), max. D5453 0.0015 (15) 0.05 (500)
Copper strip corrosion, max. D130 No. 3 No. 3
Cetane number, min. D613 47 47
Cloud point D2500 report report
Carbon residue, % mass, max. D54530 0.050 0.050
Acid number, mg KOH/g, max. D664 0.80 0.80
Free glycerin, % mass, max. D6584 0.020 0.020
Total glycerin, % mass, max. D5453 0.240 0.240
Phosphorous content, % mass, max. D4951 0.001 0.001
Distillation temperature T90, C, max. D1160 360 360
(Atmospheric equivalent temperature,
90% recovered)
Bioethanol
106
Fuel-grade bioethanol must be produced to industry specifications in order to insure proper
performance. As such, biodiesel is required to meet or exceed ASTM D4806 “Standard
Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for Blending with Gasoline‟s for use as an
Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel”.
Table 6.13 - ASTM D4806 “Standard Specification for Denatured Fuel Ethanol for
Blending with Gasoline’s for use as an Automotive Spark-Ignition Fuel”
Quality Parameter Specification Limits ASTM Test Method
Ethanol volume % , min. 92.1 D5501
Methanol vol % , max. 0.5 D5501
Solvent-washed gum, mg/100 mL, max. 5.0 D381
Water content, volume %, max. 1 E1064
Denaturant content, volume %, min. 1.96
Denaturant content, volume %, max. 4.76
Inorganic Chloride content, ppm (mg/L), max. 40 (32) D512
Copper content, mg/kg, max. 0.1 D1688
Acidity (as acetic acid CH3COOH), mass% (mg/L), max. 0.007 (56) D1613
pHe 6.5 to 9.0 D6423
Appearance Clear & Bright Visual examination
Sulphur ppm, max. 30 D5453
6.10.5 Monitoring of biofuels use (Engine operation)
This SSR refers to the operation of the vehicle engine, and focuses on combustion of fuel to
generate energy output. Use and consumption of ancillary inputs (engine fluids,
maintenance parts, etc.) are generally included within the SSR boundary but are all
assumed to be equal from the baseline SSR to the project SSR, and are therefore excluded,
unless otherwise noted.
Empirical sampling is the best way to monitor GHG emissions directly. This is preferably
accomplished with instruments mounted on the vehicle while in use. Alternatively, lab
measurements are effective when carried out on an equivalent engine, including emissions
controls. An emission factor per unit of activity (e.g. g CO2 per L diesel fuel consumed) is
then calculated to represent each operating mode of the SSR. In the calculation of GHGs
for the system, the emissions factor is multiplied by the level of activity for the SSR to
determine emissions.
107
6.11 Generic Monitoring Template
Table 6.14 Generic monitoring template for the SMART SSP Protocol for Biofuels in Transportation
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Section A -Upstream SSRs Before Project Operation
A.1 Production & Transportation of Materials and Energy (includes the extraction of the raw material, transportation of the raw
material to the refining site, refining of the raw material to the product and transportation of the product to the manufacturing facilities.)
A1.1 Steel Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes GHG8 Supplier Once (when actual High
production and steel production (e.g., recognized emissions / Government material selections
transportation reference tonne steel agency are known)
factors) Industry Practically
association impossible to
LCA study monitor
Too many sources of
production
8
GHG is used in the template, although the project proponent should have disaggregated values by different GHG (CO2, CH4, N20) or CO2e.
108
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Amount of steel Estimated kg or tonnes Supplier Once (when actual High
delivered/ used (e.g., recognized Government material selections
reference agency are known)
factors) Industry Information taken
association from manufacturer
LCA study specifications
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When High
for steel by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km distance delivery occurs.
rail, and sea from reference by sea Or
the refining to the factors) Several times – Each
manufacturing plant delivery
Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes National Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of Emission factors travelled is known)
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
A1.2 Aluminium Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes GHG Reference Once (when actual High
Production and aluminium (e.g., recognized emissions / Documented from material selections
Transportation production reference tonne supplier are known)
factors) aluminium GHG inventories
LCA study
Amount of Estimated Kg or tonnes Reference Once (when actual High
aluminium (e.g., recognized Documented from material selections
delivered/ used reference supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
109
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When low
for steel by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km distance delivery occurs.
