Abstract
The CDM under the Kyoto Protocol has so far been unable to mobilize activities of households and service industries to improve end-use energy efficiency. This is mainly due to the lack of or the cumbersome requirements of the few existing baseline and monitoring methodologies as well as the difficulty to prove project additionality. We assess methodologies for projects distributing compact fluorescent lamps to households. The approval of the first large-scale methodology took more than 2 years and in the interaction with the regulatory bodies, the methodology became very cumbersome, especially regarding monitoring requirements. Four sample groups are required and the technology that has to be used for measuring utilization of CFLs does not yet exist. Therefore, project developers are not applying the large-scale methodology but try to use the pre-defined small-scale methodology. But even the small-scale methodology requires a substantial amount of data and measurements. A “Programme of Activity” approach could reduce monitoring costs through limiting monitoring to a sample of projects. Moreover, monitoring experts could be trained and thus monitoring mistakes reduced compared to single project settings. A deemed savings methodology was recently approved which alleviates but does not completely eliminate monitoring needs. It considerably reduces CER volumes compared to the other two methodologies and thus project developers have to assess the trade-off between higher monitoring costs and lower CER volumes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is derived from the principle of “real...measurable...long-term” reductions in Article 12, 5 (b) of the Kyoto Protocol.
Initially, it was thought that baseline setting and monitoring could be separated. It however became clear quickly that monitoring requirements are so dependent on the specification of the baseline that from 2006 onwards, baseline and monitoring methodologies were linked.
From 2001 to 2005, these were projects of less than 15 MW for renewable energy, 15 GWh annual savings for energy efficiency and direct emissions of 15,000 t CO2 equivalent for other project types. In 2005, the thresholds were changed to 60 GWh for energy efficiency and 60,000 t CO2 equivalent for other project types.
An anonymous referee has criticized this as “self serving litany“. However, we think that the narrative is valuable to understand the difficult interaction between methodology developer and CDM regulators.
For a detailed description of the process see A. Michaelowa et al. (2007): The long and stony road of getting CFL distribution into the Clean Development Mechanism, in: Energy Manager, 1, 4, p. 23-26
So far, no technology provider exists who would supply such measurement equipment off-the-shelf; equipment has to be developed from scratch. Estimates for the cost of the monitoring equipment for one lamp range from 10 to 30 €. A methodology submitted by the World Bank tried to avoid ex post monitoring by assuming usage hours, CFL lifetimes and specifying a 5% discount for autonomous penetration of CFLs. The free riding issue was to be addressed by making households answer the question whether they would have purchased the CFL without the subsidy, which was one of the main reasons of rejection by the EB (UNFCCC 2007).
1.00 Rs. = € 0.015 (on 13 June 2008). FXHistory®: historical currency exchange rates. http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory.
Gross billing analysis approach conducts statistical analyses on the energy usage data (typically collected from the meter data reported on utility bills) for all or most of the participants and possibly non-participants in the program. The M&V approach is the most common approach used for program involving non-residential facilities, retrofit, or new construction, in which a wide variety of factors determine savings and when individual facility savings values are desired. Gross billing analysis is primarily used for residential program with relatively homogenous participants and measures, when project-specific analyses are not required or practical (NAPEE 2007).
Information is reported by participants and non-participants, without independent verification or review.
The self-reporting surveys are combined with interviews and independent documentation review and analysis. They may also include analysis of market-based sales data.
Statistical models are used to compare participant and non-participant energy and demand patterns. These models often include survey inputs and other non-program-related factors such as weather and energy costs.
A NTG ratio is estimated using information available from evaluation of similar program.
Such update may make sense for the purpose of checking functionality of the CFLs installed. However, the methodology would likely be unworkable if the NTG ratio was really to be updated. The NTG ratio in the original submission included not only free ridership and spillover issues, but also permanence of the CFL usage. This has likely led to the SSC WG request for the NTG ratio update.
This requirement was scrapped in the second version of November 2008.
The cap was changed into a default factor in the second version; losses can be higher if “accurate and reliable” data are available
References
Arquit Niederberger, A. (2008). Scaling up energy efficiency under the CDM. In K. Holm Olsen & J. Fenhann (Eds.), A reformed CDM, including new mechanisms for sustainable development (pp. 127–145). Copenhagen: UNEP Risø Centre.
Arquit Niederberger, A., Limaye, D., Brunner, C. (2007). Demand-side programs to promote high-efficiency electrical end-use technologies using deemed savings. Washington D.C.: The World Bank Carbon Finance Unit. http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/Clarifications/index.html. Accessed 13 June 2008.
