PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies

1. PoA for Household Biogas to Power: A Case Study of Application of Multiple Methodologies Wang Hai Henning Huenteler

2. Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme • Distribution of household biogas digesters in rural areas of Sichuan, China • Existing governmental subsidy is insufficient for low-income families • Lack of technical knowledge and qualified maintenance results in decreasing gas output of existing digesters • PoA provides additional income and free technical support to low-income households • Pig manure and other organic matter is fed into digester, biogas can be used as cooking fuel • Dramatically improved living conditions due to • Reduced indoor air pollution • Hygienic manure handling • Odor reduction • Improved fertilizer quality • “Convenient” fuel – no collection, buying, etc. • Reduces risk of accidents

3. Sichuan Rural Poor-Household Biogas Development Programme • Target for 2017: 1,000,000 household • Regular baseline surveys in 13 different regions (cities); 1,000 households each Gigantic workload for management, data taking, processing & storage, onsite visits for validation/verification, etc. Close cooperation with local Rural Energy Offices, Sichuan Biogas Society, Academy of Agricultural Engineering

4. Two project components • Situation in Sichuan: • Widely distributed small farms (usually <10 pigs, some chicken) • Animal manure is stored in pits below animal confinements • Mix of different fuels is used for cooking. Vast majority of households includes coal in energy mix. To comply with CDM regulations, only households with coal utilization will be included in the PoA. • Emission reduction based on two principles: • Avoidance of methane from existing manure treatment  Type III • Possible methodology: • AMS III.R - Methane recovery in agricultural activities at household/small farm level • Replacement of other fuels for thermal applications  Type I • Possible methodologies: • AMS I.C - Thermal energy production with or without electricity • AMS I.E - Switch from Non-Renewable Biomass for Thermal Applications by the User • AMS I.I - Biogas/biomass thermal applications for households/small users

5. Two possible combinations • To calculate the emission reductions, different combinations have been discussed: • “Historical solution”: AMS III.R & AMS I.C • Problems: Methodology tries to cover a vast range of projects from thousands of household cooking stoves up to a 45 MWth boiler. Several pitfalls arise from broad methodology application. • “New approach”: AMS III.R & AMS I.I (AMS I.I was approved in EB59, 02/2011) • Problems: AMS I.I is a new methodology with no practical experience, typos in formulas, logical mistakes in ER calculation, combination with III.R not approved yet.

6. Combination approval status of methodologies related to HHBG • Combination III.R & I.C was approved by the Board in its 53rdmeeting • Combinations of methane-avoidance Type-III SSC-methodologies, (i.e. AMS-III.H, AMS-III.D, AMS-III.F and AMS-III.G), and methane-utilization Type-I methodologies (i.e. AMS-I.A, AMS-I.C, AMS-I.D and AMS-I.F) have been approved by the Board in its 58th meeting • Other combinations of SSC-methodologies that have been applied in a registered project have been approved by the Board in its 58th meeting subject to demonstration of non-interference or conservative assessment of interference •  Only combination of AMS III.R and AMS I.C has been approved for PoAs, other combination pending

7. Our approach • Combination of AMS III.R and AMS I.C • Adapt to application issues in methodology due to broad scope, e.g. baseline and project quantification, monitoring parameters • Emission reduction per household: • AMS III.R: ≈ 0.5 tCO2e • AMS I.C: ≈ 1.5 tCO2e

8. Pitfalls and barriers • Methodologies in household biogas complicated to handle. AMS I.C is too broad, AMS I.I not matured by extensive application • Artificial clustering of units into CPAs to stay below small-scale/micro-scale limits of Type I and Type III.  Increase of transaction costs for management, inclusion, verification that does not reflect real project clusters • Several “blurry” definitions, guidelines, procedures, e.g. additionality on PoA/CPA level, starting date, eligibility criteria • Missing details on sampling approaches for data collection • Management of 1,000,000 households is constant learning process and conflicts with fixed procedures, once PoA is registered • Uncertainty on sampling verification during inclusion/verification Difficult cost estimation

9. Possible solutions • Streamlined process for methodology combination. Simplified approval/denial to avoid delays (or black-list instead of white-list approach) • Streamlining process by clearer framework and set of guidelines elaborated specifically for PoAs • New approach for distributed projects to avoid CDM-driven SSC (or micro-scale) clusters • More flexible system of post-registration adaptation and validation of procedures in later CPAs • Close cooperation with developers, DOEs to improve framework constantly taking practical experiences into consideration

10. Thanks for your attention!