Source: http://www.rasteredge.com/gallery/c27/143/
Timestamp: 2020-06-03 12:26:12
Document Index: 331735247

Matched Legal Cases: ['art145', 'art234', 'art235', 'art237', 'art238', 'art239', 'art240', 'art241', 'art26', 'art243', 'art245']

c# wpf adobe pdf reader : Delete pages from pdf acrobat reader control Library system azure .net wpf console am-tool-02-v2.20-part145
“Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality”
(Version 02.2)
This tool provides for a step-wise approach to identify the baseline scenario and simultaneously
demonstrate additionality.
Project participants proposing new baseline methodologies may incorporate this combined tool in their
proposal. Project participants may also propose other tools for the identification of the baseline scenario
and demonstrate additionality to the Executive Board for its consideration.
Methodologies using this tool are only applicable if all potential alternative scenarios to the proposed
project activity are available options to project participants.
This applies, for example, to project activities
that make modifications to an existing installation that is operated by project participants, such as, for
• Energy efficiency improvements at existing installations operated by project participants;
• Fuel switch at existing installations operated by project participants;
• Changes in waste management practices at existing solid waste disposal sites operated by project
• Reduction of N
O, HFC-23 or PFC emissions at existing installations operated by project
Moreover, this applies to the construction of new facilities, if all alternative scenarios to the project activity
are available options to project participants, that is, if all alternative scenarios could be implemented by the
project participants. This may apply, for example, to a cement manufacturer that plans to construct a new
cement plant and has access to all cement production technologies.
• However, methodologies using this tool are not applicable to project activities where one or more
alternative scenarios to the proposed project activity are not available options to the project
In cases where one or more alternatives are not available options to project participants, a different procedure than
provided here would be required to demonstrate additionality and identify the baseline scenario. Such cases might
include grid-connected power projects (where an alternative might be electricity produced by other facilities not
under the control of project participants) or other projects that increase the delivery of a given product to a local,
regional or global market. In such cases, baseline scenarios might be rather complex (such as the combined margin
scenario in ACM0002), and the methods for comparing alternatives may differ from those provided here (e.g.
benchmark analysis or other methods that utilize information about the markets in which such projects might
compete). The Meth Panel is considering whether expanding this tool to cover all cases would be appropriate. In
the meantime, methodologies that typically involve alternatives are not under the control of project participants can
continue to use, if desired, the additionality tool (provides benchmark and other tools), and provide their own
methods to develop and/or assess baseline scenario.
Delete pages from pdf acrobat reader - control Library system:C# PDF Page Extract Library: copy, paste, cut PDF pages in C#.net, ASP.NET, MVC, Ajax, WinForms, WPF
Delete pages from pdf acrobat reader - control Library system:VB.NET PDF Page Extract Library: copy, paste, cut PDF pages in vb.net, ASP.NET, MVC, Ajax, WinForms, WPF
• In case of newly built projects, i.e. project activities that establish new installations, such as new
power, biofuel, cement or aluminum plants, a credible and plausible alternative to the project
activity could be the production of power, fossil fuels (instead of biofuel), cement or aluminum in
new or existing installations operated by third parties;
• In case of programs that address multiple stakeholders, e.g. a program to disseminate or encourage
the use of energy efficient appliances by multiple end-users, a credible and plausible alternative to
the project activity could be that the end-users (i.e. third parties) continue to use existing appliances
and/or start using more efficient appliances – which are not available options to the project
The tool provides a general framework for identifying the baseline scenario and demonstrating
additionality. In some cases particular project types may require adjustments or additional explanations to
this framework. This could include, inter alia, a listing of relevant alternative scenarios that should be
considered in Step 1, any relevant types of barriers other than those presented in this tool and guidance on
how common practice should be established. Project participants may also propose other procedures or
tools for the identification of the baseline scenario and assessment and demonstration of additionality to the
CDM Executive Board (EB) for its consideration.
In validating the application of this tool, Designated Operational Entities (DOEs) should carefully assess
and verify the reliability and credibility of all data, rationales, assumptions, justifications and
documentation provided by project participants to support the selection of the baseline and demonstration
of additionality. The elements checked during this assessment and the according conclusions should be
documented transparently in the validation report.
