09-08-2013 Makati Final Report

September 8, 2013
This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was prepared
on behalf of the Climate Change and Clean Energy Project (CENERGY) by The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) under
subcontract to International Resources Group (IRG) for USAID.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND
CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT
(CEnergy)
FINAL REPORT: BASEYEAR COMMUNITY-LEVEL
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AUDIT FOR MAKATI CITY

CLIMATE CHANGE AND
CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT
(CENERGY)
FINAL REPORT: BASEYEAR COMMUNITY-LEVEL
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY AUDIT FOR MAKATI CITY
September 8, 2013
Stephen M. Roe
Thomas D. Peterson
The Center for Climate Strategies, Inc.
DISCLAIMER
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for
International Development or the United States Government

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 5
MAKATI CITY’S GHG REPORTING ISSUES 6
Summary of Issues................................................................................................................................6
Verification Opinion.............................................................................................................................8
Table 1. Log of Issues..........................................................................................................................9
4 FINAL REPORT: COMMUNITY-LEVEL GHG INVENTORY AUDIT FOR MAKATI CITY

INTRODUCTION
The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) was retained by the Climate and Energy Program (CEnergy) to
conduct a third-party audit (verification) of the base year community-level greenhouse gas (GHG)
inventory prepared by Makati City (the City) and five other local government units (LGUs) of the
Philippines. Details of the verification process were documented in the project Inception Report
(Verification Plan). Following a desktop review of the base year inventory report and supporting
spreadsheets/documentation, CCS prepared a Sampling Plan that documented this initial review and
provided a reporting risk assessment to support more focused assessment of reported GHG estimates.
After sharing the Verification Plan and Sampling Plan with the City, the CCS Lead Verifier conducted a
site visit to review the reported emission estimates and supporting data directly with members of the
local GHG Team.
Following the site survey, the CCS verification team provided a Log of Issues (LOI) to the City to
document the identified reporting issues. This final report summarizes these issues and the status of the
City in addressing each one. A Verification Opinion follows the discussion of issues. The Opinion is
meant to provide a succinct statement regarding CCS’ determination of the completeness and accuracy
of the base year inventory as of the date of this Final Report.

MAKATI CITY’S GHG
REPORTING ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
The Center for Climate Strategies (CCS) evaluated the completeness, accuracy, and transparency of
reported GHG estimates made at the community-scale for the City. This inventory review was
completed by conducting data checks on the City’s supporting documentation as specified in the
Sampling Plan, developing comparison emission estimates where needed and possible, and evaluating
any differences against a definition of materiality as described in the Verification Plan.
CCS developed the Log of Issues (LOI) shown in Table 1 with three different types of issues. A material
misstatement is an error or omission that could produce a change of greater than +/- 10% of the total
gross1
community-level emissions reported by the City. An immaterial misstatement is an error or omission
that would likely result in a change of less than +/- 10% of the community-scale total gross emissions.
Finally, an opportunity for improvement (OFI) is an issue that does not affect reported gross emissions
estimates; however, addressing these issues could enhance the transparency and understanding of the
City’s future GHG reporting program.
CCS identified some material misstatements with the City’s initial reporting for 2011 as indicated in the
LOI shown in Table 1 below. In the electricity consumption sector, there was a lack of treatment of
transmission & distribution losses within the grid average emission factor applied to the electricity
consumption data from MERALCO. In its updated Inventory Report, the City addressed this by adding
T&D losses into its consumption-based electricity sector emissions. Also, the City used 2010 electricity
consumption data as a proxy for 2011 consumption data (the City has since indicated that they have
obtained data for 2011). This issue was also resolved by the City in its updated report by using recently
acquired 2011 electricity consumption data from MERALCO.
In the waste management sector, the City applied a method for estimating emissions from the solid
waste sector that doesn’t address the “legacy” emissions associated with past waste management
practices (i.e. solid waste landfilled in prior years). Use of this method also creates structural problems
with the inventory in that it allocates future year emissions for base year waste emplacement back to the
base year (i.e. in this case allocating all future year emissions for landfilling 2011 waste to the year 2011).
CCS considers this material in that it treats this sector differently from all other sectors. The City also did
not include emissions associated with the management of wastes from affluent barangays and the Central
Business District (CBD). Both of these issues were resolved by the City in its updated Inventory Report.
1
The term gross refers to GHG sectors that are strictly net sources of emissions. Hence, carbon sinks, such as net forest carbon flux, are
excluded from gross totals.

Table 1 also provides a number of immaterial misstatements and OFIs. The City addressed a number of
these in its updated Inventory Report. A general OFI worth noting here is that CCS provided a number
of suggestions throughout the inventory report in the form of comments within the report. These
comments were initially reviewed during the site visits with each LGU and then updated following the
site visits.

VERIFICATION OPINION
CCS is able to conclude with a reasonable level of assurance that the City’s 2011 GHG emissions
inventory report is free of material misstatement, comprehensive in its coverage of sources and GHGs,
and provides a useful starting point for mitigation assessment.