rail, and sea from reference by sea or
the refining to the factors) Several times – Each
manufacturing plant delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
A1.3 Polymer Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes GHG Reference Once (when actual High
Production and Polymer production (e.g., recognized emissions / Documented from material selections
Transportation reference tonne Polymer supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Amount of Polymer Estimated Kg or tonnes Reference Once (when actual High
delivered/ used (e.g., recognized Documented from material selections
reference supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for steel by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km distance delivery occurs.
rail, and sea from reference by sea or
the refining to the factors) Several times – Each
manufacturing plant delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
110
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
A1.4 Fibreglass Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes GHG Reference Once (when actual High
Production and Fibreglass (e.g., recognized emissions / Documented from material selections
Transportation production reference tonne Fibreglass supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Amount of Estimated Kg or tonnes Reference Once (when actual High
Fibreglass delivered/ (e.g., recognized Documented from material selections
used reference supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for steel by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km distance delivery occurs.
rail, and sea from reference by sea or
the refining to the factors) Several times – Each
manufacturing plant delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
111
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
A1.5 Copper Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes GHG Reference Once (when actual High
Production and Copper production (e.g., recognized emissions / Documented from material selections
Transportation reference tonne Copper supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Amount of Copper Estimated Kg or tonnes Reference Once (when actual High
delivered/ used (e.g., recognized Documented from material selections
reference supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for steel by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km distance delivery occurs.
rail, and sea from reference by sea or
the refining to the factors) Several times – Each
manufacturing plant delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
112
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
A1.6 Other Emission factors for Estimated Tonnes GHG Reference Once (when actual High
material other material (e.g., recognized emissions / Documented from material selections
Production & production reference tonne other supplier are known)
Transportation factors) material GHG inventories
LCA study
Amount of other Estimated Kg or tonnes Reference Once (when actual High
material delivered/ (e.g., recognized Documented from material selections
used reference supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for steel by truck, (e.g., recognized km by rail, km distance delivery occurs.
rail, and sea from reference by sea or
the refining to the factors) Several times – Each
manufacturing plant delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
A.2 Manufacturing of Project Components
A2.1 Vehicle Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes LCA Once (when Med
Manufacturing Manufacturing of (e.g., recognized CO2e/vehicle Manufacturing specs purchasing vehicle)
vehicle (bus, car, reference
vessel, truck, etc…) factors)
# of vehicles Measured # Vehicles Invoice Once (when None
purchased (e.g. purchase purchasing vehicle)
order/invoice)
A.3 Transportation of Project Components to Site
113
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
A3.1 Vehicle Distance traveled by Estimated Km by truck, Map Once (when Low
Acquisition vehicles to get to (e.g., recognized km by rail, km Odometer purchasing vehicle)
project site reference by sea
factors)
Weight of vehicle Estimated Kg or tonnes Reference Once (when actual High
delivered (e.g., recognized Documented from material selections
reference supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission NA High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors
reference material km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
A.4 Site Preparation, Installation and Commissioning
Section B -Upstream SSRs During Project Operation
B.1 Production of Project Inputs
B1.1 Biomass Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/kg of US LCI Database, Check for updates High
Feedstock production of estimated feedstock NREL yearly
Production and biomass feedstock others
Transportation (Soybean, wheat,
Corn, Canola,
Animal husbandry)
Weight of feedstock Measured or Kg of feedstock From feedstock Once Med
used to produce estimated processor or biofuels
biofuels used in producer
project
114
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