II. METHODOLOGY PROCEDURE
Project participants shall apply the following four Steps:
STEP 1. Identification of alternative scenarios;
STEP 2. Barrier analysis;
STEP 3. Investment analysis (if applicable);
STEP 4. Common practice analysis.
The procedure is summarized in the indicative flowchart below. For more specific detail regarding the
flowchart please refer to the text.
control Library system:.NET PDF Document Viewing, Annotation, Conversion & Processing
control Library system:C# PDF Converter Library SDK to convert PDF to other file formats
Step 1: Identification of alternative scenarios
Step 2: Barrier analysis
without CDM?
alternative remaining?
Does CDM alleviate the
identified barriers that
prevent the project?
Do the alternatives
include the project
undertaken without
The baseline scenario is the
remaining alternative as identified
Does the CDM
alleviate the identified
Step 3: Investment analysis
Is the sensitivity analysis
The baseline scenario is the most
economically / financially attractive
The baseline scenario is
the scenario with the
least emissions
Is the scenario identified the
project undertaken without
being registered as CDM?
s it the
common practice ?
control Library system:C# powerpoint - PowerPoint Conversion & Rendering in C#.NET
control Library system:C# Word - Word Conversion in C#.NET
This Step serves to identify all alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity(s) that can be the
baseline scenario through the following Sub-steps:
Step 1a: Define alternative scenarios to the proposed CDM project activity
Identify all alternative scenarios that are available to the project participants and that provide outputs or
services with comparable quality, properties and application areas as the proposed CDM project activity.
These alternative scenarios shall include:
• The proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity;
• All other plausible and credible alternative scenarios to the project activity scenario, including the
common practices in the relevant sector, that deliver outputs or services (e.g. electricity, heat or
cement) with comparable quality, properties and application areas, taking into account, where
relevant, examples of scenarios identified in the underlying methodology;
• If applicable, continuation of the current situation and, where relevant, the “proposed project
activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity” undertaken at a later point
in time (e.g. due to existing regulations, end-of-life of existing equipment, financing aspects).
If the proposed CDM project activity includes several different facilities, technologies, outputs or services,
alternative scenarios for each of them should be identified separately. Realistic combinations of these
should be considered as possible alternative scenarios to the proposed project activity.
For the purpose of identifying relevant alternative scenarios, provide an overview of other technologies or
practices that provide outputs or services (e.g. electricity, heat or cement) with comparable quality,
properties and application areas as the proposed CDM project activity and that have been implemented
previously or are currently underway in the relevant geographical area. The relevant geographical area
should in principle be the host country of the proposed CDM project activity. A region within the country
could be the relevant geographical area if the framework conditions vary significantly within the country.
• In the case of a project reducing emissions in the aluminium or cement production, the output provided by
the alternative scenarios should be the production of the same quality of aluminium or the production of a
cement type that can be used in the same applications as the cement type produced by the project activity;
• In the case of a project improving the energy efficiency of motors in a facility, the service provided is
mechanical energy. Different scenarios to produce the same quantity of mechanical energy should be
• In the case of a landfill gas capture project, the service provided by the project includes operation of a
landfill. Alternatives scenarios to the project could include different ways to operate the landfill, such as no
capture of methane, capture and flaring of the methane or capture and combustion of the methane for energy
• In case of a cogeneration project activity, alternative scenarios for heat and electricity generation should be
established separately;
• In case of a project that improves energy efficiency in several boilers with rather different characteristics
(e.g. size, technology, age, etc), alternative scenarios should be established for each boiler or for types of
boilers with broadly similar characteristics.
control Library system:C# Windows Viewer - Image and Document Conversion & Rendering in
control Library system:VB.NET PDF: How to Create Watermark on PDF Document within
However, the relevant geographical area should include preferably ten facilities (or projects) that provide
outputs or services with comparable quality, properties and application areas as the proposed CDM project
activity. If less than ten facilities (or projects) that provide outputs or services with comparable quality,
properties and application areas as the proposed CDM project activity are found in the region/Host country,
the geographical area may be expanded to an area that covers if possible, ten such facilities (or projects). In
cases where the above described definition of geographical area is not suitable, the project proponents
should provide an alternative definition of geographical area. Other registered CDM project activities are
not to be included in this analysis. Provide relevant documentation to support the results of the analysis.