TABLE 1. LOG OF ISSUES
Issue # Sector Observation Type of Issue
Evidence
Index
Resolution
1 Industrial
Processes
Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions from
refrigerant leaks in buildings, equipment,
and onroad vehicles were not reported.
OFI 1 Previous immaterial issue changed to an OFI.
Issue properly explained; but no addition of
emission estimates in the Inventory Report
(IR).
2 Industrial
Processes
Insufficient explanation of the lack of
industrial activity
OFI 1 Issue resolved. It was suggested to provide
additional discussion and available evidence
for the lack of any industrial activity in Makati
City (e.g. discussion of land use code; any
available searches of business licenses for
industrial activity). The following is added on
page 10 of the IR, “In relation, establishments
listed as manufacturing business refers only to
their nature of business- the actual industrial
plant are located outside of the City.”
3 Electricity
Consumption
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions from
electrical transmission & distribution
(T&D) systems were not reported.
OFI 1 Previous immaterial issue changed to an OFI.
Issue properly explained. On page 28, the
following is added. “For the computation of
the Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) the GHG
Makati Team did not include it to its
computation because there are no available
data of sub-station specifically located in
Makati. There is also no available that can
attribute SF6 emissions to Makati due to
leakages in transmission systems.”
4 Electricity
Consumption
T&D losses were not considered during
the development of the electricity
consumption-based emission estimates.
Material
Misstatement
1 Issue resolved. The following is added in the
IR. “Data on transmission and distribution
losses, or collectively known as system losses,
were acquired from the MERALCO 2011
Annual Report. Data shows that for 2011,
MERALCO reported total system losses of
7.35 %. (Please refer to MERALCO 2011

Evidence
Index
Resolution
Annual Report, Page 5)…..” CCS
independently verified updated calculations of
GHG emissions from electricity
consumption, including allowance for T&D
losses.
5 Electricity
Consumption
2010 electricity consumption data were
used as a proxy for 2011 (City has since
gathered 2011 data). Need to verify with
MERALCO that all consumption within
the City was captured from the data
request. Also a 2010 grid average emission
factor was applied rather than 2011 (check
with CEnergy on availability of a 2011
emission factor).
Material
Misstatement
1 Issue resolved. On Page 27, data from
MERALCO 2011 was presented and
incorporated in the discussion. CCS reviewed
supporting documentation and calculations
for the resolution of this material
misstatement.
6 Electricity
Consumption
A utility-specific carbon intensity factor
was not developed and applied to estimate
Scope II emissions using data on power
purchases by the utility during the base
year.
OFI 1 Issue resolved. Emission factor updated
based on electricity purchases by
MERALCO.
7 Stationary
Energy Use
Full coverage of the sector through
surveys was not achieved (e.g. boilers and
engine/generator sets for commercial and
institutional sectors).
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved. In table 5, page 22. There
is still no information for boilers and
engine/generators sets for the commercial or
residential sectors. Nothing was mentioned
for the institutional sector either. More work
is needed in future inventory efforts.
8 Stationary
Energy Use
Charcoal use banned in the City, but it is
well-known that residential/commercial
use continues (street food vendors).
Methane and nitrous oxide emissions
would be considered immaterial but no
acknowledgment of these sources is
provided.
OFI 1, 2 Previous immaterial issue changed to an OFI.
On page 18, the following is added. “The
GHG Makati Team acknowledged the fact
there are some portion of population that still
use charcoal more specifically those who
belongs to the informal economy. Hence, the
GHG Makati Team did not include it to its
inventory as it was deemed insignificant.”

Evidence
Index
Resolution
9 Transportation Scope II electricity consumption estimates
were not included for Metro Rail Transit.
These are currently included within the
Electricity Consumption sector
(presumably within the commercial
sector).
OFI 1 Issue resolved. On Page 30, specific
discussion is added and electricity
consumption is now included for Metro Rail
Transit.
10 Transportation Emissions for other nonroad engines were
not included or otherwise documented in
the inventory (e.g. small portable engines
used in construction, lawn/garden, etc).
Emissions captured within the onroad
vehicle sector.
OFI 1 Issue not resolved. Nothing changed in IR.
More work is needed in future inventory
efforts.
11 Transportation It is assumed that biofuel content
requirements for 2010 were met. Note that
this issue also affects stationary energy
consumption to a lesser degree (e.g.
diesel).
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved. Confirmation/evidence
from the Department of Energy or other
source needed to cover the assumption that
biofuel content requirements for gasoline and
diesel were met in 2010. Nothing substantial
added to explain this issue. More work is
needed in future inventory efforts.
12 Transportation Fuel sales for one fuel station (small
supplier) were not captured in the survey.
Scale-up not performed to include this
additional volume.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue resolved. On page 33, information was
added for the missing fuel station.
13 Transportation Philippines National Rail (PNR) has lines
and a station in Makati City but no portion
of the emissions attributable to the City
for PNR rail activity is provided.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue resolved. Emissions for PNR were
added. On Page 35, the following is added:
“Lastly, the emission of PNR only accounts
for (0.18%).”
14 Transportation Combustion of lubricating oils in diesel
vehicles was not included.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved. No changes noted in the
IR. More work is potentially needed.
Agriculture Not applicable as a source sector for the
City.
N/A 1, 2 N/A
15 Forestry &
Other Land Use
Net carbon flux from urban forests was
not included.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1,3 Issue not resolved. Nothing changed in IR.