B1.2 Biomass Emission factor for Estimated Kg CO2e/Kg of National Emission Periodically Updated Low
Feedstock Soybean Oil (e.g., recognized oil produced factors
Processing Production reference LCA
factors) GHG inventories
Emission factor for Estimated Kg CO2e/Kg of National Emission Periodically Updated Low
Canola Oil (e.g., recognized oil produced factors
Production reference LCA
factors) GHG inventories
Emission factor for Estimated Kg CO2e/Kg of National Emission Periodically Updated Low
Corn Oil Production (e.g., recognized oil produced factors
reference LCA
factors) GHG inventories
Emission factor for Estimated Kg CO2e/Kg of National Emission Periodically Updated Low
Tallow Rendering (e.g., recognized oil produced factors
reference LCA
factors) GHG inventories
Emission factor for Estimated Kg CO2e/Kg of National Emission Periodically Updated Low
Yellow Grease (e.g., recognized oil produced factors
Rendering reference LCA
factors) GHG inventories
115
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
B1.3 Chemicals Emission Factors for Estimated Kg GHG Reference Once (when actual High
production Chemical (e.g., recognized emissions / Kg Documented from material selections
Production reference chemicals supplier are known)
factors) GHG inventories
LCA study
Amount of Estimated Kg or tonnes From feedstock Once High
Chemicals delivered (e.g., recognized processor or biofuels
reference producer
factors)
B1.4 Biofuels Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel National Emission Periodically Updated Low
Production biodiesel production estimated produced factors
from Virgin Oil LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel National Emission Periodically Updated High
biodiesel production estimated produced factors
from Tallow LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel National Emission Periodically Updated High
ethanol production estimated produced factors
from Corn (dry LCA
milling) GHG inventories
Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel National Emission Periodically Updated High
ethanol production estimated produced factors
from Corn (wet LCA
milling) GHG inventories
116
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel National Emission Periodically Updated High
ethanol production estimated produced factors
(Enzymatic) LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor for Measured or Kg CO2e/L fuel National Emission Periodically Updated High
ethanol production estimated produced factors
(concentrated acid) LCA
GHG inventories
B1.5 Others
B.2 Transportation of Project Inputs to Project Site
B2.1 Biomass Weight of Feedstock Measured or Kg of feedstock From feedstock Once Med
Feedstock delivered estimated processor or biofuels
Transportation producer
to processing or Distance traveled Measured or Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
production plant for feedstock by estimated km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
truck, rail, and sea by sea or
from the growing Several times – Each
site to the refining/ delivery
processing plant
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference feedstock km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
B2.2 Processed Weight of Processed Estimated Kg of processed From biofuels producer Once Med
Biomass Feedstock delivered (e.g., recognized feedstock
Feedstock reference
Transportation factors)
117
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
to biofuels Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
production plant for processed (e.g., recognized km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
feedstock by truck, reference by sea or
rail, and sea from factors) Several times – Each
the refining to the delivery
production plant
Estimated
Emission factor for Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference processed LCA
factors) feedstock km GHG inventories
B2.3 Chemicals Weight of chemicals Estimated Kg of chemicals From biofuels producer Once Med
Transportation delivered (e.g., recognized
reference
factors)
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for chemicals by (e.g., recognized km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
truck, rail, and sea reference by sea or
from the refining to factors)- Several times – Each
the manufacturing delivery
plant
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference chemicals km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
B2.4 Biofuels Weight of Biofuels Estimated Kg/L of biofuels Delivery Invoice Once Med
Transportation delivered (e.g., recognized Pump metres
reference
factors)
118
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for biofuels by (e.g., recognized km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
truck, rail, and sea reference by sea or
from the producing factors) Several times – Each
plant to the user delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes of factors travelled is known)
reference biofuels km LCA
factors) GHG inventories
B2.5 Other Weight of other Estimated Kg of other From other product Once Med
Products products delivered (e.g., recognized product processor or biofuels
Transportation reference producer