Outcome of Step 1a: List of plausible alternative scenarios to the project activity
Sub-step 1b: Consistency with mandatory applicable laws and regulations
The alternative(s) shall be in compliance with all mandatory applicable legal and regulatory requirements,
even if these laws and regulations have objectives other than GHG reductions, e.g. to mitigate local air
(This Sub-step does not consider national and local policies that do not have legally-binding
If an alternative does not comply with all mandatory applicable legislation and regulations, then show that,
based on an examination of current practice in the country or region in which the mandatory law or
regulation applies, those applicable mandatory legal or regulatory requirements are systematically not
enforced and that non-compliance with those requirements is widespread in the country. If this cannot be
shown, then eliminate the alternative from further consideration.
If the proposed project activity is the only alternative amongst the ones considered by the project
participants that is in compliance with all mandatory regulations with which there is general compliance,
then the proposed CDM project activity is not additional.
Outcome of Step 1b: List of alternative scenarios to the project activity that are in compliance with
mandatory legislation and regulations taking into account the enforcement in the region or country and EB
decisions on national and/or sectoral policies and regulations.
Proceed to Step 2 (Barrier analysis)
This Step serves to identify barriers and to assess which alternatives are prevented by these barriers. Apply
For example, an alternative consisting of an open, uncapped landfill would be non-complying in a country where this
scenario would imply violations of safety or environmental regulations pertaining to landfills.
control Library system:C# Excel - Excel Conversion & Rendering in C#.NET
control Library system:VB.NET PowerPoint: VB Code to Draw and Create Annotation on PPT
Sub-step 2a: Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of alternative scenarios
Establish a complete list of realistic and credible barriers that may prevent alternative scenarios to occur.
Such realistic and credible barriers may include:
• Investment barriers, other than insufficient financial returns as analyzed in Step 3, inter alia:
o For alternatives undertaken and operated by private entities: Similar activities have only been
implemented with grants or other non-commercial finance terms. Similar activities are defined
as activities that rely on a broadly similar technology or practices, are of a similar scale, take
place in a comparable environment with respect to regulatory framework and are undertaken in
the relevant geographical area, as defined in Sub-step 1a above;
o No private capital is available from domestic or international capital markets due to real or
perceived risks associated with investments in the country where the project activity is to be
implemented, as demonstrated by the credit rating of the country or other country investment
reports of reputed origin.
• Technological barriers, inter alia:
o Skilled and/or properly trained labor to operate and maintain the technology is not available in
the relevant geographical area, which leads to an unacceptably high risk of equipment disrepair,
malfunctioning or other underperformance;
o Lack of infrastructure for implementation and logistics for maintenance of the technology (e.g.
natural gas can not be used because of the lack of a gas transmission and distribution network);
o Risk of technological failure: the process/technology failure risk in the local circumstances is
significantly greater than for other technologies that provide services or outputs comparable to
those of the proposed CDM project activity, as demonstrated by relevant scientific literature or
technology manufacturer information;
o The particular technology used in the proposed project activity is not available in the relevant
• Lack of prevailing practice:
o The alternative is the “first of its kind”:
• Other barriers, preferably specified in the underlying methodology as examples.
Outcome of Step 2a: List of barriers that may prevent one or more alternative scenarios to occur.
Sub-step 2b: Eliminate alternative scenarios which are prevented by the identified barriers
Identify which alternative scenarios are prevented by at least one of the barriers listed in Sub-step 2a, and
eliminate those alternative scenarios from further consideration. All alternative scenarios shall be
compared to the same set of barriers. The assessment of the significance of barriers should take into
account the level of access to and availability of information, technologies and skilled labour in the specific
context of the industry where the project type is located. For example, projects located in sectors with
small and medium sized enterprises may not have the same means to overcome technological barriers as
projects in a sector where typically large or international companies operate.