Evidence
Index
Resolution
efforts.
16 Forestry &
Other Land Use
Emissions from urban (“settlement”) soils
were not included.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved. Nothing changed in IR.
efforts.
17 Waste
Management
City used the ICLEI model to estimate
landfill methane emissions. Does not
capture current emissions due to historic
waste management practices. Assigns
future landfill methane emissions to base
year.
Material
Misstatement
1 Issue resolved. IPCC methodology is
adopted in section 6.4.1.2 on page 38. CCS
reviewed and independently verified
application of IPCC FOD model.
18 Waste
Management
City has information from waste
characterization studies that could be used
to better characterize waste generation and
other needed inputs to the IPCC method
for estimating solid waste disposal site
emissions (e.g. rather than current use of
2002 World Bank study).
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue resolved. On page 43, the following is
added. “the total estimated GHG emission
from solid waste in 2011 that is reported in
the inventory is 1,333 tons CO2e for waste
dumped in the sanitary landfill and 314 tons
CO2e for composting, both emissions were
computed using the IPCC FOD Model…”
CCS reviewed and independently verified
application of IPCC FOD model.
19 Waste
Management
City did not indicate whether landfill gas
(methane) controls are in place at the
landfill where waste is currently emplaced.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved. On page 42 &43, changes
have been made in table 19 to amend the
MCF to match that of a managed landfill site.
While application of the MCF is likely
appropriate for a managed facility, this issue is
based on whether any methane is actively (or
passively) captured and destroyed through
combustion. More work is needed to
document the level of control or non-
existence of controls.
20 Waste
Management
Solid waste generation data from affluent
barangays and the central business district
need improvement (e.g. via future surveys
of waste haulers serving these areas).
OFI 1, 2 Issue resolved. The following is added on
page 39. “For the year 2011, the city has an
actual waste collected value of 82,781 tons.
The value for the waste collected was

Evidence
Index
Resolution
calculated by consolidating the collected
waste data from the Central Business District
(CBD), six (6) affluent barangays….”
21 Waste
Management
Emissions resulting from solid waste
generation within affluent barangays and
the CBD are not included in the total.
Since the amount of waste generated here
is unclear, CCS can’t determine that the
omission results in an immaterial
emissions impact.
Material
Misstatement
1,5 Issue resolved. On page 44, in the
discussion part, it is explicitly stated that
“Total emissions attributable to the solid
waste sector of Makati is1,647 tCO2e. This is
inclusive with the emissions from the waste
dumped in the sanitary landfill and
compostable of the whole Makati City.”
CCS has reviewed and verified the
calculations workbook to ensure minimal risk
of material misstatement exists regarding this
issue.
22 Waste
Management
Insufficient characterization of collected
versus uncollected wastewater.
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved. Wastewater treatment:
additional survey work needed to better
characterize the amount of wastewater
collected for treatment at the 2 plants versus
that which is not collected. More work is
needed in future inventory efforts.
23 Waste
Management
Emissions from commercial/institutional
wastewater treatment were not addressed
(e.g. hotels, hospitals, other public
buildings).
Immaterial
Misstatement
1 Issue not resolved.
24 Waste
Management
Key activity data (breakdown of sewage
treatment practices) from 2000.
OFI 1 Issue not resolved. Suggest using more recent
data when available through surveys or other
sources. More work is needed in future
inventory efforts.
25 Waste
Management
Total emissions from the Wastewater
Computation workbook are not in
agreement with the Inventory Report. The
workbook claims total emissions of 56,986
tCO2e, while the report claims 64,143
Immaterial
Misstatement
1,6 Issue resolved. On page 48, the number has
been changed. New value has been verified in
workbook and Inventory Report by CCS.

Evidence
Index
Resolution
tCO2e.
26 All Sectors Suggestions for improving the
documentation and presentation of
inventory information were made
throughout the inventory report in the
form of comments from CCS; a final
version of these comments was completed
after the site visit.
OFI 1, 2 Issue not addressed. More work is needed in
future inventory efforts.
n/a – not applicable
Evidence Index:
1. Initial GHG Inventory Report by the City dated April 2013.
2. Observations during July 2013 site visits.
3. The City’s supporting Excel workbook: 0.0Summary.xlsx.
4. The City’s supporting Excel workbook: 3.0…Road transportation…xlsx.
5. The City’s supporting Excel workbook for the Solid Waste sector: 4.0 SOLID WASTE…xlsx.
6. The City’s supporting Excel workbook for the Wastewater sector: 5.0 WASTE WATER….XLSX.

09-08-2013 Makati Final Report

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to 09-08-2013 Makati Final Report

09-08-2013 Makati Final Report