factors)
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for other product by (e.g., recognized km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
truck, rail, and sea reference by sea or
factors) Several times – Each
delivery
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes National Emission Once (when distance High
transportation (e.g., recognized CO2e/tonnes km factors travelled is known)
reference LCA
factors) GHG inventories
119
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Section C - Onsite Project SSRs
C.1 Production/Provision/Use of Product(s) and/or Service(s)
C 1.1 Biofuels Weight/ Volume of Measured Kg or L Invoices for biofuels Every time biofuels Low
Use biofuels used purchases is purchased/Used
OR Distance
traveled
Biodiesel analysis Measured or % Certificate of analysis Every time biofuels Low
showing % biofuel estimated from producer/supplier is purchased /
in vehicle fuel received / shipped
Measured CO2 Measured or g/L Accredited Laboratory As necessary Low
emissions at tailpipe estimated (e.g. ETC) (ideally, every 6 (1-2%)
from combustion of months)
1 liter fuel or with new supplier
or with new
feedstock or with
new blend
Measured N2O Measured or g/L Accredited Laboratory As necessary Low
emissions at tailpipe estimated (e.g. ETC) (ideally, every 6 (1-2%)
from combustion of months)
1 liter fuel or with new supplier
or with new
feedstock or with
new blend
Measured CH4 Measured or g/L Accredited Laboratory As necessary Low
emissions at tailpipe estimated (e.g. ETC) (ideally, every 6 (1-2%)
from combustion of months)
1 liter fuel or with new supplier
or with new
feedstock or with
120
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
new blend
C.1.2 Ratio of Energy Measured Bhp/L Accredited Laboratory Once med
Transportation content (Power e.g. (e.g. ETC)
Service produced) from 1 L Testing done in
of Biofuels versus 1 Lab on engine to
Litre of normal compare
(baseline) fuel baseline fuel
versus biofuels
C.2 Maintenance
C2.1 Fuel Filter changes Measured or # filter/time Maintenance division Whenever filter none
Maintenance estimated period changed
Other Measured or
maintenance estimated
requirement
Section D - Downstream SSRs During Project Operation
D.1 Transportation of Product(s)
D.2 Use of Product(s)/Services
D.3 Waste Management
Section E - Downstream SSRs after Project Termination
E.1 Decommissioning and Site Restoration
E.1.1 List parameters Estimated
Decommissioning relevant to
decommissioning
(e.g. equipment use,
associated
emissions,
121
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
equipment transport,
etc.)
E.2 Waste Management
E2.1 Amount and type of Estimated Tonnes Manufacturer specs Once high
components to be
Transportation recycled
of components Amount and type of Estimated Tonnes Manufacturer specs Once high
for recycling, components to be
reuse, or reused
disposal Amount and type of Estimated Tonnes Manufacturer specs Once high
components to be
disposed
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for recycled km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
components by by sea or
truck, rail, and sea Several times – Each
(accounted for delivery
separately)
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for reused km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
components by by sea or
truck, rail, and sea Several times – Each
(accounted for delivery
separately)
122
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Distance traveled Estimated Km by truck, Odometer Once- When Low
for disposed km by rail, km Invoices delivery occurs.
components by by sea or
truck, rail, and sea Several times – Each
(accounted for delivery
separately)
E.2.2 Waste Emission factor Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
Management (sink) for steel emissions / factors
recycling tonne LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
(sink) for aluminum emissions / factors
recycling tonne LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
(sink) for polymer emissions / factors
reuse tonne LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
(sink) for fibreglass emissions / factors
recycling tonne LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
(sink) for copper emissions / factors
recycling tonne LCA
GHG inventories
123
SSR Identifier Parameter Measured or Indicator/ Unit Reference Monitoring Error
and Name Estimated Frequency and
Rationale
Emission factor Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
(sink) for other emissions / factors
material recycling tonne LCA
GHG inventories
Emission factor for Estimated Tonnes GHG National Emission Update Yearly High
land filling emissions / factors
tonne LCA
GHG inventories
124
125
7 References
ASTM D 6751 – 3: Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel (B100) Blend Stock for
Distillate Fuels. ASTM Committee D02 on Petroleum Products and Lubricants and is
the direct responsibility of subcommittee D02.E0 on Burner, Diesel, Non-Aviation Gas
Turbine, and Marine Fuels. Current edition approved May 10, 2003. Published July
2003. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA.
Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 -1999 Emission and Removal Estimation
Practices and Methods, April 2001 http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accounts, Management's Discussion and Analysis -
Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure, Part 2: General Disclosure Principles. May
2004
First Environment: Personal communications, Brian Glazebrook, First Environment Inc.,
Washington DC: 2005
Graboski, M.S., 2002, Fossil Energy Use in the Manufacture of Corn Ethanol. Prepared for
the National Corn Growers Association (USA). Colorado School of Mines, August
2002.
Greenhouse Gas Division of Environment Canada, Factsheet 3 - Transportation: 1990-
1999. “Table 3. Trends in Shipping/Freight-Related GHG Intensity”.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/factsheet3_e.cfm#freight. Accessed by GHGm, September
2004.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2000). Good Practice Guidance and
Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Available at
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). International Standard, ISO 14040-
97 Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework.
Geneva, 1997.
International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). 2006. International Standard, ISO
14064-2 Greenhouse Gases Part 2 – Specification with guidance at the project level for
quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emission reductions or
removal enhancements, 2006.
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol. (2002). Concepts and
Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings – Volume I.
Kadam, K, Camobreco, V, Glazebrook, B, Forrest, L, Jacobson, W, Simeroth, D,
Blackburn, W, Nehoda, K, Environmental Life Cycle Implications of Fuel Oxygenate
126
Production from California Biomass. NREL/TP-580-25688. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL). May 1999.
Levelton Engineering Ltd. and (S&T)2. 2002. Assessment of Biodiesel and Ethanol Diesel
Blends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Exhaust Emissions, and Policy Issues. Report to
Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
National Offset System Program. 2005. Developing an Offset System Quantification
Protocol or Methodology Guide, Environment Canada.
NRC 2004. Jim Rollefson, Gloria Fu, Albert Chan. Assessment of the Environmental
Performance and Sustainability of Biodiesel in Canada, Prepared for: Ontario Ministry
of Agriculture and Food, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada,
Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada. National Research Council Canada,
Ottawa: November 2004.
NRC: National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Yellow Grease, Tallow Production,
based on data from Rothsay, unpublished data sheet, July 2002.
NREL: Kadam, K, Camobreco, V, Glazebrook,B Forrest, L, Jacobson, A. Environmental
Life Cycle Implications of the Use of California Biomass in the Production of Fuel
Oxygenates. February 1999
Rollefson, J., G. Fu, A. Chan. 2004. Assessment of the Environmental Performance and
Sustainability of Biodiesel in Canada. Prepared for: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and
Food, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Industry Canada, and
Natural Resources Canada, November 2004.
Rothsay. Personal communications with Claude Bourgault, Rothsay/Laurenco. July-
September 2004.
Shapouri, Hosein; James Duffield, Andrew McAloon, Michael Wang. THE 2001 NET
ENERGY BALANCE OF CORN-ETHANOL. U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). 2004.
SMART BIOBUS: 2004. System of Measurement and Reporting on Technology (SMART)
Final Report: COM-81 “BIOBUS Project”, Prepared by
GreenhouseGasMeasurement.com. Prepared for Climate Change Technology Early
Action Measures (TEAM), Government of Canada, Ottawa: September 2004.
TEAM, 2004: Climate Change Technology Early Action Measures (TEAM), Requirements
and Guidance for the System of Measurement And Reporting for Technologies
(SMART), January 2004.
US LCI database: US Life Cycle Inventory Database, accessed Jan. 2005. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. (http://www.nrel.gov/lci/).
US Life Cycle Inventory Database, www.nre/.gov/lci, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, accessed Dec. 2004 to Mar. 2006.
127
USDA/NREL: Sheehan, J, Camobreco, V, Duffield, J, Graboski, M, Shapouri, H. Life
Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. A Joint
Study Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy.
NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503. Final Report, May 1998.
Vine, E., and Sathaye, J. (1999). Guidelines for the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting,
Verification, and Certification of Energy-Efficiency Projects for Climate Change
Mitigation. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.
Wang, M. 2001, Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel Cycle Model for transportation
Fuels and Vehicle Technologies, ANL-ESD-TM-163.
World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). GHG Protocol for Project Accounting. Washington & Geneva:
Nov. 2005.
128