Outcome of Step 2b: List of alternative scenarios to the project activity that are not prevented by any
In applying Sub-steps 2a and 2b, provide transparent and documented evidence, and offer conservative
interpretations of this evidence, as to how it demonstrates the existence and significance of the identified
barriers and whether alternative scenarios are prevented by these barriers. The type of evidence to be
provided should include at least one of the following:
Relevant legislation, regulatory information or industry norms;
Relevant (sectoral) studies or surveys (e.g. market surveys, technology studies, etc) undertaken
by universities, research institutions, industry associations, companies, bilateral/multilateral
institutions, etc;
Relevant statistical data from national or international statistics;
Documentation of relevant market data (e.g. market prices, tariffs, rules);
Written documentation from the company or institution developing or implementing the CDM
project activity or the CDM project developer, such as minutes from Board meetings,
correspondence, feasibility studies, financial or budgetary information, etc;
Documents prepared by the project developer, contractors or project partners in the context of
the proposed project activity or similar previous project implementations;
Written documentation of independent expert judgements from industry, educational
institutions (e.g. universities, technical schools, training centres), industry associations and
If there is only one alternative scenario
that is not prevented by any barrier, and if this alternative is the
proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, then the project
activity is not additional.
that is not prevented by any barrier, and if this alternative is not
the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, then this
alternative scenario is identified as the baseline scenario. Explain – using qualitative or quantitative
arguments – how the registration of the CDM project activity will alleviate the barriers that prevent the
proposed project activity from occurring in the absence of the CDM. If the CDM alleviates the identified
barriers that prevent the proposed project activity from occurring, proceed to Step 4, otherwise the
project activity is not additional.
If there are still several alternative scenarios
remaining, including
undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, proceed to Step 3 (investment analysis).
remaining, but which do not include
activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project activity, explain – using qualitative or
quantitative arguments – how the registration of the CDM project activity will alleviate the barriers that
prevent the proposed project activity from occurring in the absence of the CDM. If the CDM alleviates
the identified barriers that prevent the proposed project activity from occurring, project participants may
Option 1: Go to Step 3 (investment analysis); or
Option 2: Identify the alternative with the lowest emissions (i.e. the most conservative) as the
baseline scenario, and proceed to Step 4.
If the CDM does not alleviate the identified barriers that prevent the proposed project activity from
occurring, then the project activity is not additional.
This Step serves to determine which of the alternative scenarios in the short list remaining after Step 2 is
the most economically or financially attractive. For this purpose, an investment comparison analysis is
conducted for the remaining alternative scenarios after Step 2. If the investment analysis is conclusive, the
economically or financially most attractive alternative scenario is considered as the baseline scenario.
Identify the financial indicator, such as IRR, NPV, cost benefit ratio, or unit cost of service (e.g., levelized
cost of electricity production in $/kWh or levelized cost of delivered heat in $/GJ) most suitable for the
project type and decision-making context.
Calculate the suitable financial indicator for all alternative scenarios remaining after Step 2. Include all
relevant costs (including, for example, the investment cost, the operations and maintenance costs), and
revenues (including subsidies/fiscal incentives,
ODA, etc. where applicable), and, as appropriate, non-
market costs and benefits in the case of public investors.
Present the investment analysis in a transparent manner and provide all the relevant assumptions, preferably
in the CDM-PDD, or in separate annexes to the PDD, so that a reader can reproduce the analysis and obtain
the same results. Refer to critical techno-economic parameters and assumptions (such as capital costs, fuel
prices, lifetimes, and discount rate or cost of capital). Justify and/or cite assumptions in a manner that can
be validated by the DOE. In calculating the financial indicator, the risks of the alternative scenarios can be
included through the cash flow pattern, subject to project-specific expectations and assumptions (e.g.
insurance premiums can be used in the calculation to reflect specific risk equivalents). Assumptions and
input data for the investment analysis shall not differ across alternative scenarios, unless differences can be
Note that according to guidance by the EB (EB 22, Annex 3), subsidies and incentives may be excluded from
consideration in certain cases.