Barker, T., Bashmakov, I., Bernstein, L., Bogner, J., Bosch, P., Dave, R., et al. (2007). Technical summary. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave & L. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 26–93). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gupta, S., Tirpak, D., Burger, N., Gupta, J., Höhne, N., Boncheva, A., et al. (2007). Policies, instruments and co-operative arrangements. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave & L. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 746–807). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, D., & Krey, M. (2007). Assessment of clean development mechanism potential of large-scale energy efficiency measures in heavy industries. Energy, 32, 1917–1931. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2007.03.003.
Hayashi, D., & Michaelowa, A.(2007): Lessons from submission and approval process of large-scale energy efficiency CDM methodologies. HWWI Research Paper No.4-11, Hamburg
Hinostroza, M., Cheng, C., Zhu, X., & Fenhann, J. (2007). Potentials and barriers for end-use energy efficiency under programmatic CDM, Working Paper No. 3, CD4CDM Working Paper Series. Roskilde: URC.
Greenpeace International. (1998). Making the clean development mechanism clean and green. Amsterdam: Greenpeace.
Jain, M., Gaba, V., & Srivastava, L. (2007). Managing power demand: a case study of the residential sector in Delhi. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute.
Levine, M., Urge-Vorsatz, D., Blok, K., Geng, L., Harvey, D., Lang, S., et al. (2007). Residential and commercial buildings. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, P. Bosch, R. Dave & L. Meyer (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 387–446). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michaelowa, A., & Jotzo, F. (2005). Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism. Energy Policy, 33, 511–523. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.08.016.
Michaelowa, A., Gagnon-Lebrun, F., Hayashi, D., Salgado Flores, L., Crete, P., & Krey, M. (2007). Understanding CDM methodologies. London: DEFRA.
Müller-Pelzer, F., & Michaelowa, A. (2005). Lessons from the submission and approval process of energy-efficiency CDM baseline and monitoring methodologies, HWWI-Research Paper 1. Hamburg: HWWI.
NAPEE (National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency). (2007). Model energy efficiency program impact evaluation guide. Washington D.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Osram AG. (2008). Visakhapatnam (India) OSRAM CFL distribution CDM Project, Version Number: 05, download at http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-SUED1206629154.85/ReviewInitialComments/5HZCBC52WEQG6RTDKUQ2I0C1D2PX4N
Pradhan, G. (2008). India: Growing energy needs and mitigation options. New Delhi: Ministry of Power, Government of India. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/15/40633690.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2008.
Rathbun, P., Sabo, C., & Zent, B. (2003). National grid, NSTAR electric, Northeast utilities, Unitil, Cape light compact: Standardized methods for free-ridership and spillover evaluation—Task 5 final report (revised). Wisconsin: PA Government Services.
Rentz, H. (1998). Joint implementation and the question of additionality–a proposal for a pragmatic approach to identify possible Joint Implementation projects. Energy Policy, 4, 275–279. doi:10.1016/S0301-4215(97)00155-9.
Skumatz, L., & Howlett, O. (2006). Finding and “gaps” in CFL evaluation research: review of the existing literature. London: International Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances & Lighting Conference.
Spalding-Fecher, R. (2008). Analysis of demand side energy efficiency baseline and monitoring methodologies, Presentation at Fifth CDM Joint Coordination Workshop. Bonn: Econ.
UNFCCC. (2005a). Ghana efficient lighting retrofit project, CDM: proposed new methodology assessment form. Bonn: UNFCCC.
UNFCCC.(2005b). Decision 3/CMP.1, Montreal: UNFCCC.
UNFCCC.(2007). CDM: Proposed New Methodology. Meth Panel recommendation to the Executive Board, F-CDM-NMmp ver 07.1 - NM0157-rev, Bonn: UNFCCC
URC.(2008). CDM pipeline, version May 1, http://www.cdmpipeline.org. Accessed October 2, 2008
Works, Tec Market. (2004). The California evaluation framework. Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission. Oregon: TecMarket.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Osram for its patience regarding the regulatory process of baseline methodology approval without which AM 0046 would have never seen the light of the day.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Michaelowa, A., Hayashi, D. & Marr, M. Challenges for energy efficiency improvement under the CDM—the case of energy-efficient lighting. Energy Efficiency 2, 353–367 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-009-9052-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-009-9052-z