In the case that (a) there are only two alternatives remaining after Step 2, which include the proposed CDM project
activity and one other alternative, (b) both scenarios do not incur any revenue other than CDM related revenue or
incur exactly the same revenue other than CDM related revenue and (c) the project incurs costs and the other
remaining alternative does not incur costs, then a simply cost analysis can be applied. In this case it is sufficient to
document that the proposed project activity undertaken without being registered as a CDM project incurs costs.
Present in the CDM-PDD submitted for validation a clear comparison of the financial indicator for all
alternative scenarios and rank the alternative scenarios according to the financial indicator.
Include a sensitivity analysis to assess whether the conclusion regarding the financial attractiveness is
robust to reasonable variations in the critical assumptions. The investment comparison analysis provides a
valid argument in identifying the baseline scenario only if it consistently supports (for a realistic range of
assumptions) the conclusion that one alternative is the most economically and/or financially attractive.
Outcome of Step 3: Ranking of the short list of alternative scenarios according to the most suitable
financial indicator, taking into account the results of the sensitivity analysis.
If the sensitivity analysis is not conclusive, then alternative to the project activity with least emissions
among the alternative scenarios is considered as baseline scenario. If the sensitivity analysis confirms
the result of the investment comparison analysis, then the most economically or financially attractive
alternative scenario is considered as baseline scenario.
If the alternative considered as baseline scenario is the “proposed project activity undertaken without
being registered as a CDM project activity”, then the project activity is not additional. Otherwise,
The previous Steps shall be complemented with an analysis of the extent to which the proposed project type
(e.g. technology or practice) has already diffused in the relevant sector and geographical area. This test is a
to demonstrate additionality which complements the barrier analysis (Step 2) and, where
applicable, the investment analysis (Step 3).
Provide an analysis to which extent similar activities to the proposed CDM project activity have been
implemented previously or are currently underway. Similar activities are defined as activities (i.e.
technologies or practices) that are of similar scale, take place in a comparable environment, inter alia, with
respect to the regulatory framework and are undertaken in the relevant geographical area, as defined in
Sub-step 1a above. Other registered CDM project activities are not to be included in this analysis. Provide
documented evidence and, where relevant, quantitative information. On the basis of that analysis, describe
whether and to which extent similar activities have already diffused in the relevant geographical area.
If similar activities to the proposed project activity are identified, then compare the proposed project
activity to the other similar activities and assess whether there are essential distinctions between the
proposed project activity and the similar activities. If this is the case, point out and explain the essential
distinctions between the proposed project activity and the similar activities and explain why the similar
activities enjoyed certain benefits that rendered them financially attractive (e.g., subsidies or other financial
flows) and which the proposed project activity can not use or why the similar activities did not face barriers
to which the proposed project activity is subject.
Essential distinctions may include a serious change in circumstances under which the proposed CDM
project activity will be implemented when compared to circumstances under which similar projects were
carried out. For example, new barriers may have arisen, or promotional policies may have ended, leading
to a situation in which the proposed CDM project activity would not be implemented without the incentive
provided by the CDM. The change must be fundamental and verifiable.
If Sub-step 4 is satisfied, i.e. (i) similar activities cannot be observed or (ii) similar activities are observed
but essential distinctions between the proposed CDM project activity and similar activities can
reasonably be explained, then the proposed project activity is additional
If Sub-step 4 is not satisfied, i.e. similar activities can be observed and essential distinctions between the
proposed CDM project activity and similar activities cannot reasonably be explained, then the proposed
CDM project activity is not additional
Extract pages pdf 33-steps-to-great-presentation2-part234
Delete blank pages from pdf file Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl17-part235
Extract pages from pdf online 38110-part237
Extract pages from pdf Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl18-part238
Cut pdf pages online Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl19-part239
Cut pages out of pdf file Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl2-part240
Copy pdf page to clipboard Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl20-part241
Delete page from pdf document Allen%20Bradley%201756-CNB%20Controlnet%20Bridge%20Module%20-%20Burn%20only%20(103%20Pages)17-part26
Extract pages from pdf online tool Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl22-part243
Cut pages out of pdf Anne-Frank-The-Diary-Of-A-Young-Girl24-part245